Why Does The Idea Of Having Faith Get a Bad Rep?

[Thrstypirate]

That doesn’t negate what I said, though.

 

[Genesis315]

Because faith is misrepresented by many who claim it. Faith has come to mean believing something for no reason or with no evidence or based on some intuitive feeling–basically a random guess.

The Catholic definition of faith is different. Faith is believing what God has revealed based solely on the authority of the revealer. Since God is omniscient and the very author of truth, His “testimony,” His revelation, is the strongest evidence of all.

But we come to know God exists and where His revelation is to be found through natural reason (grace assisting, given our fallen nature, of course).

Examples of things known by faith, therefore, are believing our sins are forgiven in Baptism, that God is a Trinity of persons, that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, that we must obey the commandments to be saved, that those who die in mortal sin descend into eternal damnation, etc–all those things that cannot be proven except for God revealing them.

 

[rossum]

No, but that attitude appears between many groups, and often in both directions. It is not uncommon.

rossum

 

[TheLittleLady]

Sadly, people have been hurt in the name of faith, people have been told that faith and science are opposed, that faith and reason are opposed.

From my conversations most who give “Faith” a bad rap are actually giving fundamental Protestantism a bad rap.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

the ones I know do , and some have very strong beliefs in many supernatural things, like psychics, fortune telling,

its not a one size fits all atheist , agnostic or even christian mindset.
and my atheist, agnostic friends are as fearful of evil as christians are.

some believe when they die, its dust, some its reincarnation, some that we are all part of some collective universe thing…

 

[FredBloggs]

My wonderful priest says atheists are very few in reality, most who profess atheism are agnostic, and on their journey home to God. the Agnosticism /atheism is a phase many go through on this journey.

To be fair - what else is he going to say? He has a job to do.

 

[DemonstrateYourClaim]

To the question of the thread: “Why Does The Idea Of Having Faith Get a Bad Rep?”
Is there any position you could not hold based on the excuse of “faith”? You can literally hold two opposing view points and take that on faith correct?
How do you define faith?
How is it different from Hope or Confidence or Belief?

Take the example of a game of cards.
I have 100% confidence that any card I receive from a standard deck will be an Ace to a King and a suite of either hearts, diamond, club, or spade.
I have little confidence that I can pull the card that I would want since I know I have a 1 in 52 chance to pull that exact card.
If I bet the person that I will pull the card I want, then I hope the card I get will be that card. My hope is justified in knowing that the card I want is an actual documented possibility born out from reality, regardless of how little the chance is that it happens. It’s still documented as a possible result.
That is the difference between confidence and hope it seems.

Now as to “Faith” - Faith seems to be the excuse people use for wanting the result they would prefer when reality has not demonstrated that result is even possible. That result doesn’t even get listed as the known results of the event.
such as a 1d6 dice. I believe a value of 1 to 6 will be the result. Since I bet a 5 will land, I hope a 5 will be the result. But people with Faith claim a 7 will be the result.

This is why having faith gets a bad wrap. It requires only the pronouncement of your conviction for why you hold your beliefs to be the case without needing a justified reason. If you had a justified reason, it would just be a belief.

 

[DemonstrateYourClaim]

As to your scenario:

If you are in a burning building, and there is only one exit, is it not reasonable to have hope that there is safety on the other side?

Yes it is reasonable to have hope of safety where we have actually documented this to be the case in reality.
We have evidence of reality being on the other side. What evidence do we have that the supernatural exists? Something we can actually demonstrate to be there?

Would it not also be irrational to give up hope and stay in the building on the premise that we don’t know whats on the other side of the door?

Yes given no information about what is on the other side. You believe there is a certainty of your death where you are now, so you take the chance. This does not mean that there is no information that reality ceases to exists or another realm opens open on the other side of the door. It’s just a hallway. You just don’t know the danger level of that hallway.

There is no meaningful significance, moral value, or purpose beyond what we imagine inside our heads, and ultimately when the human race dies our lives and what we imagined to achieve will amount to absolutely nothing.

Except that they mean something to us here and now. Just like my car will rust away some day, but that does not mean it doesn’t have value now. That I can drive my family to the ocean for a visit or to the hospital when they are sick. Ultimate ending of the car is irrelevant to living the good life.

Our existence and our actions really mean something, and has purpose, and our lives will not ultimately come to nothing but will become something greater than we can imagine.

Existence and meaning are not coupled at all to the timelessness of those actions. Future nothingness is irrelevant since we still love each other up to the point we die. Because we die and stop living does not mean we stop loving each other while we can.

will become something greater than we can imagine.

Romantic, but no evidence of this other than living on through memory and recorded history. Shakespeare’s view of life and that he existed still lives on now by how we love and respect his works.

Limited existence makes us value our limited time here since we don’t get another shot at being remembered as a beautiful human being. Want to live forever, do something we will enshrine into our culture forever.

Why would someone choose option 1 merely on the basis of not knowing?

I don’t accept your list as it stands since I don’t accept your reference point of limited love and life not lasting forever therefore has no meaning because it becomes forgotten to the winds of time.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

My Priest says it like it is. So if he really did not believe this, he would not be saying it. His job is to be honest and lead us in truth.

 

[Jezra]

Our existence and our actions really mean something, and has purpose, and our lives will not ultimately come to nothing but will become something greater than we can imagine.

I am sure any parent, whether with or without faith, would agree with that statement.

All human lives have meaning. What we do now will have reverberations far into the future, affecting later generations. Raise a child with a sound sense of what is right and wrong and that will be passed on, no faith required. Protecting the planet now should be our part in assuring the longevity of the species and Creation. Again, no faith required.

The statement does not require belief in the after-life to function, as I see it. IMHO, Eternal Life is the benefit of ones worthy lifetime actions to the living in the far distant future and Hell its opposite.

As Jesus pointed out:
Suffer little children , and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Now, given those of faith pray regularly for Heaven to come to Earth in the Lord’s prayer and God responds with ‘heavenly’ children born on Earth, that can only be achieved if we strive to create Heaven on Earth for our children and their descendants. You pray for children, you get them.

To support this, Jesus tells us in Mark 7 that children are “Corban”, a gift from God. They are heaven-sent. Therefore, shouldn’t we ensure those gifts are cherished by minimising the risk of damage to the gift and the gift of the gift and its gift? To use your analogy, shouldn’t we fireproof the building?

Our children and their descendants are the living exit. It’s up to us to ensure it is there, it is well-lit and that it is always safe. And I am sure all humans, regardless of religion, race, gender, sexuality etc would concur. It is a concept we all share.

Finally, I respond to the title question with a question: Why doesn’t all humanity share your faith when all share the need for the same living exit?

 

[IWantGod]

Limited existence makes us value our limited time here since we don’t get another shot at being remembered as a beautiful human being.

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then value judgements mean nothing because only physical things exist. What ever significance or moral value or purpose or responsibility you imagine in life is make-belief. That other people might share in your values does not change the fact that they have no truth value.

If you cherish these humanistic fantasies that’s fine, people can tell themselves that their lives have value and significance if they want. But the object of this thread is the hope that something is actually true, that i really do have moral value, and significance, and purpose on an existential level, and these things being true about me is not dependent upon some humanistic fantasy in some beings head.

I’m yet to meet a real atheist that isn’t suffering from cognitive dissonance on this matter.

Want to live forever, do something we will enshrine into our culture forever.

The very idea is pointless and meaningless. That you value what some being has left behind is purely pragmatic, you happen to like the way that information makes you feel. The idea that it it has any real significance is a fantasy and is irrational if you are a metaphysical naturalist. Without God there is no value or good or purpose there is only physical objects and what your brain happens to make you feel about them. Some people are okay with that. Clearly myself and a great many others are not; especially if there is no actual evidence that metaphysical naturalism is true. It an assumption.

 

[brian_custer]

4 words i think explain it:

“the culture of death”

 

[jfz178]

I will really throw a wrench in the works. I think many devout Catholics and other Christians don’t have faith! Why? They seek certainty in religion. And as a great priest I once knew said, “Certainty is the opposite of faith, and of the two faith is greater.” A lot of religious people take faithless refuge in Scripture, Cannons and Catechism to give them certainty about what is right.

Let me be clear: I am not saying there is anything wrong with those things, just that some people hide behind them because their faith is weak. They say, “I know this to be true because it says so right here!” But that is not faith. That is a weak attempt at certainty.

 

[halogirl]

Exactly agree with you OP it’s a no brainer xx

 

[IWantGod]

Are you implying that without hope of a blissful out, life is that terrible?

If you really understand the ontological consequences of option 1, then i think any sane and rational person would think it to be intolerable, unless they are either willing to lie to themselves or are in a position to anesthetize themselves to the effects of living in that kind of reality.

By are very nature of being persons we tend to desire meaning/significance, moral value, and purpose, and we desire it to be true. We are not like other animals. We cannot live by bread alone. So we have two options…

1. Consciously create a collective fantasy that appeals to our nature

or

1. Have faith that our existence really does have moral value, significance and purpose.

I choose to have faith.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

So we have two options…

1. Consciously create a collective fantasy that appeals to our nature

or

1. Have faith that our existence really does have moral value, significance and purpose.

I choose to have faith.

I’m trying to tread lightly out of respect for this venue, but how are those two options different? It’s obvious that #2 appeals to your nature, which brings it close to #1. Sidestepping the “realness” debate the only meaningful difference is who determines purpose, value, etc.

Rarely are there just 2 options.

1. Each individual determines their own purpose and significance. Then navigate the world they are presented.

 

[Elf01]

Now as to “Faith” - Faith seems to be the excuse people use for wanting the result they would prefer when reality has not demonstrated that result is even possible. That result doesn’t even get listed as the known results of the event.
such as a 1d6 dice. I believe a value of 1 to 6 will be the result. Since I bet a 5 will land, I hope a 5 will be the result. But people with Faith claim a 7 will be the result.

Your example says a lot about how you see faith and you have just refuted any claims that you are an agnostic atheist or respectful but not much about faith. It’s more like believing in string theory or gravity waves before they had been discovered. It may be true but we don’t have enough evidence to state with certainty.

 

[FredBloggs]

My Priest says it like it is. So if he really did not believe this, he would not be saying it. His job is to be honest and lead us in truth.

Then why do all the independent polls show that religion is decreasing?

Perhaps your priest isn’t aware of this, and is engaging in some wishful thinking.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

how does that have any bearing on what my Priest says?

Is he personally responsible for people leaving the faith?

what do you suggest he do.

I would be interested to hear your solution for bringing people into the Faith.

 

[FredBloggs]

how does that have any bearing on what my Priest says?

Er, it doesn’t. Your priest says atheists aren’t really atheists, the data suggests otherwise. That’s the point I’m making.

Is he personally responsible for people leaving the faith?

Probably not

what do you suggest he do.

I would be interested to hear your solution for bringing people into the Faith.

I don’t think you’d like my solution.

I also happen to think that less religion is a good thing. While I support your right to believe whatever you want, the problem comes when religious belief is used to dictate to others what is and isn’t acceptable. Religious faith is, in general, a barrier to social and scientific progress and thus - ultimately - world prosperity.