Religious faith is a concept that has been defined in various ways, from trust to the biblical definition found in Hebrews:

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

The elusive nature of its definition makes it unclear as to what religious faith truly is. Can anyone shed some light on its true nature? Furthermore, according to the bible, why should it be considered better evidence than things that can be seen?

  • Philo@lemmy.caOPM
    0·
    8 months ago

    Faith is trust in something that cannot be seen, and it’s based largely on spiritual experiences, not tangible evidence. It can be tested like trust can

    Give an example of a test of something intangible,

    god hasn’t been proven to exist and until it has it isn’t reasonable to believe in one That’s certainly one perspective. I personally think it’s faulty,

    No, that is how we believe in anything. To do otherwise is gullibility or put in other words, deluding yourself.

    You can absolutely choose to live with the assumption that God doesn’t exist

    You don’t know what an atheist is do you? Tell me, do you see any difference between the statements I don’t believe in god and I don’t believe god exists? The difference should be obvious. I never said the second, I did say the first.

    but that article smacks of testing God,

    ok, This is your one and only warning as a moderator, put that Christian bullshit aside. That was a double-blind test funded by the Tempelton Foundation to test the efficacy of prayer. It was not a test of god and it is shameful that you would try to make it out to be so.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      8 months ago

      Give an example of a test of something intangible

      Whether living by the precepts of your religion helps you feel happier, or at least helps you perceive yourself as happier (see pew research study on this). So you could have faith that living by the precepts of your religion will help you feel happier. But it’s hard to tell if the results are genuine (i.e. does living a religion cause happiness? Or does feeling like you’re living a religion cause happiness? Or are religious people more likely to lie to claim their religion is the cause?).

      As a practical example, look at Buddhism, where many (most? all?) schools encourage meditation as a spiritual exercise with the intended result of achieving inner peace and unification with the universe. Practitioners have faith that meditation will bring them closer to that goal, and that faith is strengthened the more they experience results.

      There are secular reasons to explain these of course (e.g. networking effect of attending religious services, value of rest, etc). The difference is the reason they’re practiced can build faith in the divine instead of just trust in a practice.

      And some external tests:

      • Would attending a Rotary club meetings have a similar effect as attending religious services?
      • Would non-religious meditation result in the same level of satisfaction and calm as religiously-motivated meditation?
      • Are secular people as likely to engage as religious people?

      I imagine these tests would not be definitive though, since it’s hard, if not impossible, to establish causation for subjective things like “happiness” and “satisfaction.”

      No, that is how we believe in anything

      I disagree. If we don’t have much evidence and need to come up with an explanation, we guess. And if our guesses are proven consistent as new evidence becomes available, our confidence in that guess grows.

      I’ll use one of my favorite allegories here, Plato’s allegory of the cave. It’s not a perfect fit here, but I think it’s applicable. There are two perspectives I’d like to look at:

      • religious person - the shadows and the prisoners’ reasoning about them is science, and the prisoner being brought out is like a prophet, who comes back and tries to explain to the “scientists” how the shadows relate to “real” things the prisoners can observe
      • secular person - the roles are flipped; the shadows are religion, and the person brought outside is a scientist, who explains the real causes behind the shadows they see

      Both find it difficult to believe things they haven’t seen, and give a lot of value to things they can see. Both need to make guesses as to what’s going on given the limited facts they have. The difference imo is in the type of evidence they’re willing to accept to change their beliefs.

      It was not a test of god and it is shameful that you would try to make it out to be so.

      The study was to determine whether prayer helps in recovery. There’s two ways (maybe more) this could be interpreted:

      1. Test whether God (or some divine third party) will intervene in helping recovery if someone prays
      2. Test whether the knowledge that someone else is praying helps in recovery, regardless of whether someone is actually praying

      The second is probably the intent here, but it’s easy to see the first get misconstrued (esp. since they had a group that got the placebo), and it seemed from context that’s what you were doing. I apologize if I was putting words in your mouth, but that was my interpretation.

      So, if we assume the second was the intent, all the study proves is that knowing someone is praying for you doesn’t really change recovery outcomes, since the difference was within margin of error (the article’s words, I didn’t look into the methodology). It doesn’t prove prayer to be ineffective in total (again, can’t control for God), just that knowing someone is praying for you doesn’t do anything. And the study also fell short in that it doesn’t examine impact to the people doing the praying, since much of the point of praying for someone is to help the person doing the prayer (it’s a small act of care for someone else).

      • Philo@lemmy.caOPM
        0·
        8 months ago

        All that word salad to say there are no examples of any tests of intangibles. Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just say that?

        I disagree. If we don’t have much evidence and need to come up with an explanation, we guess. And if our guesses are proven consistent as new evidence becomes available, our confidence in that guess grows.

        You can disagree all you like but believing in anything without evidence is nothing short of gullibility. And before you pull out the oft-touted baloney that belief is a choice, go submerge yourself in a bathtub and try to breathe because you choose to believe that you can, then tell me that.

        Once more, the study was a double-blind study on the effects of intercessory prayer and the result was that there was no effect found more than chance. SPEAKING AS A MOD, ONE MORE ATTEMPT TO CLAIM THIS WAS A TEST OF GOD WILL RESULT IN A TEMPORARY BAN.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          8 months ago

          there are no examples of any tests of intangibles

          You seem to be looking for scientific tests, when something like faith is explicitly outside the realm of science. We’ve established that, and I agree.

          You can disagree all you like but believing in anything without evidence is nothing short of gullibility.

          Again, that’s an opinion coming from the assumption that God doesn’t exist (or at least that God existing has no impact on individuals). And that’s fine to make for yourself.

          That said, I think it’s reasonable to come to a different conclusion. I don’t think it’s reasonable to discard science in favor of faith, but I do think it’s reasonable to attribute the unknowable to the divine, and I think it’s reasonable to follow that logic to a natural conclusion (i.e. how a god would communicate to people and why).

          the study was a double-blind study on the effects of intercessory prayer and the result was that there was no effect found more than chance

          Yes, and that’s precisely what I said. My point was that the choice to have people actually pray makes this study easy to misinterpret as being a test of God. I’m not saying it is, just that it’sa problematic part of the design of the study. It fortunately didn’t impact the results.

          The study should have limited itself to just a study on whether being told someone is praying for you impacts recovery time or whatever and not included any kind of actual prayer.

          Edit: removed unnecessary part mentioning the ban.