OzSpen wrote: Why don't you write an article for OLO with a title such as: 'Faith is something we cannot prove'? Then give your evidence for such a proposal.

Dear OzSpen,

One does not have to give evidence for faith being something one cannot prove. It is implicit in the definition of faith. If one can prove an assertion then another person does not need faith to accept it. I have written on various subjects. The titles of some of them follow:

There is no god in which we all trust

Secularism and religious tolerance

God is a human invention

Adam's rib

Another perspective on evil

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4977 is where you can connect to those articles and others I have written.

Dear OzSpen,

We are not a theocracy. Lego has a right to blaspheme Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Buddha, Moses or any other revered figure in any religion. We are not free to attack you as a person, but we don't have to respect anybody's religious beliefs. We are not free to force a person to violate their beliefs. The Chinese are wrong in imprisoning Muslims and forcing them to eat pork. However, they are not obligated to refrain from eating pork because it may offend Muslims.

Sacrilege toward what you revere may offend you, but it is not a crime. You have the right to ask LEGO to stop, but LEGO has no obligation to do so. I glory in the fact that blasphemy is not a crime in Australia. In some countries people can be and have been tortured, imprisoned or executed for blasphemy. Australia is a country with free speech. Free speech includes the right of blasphemy.

Dear OzSpen,

You wrote: The faith I practise has its foundation in the God who exists (I can provide evidence for his existence), the God who acts in human history, and the God of the historical Jesus who lived, died and rose again.

Contrary to your opinion, this is not the 'silliness' of faith but the certainty of truth. I can assure you that I wouldn't be interacting on this forum with you if my faith was based on 'silliness'.”

Dear OxSpen,

Of course, it is silliness. Believers in various religions believe their beliefs are true. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians all believe their beliefs are true. If any of these beliefs were actually true it could be proven to the satisfaction of a non-believer. Sincerity of belief, and I have no reason to think you are not sincere in that belief, is no indication that the belief is valid. There have been several proofs of the existence of God. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant showed that none of them were valid. However, he did not deny that belief. He granted that people could make a leap of faith and believe even though there was no evidence to support that belief. You are not the only person who confuses an opinion with certainty and truth. However, your religious beliefs are only your opinions shared with those who have similar opinions.

Believers may label their belief certainty as you did. They may label their belief truth as you did. Consider that believers in other religions which contradict yours have the same feeling that they have the truth.

Buddhists believe in a world in which some people are enlightened, but no God exists in that world. They label their beliefs the four noble truths.

1. The truth of suffering (dukkha)
2. The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya)
3. The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha)
4. The truth of the path that frees us from suffering (magga)

Their certainty and truths are like your certainty and truths. Silliness.

Dear David,

«Faith is the enemy of reason.»

Only by way of competing over one's time and mental resources: nothing other than having only 24 hours/day stops anyone from employing both.

Both faith and reason can be used in the pursuit of God. Some people are inclined to use one more than the other, which is OK, but some mix of faith, reason and good actions tends to produce the best results.

Then of course, both and their combinations can also be used for material gain.

«Faith is the acceptance of truth in matters we cannot prove true.»

Faith is an attitude, not an intellectual acceptance of anything (true or otherwise, provable or otherwise, important or otherwise).

(perhaps you confuse faith with belief?)

«As far as I am concerned both hope and faith are inconsistent with a life of peace.»

[Unlike belief, ] So long as one has faith, one has peace!

But you a right: that peace might not be everlasting. The problem is that, when one loses their faith (including through the use of reason) they also tend to lose their peace.

So if one's faith happens to be in something that is either untrue (like the existence of the tooth-fairy), or is fleeting (like Mammon, youth, health or humanity), then the danger is that upon finding out the truth, one's faith will falter and they will experience a painful crash.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«In the not too distant future I will enter oblivion.»

You will not enter anything: all that will happen at that time, is that you will become oblivious to the world, which is normally what happens anyway every night. YOU are presently awake, aware of the world, then at night, for some of the time YOU are only aware of your own mind through your dreams while for the rest of the time, in deep sleep, YOU are oblivious not only to the world but also to your own mind.

Big deal... Same YOU throughout! All that may change is what you are aware of. Once your body fails and your senses no longer provide you with input, your situation will be no different than in your sleep, only last longer.

«When I was younger I was not at peace with myself.»

Good on you for finding peace!

«I have found that it was best for me to discard both faith and hope.»

No argument there. It could indeed been the best for you at the time, considering your particular circumstances, strengths and weaknesses and what your hope and faith were in.

But this is not a basis for drawing a general conclusion.

--- referring to your last post ---

«If any of these beliefs were actually true it could be proven to the satisfaction of a non-believer.»

Not necessarily - refer to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.

It has been long since my university studies so my mathematics are quite rusty, but I recall that we proved at some point that not only some, but actually MOST theorems cannot be proven or refuted.

This being the case even within the confined realm of mathematical theorems, how more so in the fullness of reality: some truths can never be proven by reason.

david f.,

<<Of course, it is silliness. Believers in various religions believe their beliefs are true. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians all believe their beliefs are true. If any of these beliefs were actually true it could be proven to the satisfaction of a non-believer.>>

What is truth? http://biblehub.com/john/18-38.htm