Quote:
Originally Posted by revrew
I contend everything quoted above is false. It is a cop-out to say "there's no way of knowing," if you haven't earnestly tried. A multitude of opinions does not mean that all are equal. If there is truth - and I contend there is - it can be found.
|
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "trying".
Faith comes from revelation. It comes because some authority has said it is so. From the priesthood, from a holy book. Whatever. There is no evidence or "proof" for faith. That's what we mean by taking something "on faith". We mean that we accept it because of our trust (or faith) in the source. Christian faith relies on acceptance of the truth of the bible, Islamic faith on the Koran etc.
Because there is no evidence or proof or natural (to take on the previous argument) justification there is no way you can decide between faiths. There is no way you can prove that the Christian after-life is correct and the Hindu reincarnation is wrong. Neither has any natural justification - they rely on the bible/church or the Hindu holy book. Each will be accepted by "the faithful" but no one can justify to a neutral rational being that either of these is closer to the truth than the other.
If you believe you can, than explain to me why the Christian after life is correct and the Hindu reincarnation incorrect (which I presume is your view). Holding the unpleasant idea that there is no after-life I'm open to your persuasion.
If faiths contradict then clearly one or more of them has to be wrong - and clearly faiths contradict. But there is no way of knowing which is wrong so it is clearly difficult to justify belief in any of them because it may be that the one you choose is wrong. It is also a very real possibility that they're all wrong - but a very peculiar idea of "truth" if they're all right.
Another aspect of faith, of course, is illustrated by the phrase "keeping faith". This indicates you continue believe in the truth of the faith even when the evidence points against it. This clearly highlights the clash between faith and evidence/reason. This is simultaneously faith's greatest strength and greatest weakness. It sustains belief but also prevents the believer from seeing error. The Catholic church sustained the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe for 1300 years - but it was wrong and continued to argue against it until the evidence was too overwhelming even for faith.
Faith is at the opposite end of the justification spectrum to evidence/reason. In fact it only really exists in the absence of these. When it is supported by evidence/reason it ceases to be faith. If there is evidence/reason then the "truth" no longer has to be taken on faith - faith is no longer necessary.
I think where we differ, revrew, is that I'm speaking of faith strictly in relation to the justification for truth. I think you're defending the massive edifice that religions build around their core truths. I'm strictly interested in its value as an indicator of truth not as a blueprint for life, not as a description of a whole religion.