Do facts create weakness?

[hawk767]

Something I've been thinking about recently in philosophy class.

We've been going over religion and morality and all that over the past two weeks and I've found myself questioning religion much more.

I wasn't raised to believe in religion and I don't. I may be very interested in christian history but I don't believe in this God fellow. Problem is, I don't deny that he exists either.

I've heard this sort of belief referred to as a sort of atheism but I'd don't recall.

The question I've been racking my brain with is, does relying on facts or proof to believe in something create weakness?

I tell myself no because having something to base belief on, in my opinion, stabilizes ones grounds in which he stands. Understanding our environment through science makes us feel comfortable, for the most part, with this world we are on. Sure having answers to these questions creates more questions but it still answers a question, and that's a step.

I believe that some people who have faith or believe in something without proof or factual evidence weaken themselves because they fall under the rule of something that may not be true.

For example, people who devoutly believe in religion restrict themselves through rules in their holy book.

Something not related to religion could be someone who believes that the Loch Ness Monster exists. This person, say they live near Loch Ness, wouldn't be able to go to close to the lake out of fear.

I don't really know how strong this argument against faith is but at least the religion example fits, in my opinion.

So my question, does relying on factual proof to believe create or cause weakness? Perhaps in the relying on facts itself being the weakness?

I guess the question is a little confusing though because what is more important, having faith in God and being happy, or relying on the factual proof that God exists and being confused. (Not necessarily the case but still)

Hope for some insight.

Thanks,

Hawk767

[Vir Triumphalis]

Interesting

A person who doesn't believe in God, but does not rule his existence is an Agnostic. Just google Agnosticism.

Based on what you said, it's in fact the opposite. Facts don't create weakness. Having facts to back your beliefs only strengthen your beliefs.

I once believed in God, because I was indoctrinated. People of faith say this, "Have faith". Well, for me, faith is a delusion. Faith is based something not on facts, but assertions without facts.

I wouldn't go to far, just stating my beliefs.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Science does create a demystification of the world that might in the end weakening religious belief.

[Taiji]

A person who doesn't believe in God, but does not rule his existence is an Agnostic.

That's actually wrong because a person who doesn't believe in a god is atheist about that god.

To emphasise the mistake; I just need to point out that agnostic theists exist.

Agnosticism is denying knowledge of the ultimate nature of the universe while it seems impossible to attain.

An atheism is lacking a belief in a particular god.

So in fact everyone is atheist: We all have gods that we do not believe in.

And people are agnostic or not depending on how highly they rate mankind's ability to know.


And for the OP question: Do facts create weakness?

The answer is that the question is meaningless. Because if you provide no context then facts cannot be shown weaken or strengthen anything.

I can give you a context; facts weaken deception and strengthen navigation.

Do facts create weaker deceptions? Yes, but you might want to be decieved.

Do facts create weaker navigation? No, instead they help navigation.

[Vizsla]

I guess the question is a little confusing though because what is more important, having faith in God and being happy, or relying on the factual proof that God exists and being confused. (Not necessarily the case but still)

The difference is an innate personality trait. You’re either one or the other.
If you’re the kind of person who needs evidence then you’re not the kind of person who would be happy being religious. You’d spend the whole time worrying about the fact that there is no evidence. So it’s a false dichotomy. You don’t have it in you to be happy being religious.

As a child I attended church every week, eventually it dawned on me that I’m the kind of person who needs proof. I felt like I was cheating all those devout religious people around me. I was taking part in their worship but I was thinking that it was all bollocks. So I stopped attending.

If you have an inquiring mind you have to find happiness the hard way. Fortunately happiness is a skill that can be learned with due diligence. You don’t need to be a believer at all.

[Gaidin]

That's actually wrong because a person who doesn't believe in a god is atheist about that god.

To emphasise the mistake; I just need to point out that agnostic theists exist.

Agnosticism is denying knowledge of the ultimate nature of the universe while it seems impossible to attain.

An atheism is lacking a belief in a particular god.

So in fact everyone is atheist: We all have gods that we do not believe in.

And people are agnostic or not depending on how highly they rate mankind's ability to know.

Slow down there. Theism isn't about any particular god. It is a broad stroke about your general beliefs regarding the existence of deities. You can't be theist about one god and atheist about another. If you believe in any one god you are not an atheist, you are a theist. Full stop.

[Taiji]

Slow down there. Theism isn't about any particular god. It is a broad stroke about your general beliefs regarding the existence of deities. You can't be theist about one god and atheist about another. If you believe in any one god you are not an atheist, you are a theist. Full stop.

Why does a person who doesn't believe in a God (yet, or anymore) need a label?

If you have no answer then you might begin to agree that atheist is not a label in the same way theist is. Just like you'd already agree that a theism can be thought about where basically an atheism cannot, because it consists of nothing.

Instead it seems sensible to use atheist as an attitude in relation to a theism. So everyone is atheist about some god or other. We all find some of it to be worth ignoring.

[Gaidin]

Why does a person who doesn't believe in a God (yet, or anymore) need a label?

Why are you asking me this. I'm just correcting your wrong definitions.

If you have no answer then you might begin to agree that atheist is not a label in the same way theist is. Just like you'd already agree that a theism can be thought about where basically an atheism cannot, because it consists of nothing.

Instead it seems sensible to use atheist as an attitude in relation to a theism. So everyone is atheist about some god or other. We all find some of it to be worth ignoring.

Ummm. No. Word definitions don't change on your whim. Atheist means you lack belief in any god. If you believe in any single god, you are a theist. Get over it, and stop trying to muddy the waters. It's really annoying.

[hawk767]

I have seen and heard that religion now is rather week because of the influence of science, and other sources of influence.

I guess a better idea is that facts and factual belief weaken religion as a whole but not really an individual.

[Vir Triumphalis]

Religion is still a very powerful influence. Religion seems to be weak, because people want a more secular way of life.

[SigniferOne]

I believe that some people who have faith or believe in something without proof or factual evidence weaken themselves because they fall under the rule of something that may not be true.

Of course. All true. The only thing I would disagree with you on, is that religion doesn't have facts to base itself on. It does, as do all things that are true. If it didn't have facts behind it, on what basis would you or I accept it?

[DukeCanada]

Of course. All true. The only thing I would disagree with you on, is that religion doesn't have facts to base itself on. It does, as do all things that are true. If it didn't have facts behind it, on what basis would you or I accept it?

Is religion not simply the interpretation of facts in a different light? By that definition I would argue that religion is in actuality very factual, but simply disputed by different facts.

[SigniferOne]

Is religion not simply the interpretation of facts in a different light?

Not exactly. Among various theories aiming to interpret the same set of facts, Christianity is merely a theory with the best interpretation of those facts.

[Taiji]

"Wrong definitions" and you only know what is right because of your dictionary?

This reminds me of religious people just accepting religious scripture as the only possible truth.

In fact you should ask a lexicographer about who changes the definitions of words. You don't have to take my word for it when I tell you that it's people like you and me.

[Taiji]

Gaidin's right in one sense, but I think we don't need a new word for a person who doesn't believe something, just like we don't need a word for someone who doesn't play football:- 'Afootballer' seems a pretty dumb use of language to me.

[Amorphos]

If you knew of something to vast &/or fluid to denote as a fact, simply because no-one can understand it, then you have to have faith or denounce it. However if you equally do not have ‘facts’ which prove it wrong, and you assume it is there upon certain other facts, then you must assume there to be some basis for your faith.

It is like infinity and statelessness, two notions that are impossible to prove and yet I completely believe in them because I assume there is something to the ideas. Indeed the lack of those ideas, I would argue provide a false or gappy reality map.

Hence when I think of god I consider it in a similar manner, as yet I don’t have any basis and the reality map may be complete without it. …but I don’t know that!

All I can do is eliminate ideas about god that can be shown to be false, while having an open mind as to weather or not there needs to be a thinker out there. Going by e.g. the holographic model of universe, we could say there is just a set of information upon which the universe [the hologram - kinda] is built, but what builds the information set?

Equally if we assume that we can change our thoughts, and in doing so change reality I.e. make decisions and place new information into the world, then thought is a causal agent, or an otherwise agent of change. It is [if this is correct] then logical to assume that this thing we call thought can change information, which in turn is the basis of reality [in most theories], from which we can assume that; ‘if’ there is a mental level of reality outside of life, then it would also be able to change things.

*jump* if thought/mind is primary or otherwise prior to the material + information is also [law/principles etc surely are prior to the objects which move by them], then we have a thinker which can change the fundamentals of the universe!

This though does not deny causality, once the object exists it then takes on its own causal strain relative to other objects.

Now we should also ask what mind means when not in context to say the human brain, a mind that has no input! In antithisis to which I could state that this mind has the entire eidos of all things, which is massively more input than anything else has.

.

[Armatus]

In what context would you like to determine weakness? Someone can have their "facts" wrong, but this doesn't necessarily mean there is a weakness because if someone has their "facts" wrong chances are it's just another mater of perception for most successful people. Until something or someone contradicts their beliefs their facts were in fact factual.

[Amorphos]

Good point Armatus, it’s a process. As a thought experiment let us say that you arrived at a position of having unquestionably ‘all the facts’, the weakness would then be an inability to go beyond what are after all ideas based upon limits.

Does reality have such limits or do we impose them upon it!

[Armatus]

And down the path of existentialism we go... lol

[Armatus]

Interpretations influenced by moral subjectivity.