Does Theism necessarily involve faith?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Does Theism necessarily involve faith? » Does Theism necessarily involve faith?

Does Theism necessarily involve faith?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

Does Theism necessarily involve faith?

Invictus_88
New Arrival

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Location: England,

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 133

Posted 11/01/09 - 06:11 AM:	#11
Wosret wrote: I don't think that it does. I think that most theists are just wrong, only the intelligent, and knowledgeable ones need faith to maintain their theism, because they know better. Eh? That post doesn't even make sense.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 11/01/09 - 09:56 AM:	#12
Invictus_88 wrote: Eh? That post doesn't even make sense. Which part of my OP do you find difficult to decipher? It is but a couple sentences. It is directly addressing the question of the thread. "Does theism necessarily involve faith?" is the question of this thread, and my OP is addressing it, despite having asked it myself.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 199

Posted 11/01/09 - 10:09 AM:	#13
ciceronianus wrote: Peirce was never "sloppy", never never never. He was an impatient fellow, however, and could be unclear. Hm, tychism? Thirdness? Don't get me wrong; the man was brilliant, but I would say his ontology is not as rigorous and parsimonious as it could be. The same holds for, say, Hegel, though Peirce at least wasn't a victim of his own system like Hegel.

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1023

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 11/01/09 - 10:54 AM:	#14
To Mega Therion wrote: Hm, tychism? Thirdness? Don't get me wrong; the man was brilliant, but I would say his ontology is not as rigorous and parsimonious as it could be. The same holds for, say, Hegel, though Peirce at least wasn't a victim of his own system like Hegel. Musement, too. And those damn three universes. Sometimes I have no idea what he's saying. I just don't think he was "sloppy." It implies a kind slipshod, unthinking disregard. Perhaps I just like too much what he writes that I can comprehend, however. He was certainly a peculiar fellow, and sometimes made no effort to explain.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 240

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 11/02/09 - 04:48 PM:	#15
Oddly, atheism seems to precede theism. Given that, up to a certain point, a belief in God was assumed and philosophical meditations on God (such as those of the medievals) occupied a sort of therapeutic role (as St. Thomas would have it "removing barriers to faith"), the medievals could hardly be said to be theists in the modern sense. Theism, on the contrary, arose in response to the development of modern atheism (in its various forms) as a means of defending belief in God on philosophical grounds. As such, theism transcended the initially pastoral/therapeutic role of early religious philosophy and instead became a philosophical position in its own right. Thus, it is entirely possible to be a theist without having faith: it merely entails ascribing to the belief that it is reasonable (or, in some cases, desirable or productive) to believe in God (whatever that term might mean).

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 199

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 01:52 AM:	#16
I would agree that atheism preceeds theism, as the early animistic religions show, but I would say that theism as a philosophical position far predated modern atheism. Xenophanes is arguably the first philosophical theist, for example.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 03:06 AM:	#17
Here is an approach that could support the premise. Even though most theists claim that the object of their theism is unsupported by reason or facts is a form of faith, there is actually an implicit assumption that their beliefs are supported by loose agreement. It is rare to see a theist that would demand faith which wasn't accompanied by a population of other believers, (even tolerating a lot of disagreement within that population), or support of ancient revered texts. This could be considered a kind of "cheat", relying on popularity, authority or traditions to partially support a premise. A person relying 100% on faith could not claim any other believers or source of reference.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

longfun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 133

Posted 11/03/09 - 03:33 AM:	#18
swstephe wrote: Here is an approach that could support the premise. Even though most theists claim that the object of their theism is unsupported by reason or facts is a form of faith, there is actually an implicit assumption that their beliefs are supported by loose agreement. It is rare to see a theist that would demand faith which wasn't accompanied by a population of other believers, (even tolerating a lot of disagreement within that population), or support of ancient revered texts. This could be considered a kind of "cheat", relying on popularity, authority or traditions to partially support a premise. A person relying 100% on faith could not claim any other believers or source of reference. I agree with this , you can state this object exists... but how it exists or not exists is defined by an agreed upon definition between different entities. (this goes for theists and atheists), the lack or the availability of a definition generates the potential object, but removes it as well. faith, or blindly relying on such interpretation, how different it may be within one group, is simply adding to the way how interpretable this definition is and faith, relying on such interpretation, again defines how the object exists...but in the end it doesn't make the object more or less real...it's only a definition of origin with some added potential properties to it.
I'm Long and I'm playing the greatest game of all.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 11/03/09 - 05:31 AM:	#19
Wosret wrote: By being wrong. If they think that they are justified, and have reasons, then they aren't employing faith -- and clearly if one concluded that all people who hold false, or ultimately unjustified beliefs employ faith, then they must conclude that everyone does; or that there exists a super-elite with perfect knowledge and justification. To put it more succinctly, when the theist would be dissuaded of their theism through rational, or evidentiary means. Perhaps I'm missing the entire point here, but the question of being "right or wrong" within the realm of faith has nothing to do with whether or not the claim of belief is founded in fact. Facts have nothing to do with faith. If the two exist together, it is not in a role of supporting one another. You are using the wrong standard of measure here. Faith is more than the ignoring of facts, truths or justified beliefs (scientifically supported evidence. Faith is the result of a belief in an "ULTIMATE". That is, there is something out there that is of such "great concern" than one will dedicate one's life to this thing and its cause. For the theist, this ultimate concern is a god(s) and all of lifes purpose is in service to this god(s). Reality is thus defined in the context to its relation to this "ultimate concern" and catagories and priorities are defined based upon this "ultimate concern". The only viable support system for such an idea and commitment to this object of ultimate concern is faith. Faith connects the dots. An atheist does not have this concern for something being ultimate. Things are as they are and the atheist does not deify one thing over the other. Yes, things may be important, but an atheist would never commit his or her life to deaning this object of current priority. Faith will not connect the dots, but rather proven logic and facts. A atheist is simply "faithless". Ultimate concerns do not exist, god(s) does not exist, faith is redundant. Where an "ultimate concern" is present, faith must be employed to pave the road of logic. Faith is going beyond (mere) fact and truth to something much greater than the sum of its parts. Faith is the support system for and "ultimate concern". Theism is the belief in a god(s). Now unless this god(s) is of no importance, this god(s) will be the object of "ultimate concern". The rules have changed as the object of the game has changed, thus changing the game in its entirity. For the theist, faith is impossible to live without. Now if you buy into this need of faith or not is another thing all together. For people of faith this belief is "correct","justified" and most of all "REAL" in all aspects, including the object of faith... God(s). They find through means of faith the "logical reason" to "support" such claims. The facts of "right and wrong" from a person of non-faith ("faithless") is of no value as one cannot understand "right and wrong" (ultimately) without faith. Ends and means are the same. Just as an atheist sees a theist a being wrong and misguided by ignoring facts, a theist sees that an atheist simply has "faith" that there is not god. Both sides are missing the point here. Meow! GREG Edited by mayor of simpleton on 11/03/09 - 05:39 AM
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 199

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 05:47 AM:	#20
Oh, so we're back to faith as fluffy pink bunnies, i.e. redefining terms so you can pretend you have an argument. To provide a few examples of how your claim is at odds with how we usually use the work: the Sadduccees (I do hope I got all the bloody double letters right) had faith that a God exists, they just didn't care all that much about him. Mahayana Buddhists believe in all sorts of deities, but I highly doubt they care for any of them. Many ancient religions involved faith in higher deities but preferred to worship the lower, and so on, and so on.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.