# is faith overrated?



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

eXmachina said:


> What's funny is most people on here say they won't believe in something unless they have concrete proof of its existence. However most of their entire belief system and accumulation of knowledge is learned through what they have divulged from other people.
> 
> For instance that flying snake video. Is there any proof it wasn't animated? Can you say for 100% sure that the video is not a fake? No, but you still believed in it.
> 
> I lol at everything.


That isn't funny, that's normal.

In my particular perspective, yes, everything requires some measure of 'faith' since we are all fallible anyway. However, I _don't_ allow special pleading, and _that_ is the difference, not whether something takes 'faith' or not.

I will not favor 'faith' in one thing when there are equally probable alternatives, _especially_ when it can't be epistemically determined, not even with a formal logic thought experiment.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

eXmachina said:


> What's funny is most people on here say they won't believe in something unless they have concrete proof of its existence. However most of their entire belief system and accumulation of knowledge is learned through what they have divulged from other people.
> 
> For instance that flying snake video. Is there any proof it wasn't animated? Can you say for 100% sure that the video is not a fake? No, but you still believed in it.
> 
> I lol at everything.


I think you're largely correct. Exactly how much proof it takes before someone believes something is often malleable; if it's something they'd agree with, the standard of proof is sometimes very low. But if it's something they disagree with, then the standard can be quite high. It all depends on the person.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

timeless said:


> I think you're largely correct. Exactly how much proof it takes before someone believes something is often malleable; if it's something they'd agree with, the standard of proof is sometimes very low. But if it's something they disagree with, then the standard can be quite high. It all depends on the person.


That's often the case.

However, I don't think we should be agreeing _before_ proof, even though that's how it ends up.

Accepting proof because you already agree, means it is preconceived in the first place; how could one reasonably agree before accepting the 'proof' otherwise?

If they already agree and accept more 'proof' because they agree, what's the point of the proof? They don't need it if their mind is made up.


----------



## saturnne (Sep 8, 2009)

It's not overrated. It changes people's lives--at least it changed mine.


----------



## Jwing24 (Aug 2, 2010)

I don't think so. I think I am a better person for having faith and believing in what I do than if I did not have any. That being said, there are two sides to everything. I have my doubts at times about my own faith. I think doubts, regardless of what you believe or don't believe, are inevitable and normal. That's a part of being human.

my 2cp's at least


----------

