>That's the central issue with faith: that it relies on nothing
>of actual substance. This isn't necessarily problematic in a
>vacuum, but the problem is that beliefs do not exist in a
>vacuum, and our beliefs drive our decisions in the real world.
>
>
>So if your faith in a particular god drives your overall
>worldview, and that worldview drives the way you vote, for
>example, on things like whether or not two people of the same
>sex can get married, or a woman's right to choose, that's
>problematic.
>
>If someone is going to decide that their faith in a particular
>being, and thus the rules and regulations handed down by said
>being, should be applied not only to oneself as an individual,
>but to others they share this world with, then their faith is
>an insufficient foundation to press those views on the rest of
>us.

The idea behind faith though is that we all believe in a greater good. As society evolves, some of those principles become dated but the core of them should still be respected.

-The root of opposition to SS marriage is population growth. Prior to modern tech, there was only one way to keep multiplying. We have various ways to achieve this now. Faith says "it's wrong", logic says, the reason why you think it's wrong is dated and won't affect society the way it once could.

-The root of choice vs life is also rooted in the same fears. Additionally, there's the moral dilemma of killing a living thing. While both sides disagree on it, there's rationale behind both stances.

The same way one could see imposing religious laws on society as a bad thing, lots of laws are based on religious morality and changing those laws feels like an attack on established morals. Control vs radicalism. One side feels oppression is bad, the other feels a lack of moral structure is. Both are right. The problem is, Faith and Logic typically fail to compromise. There in lies the best solutions.


>>Logic is limited. One can apply logic but with so much
>>misunderstood, logic only accomplishes to box in instances
>>that allow one to grasp a concept. On many occasions, logic
>>has needed to be re-written and adjusted because new
>>circumstances or evidence has been introduced.
>
>Going to circle back on this point.

Feel free.

>>As humans, we
>>only know we exist here and have figured out minute insights
>>into the vastness of this grand existence we sludge through.
>>So things we deem logical today, could be illogical
>tomorrow.
>
>I'd like you to expound on this, if you don't mind.

Sure, as humans, we want to understand more about existence. But we don't have the capacity to learn as much as we'd like. This limits us in our ability to create certain logical laws beyond our scope. We make assumptions to help us understand things and the more widely accepted, the easier it is for is to try to move on to the next cue and box that in.

As far as logic changing, yesteryear, we though moons were planets, humans couldn't fly, AI was a fantasy. Some think freedom is logical but not so if everyone can attain it. Sometimes, logic fails. Example, tear (cry) and tear (to rip). Two words spelled the same, sound different and have different meanings. That isn't logical but we logically accept that.

>>To that same premise, logic varies from person to person and
>>is only levied as acceptable on a few common principles
>>(4>3).
>
>I'd say logic is being used rather loosely, and I think "logic
>vs faith" is potentially a false dichotomy. I'm not sure it's
>faith vs logic at all. I'd say the actual dichotomy is faith
>vs evidence.

Evidence applied to faith is simply an exercise in logic. In essence, trying to box faith into a logical explanation with proof, when the essence of the word is devoid of proof.

This is like someone saying there's a 'soul' inside their body and someone asks them to prove it. Only way to prove it is to die and even then, the only evidence that there is a 'soul' is that the body no longer functions and the essence of the person is gone forever.

And even then, the living person may not agree on the terminology of 'soul'.

>Here's the thing: That insurance policy actual exists, and the
>terms are clearly written and understood by both parties. You
>pay X in return for Y in the event of circumstances a, b, and
>c.
>
>There is no faith involved. There is no mystery to solve.
>
>Further, this insurance policy is specific not in terms of
>what is covered and under what circumstances, though there may
>be holes in certain places.
>
>There's a business office for the insurance company, a name to
>attach the sales person, a paper trail to follow for the
>payments you've made, terms and conditions, the whole nine.
>
>Further, we can look at tangible numbers, can we not?
>
>I.e, how often do people actually have to make claims on, say,
>renters insurance.
>
>Lastly, insurance is clearly meant to be just that: Insurance.
>
>
>It's entire purpose is "just in case", and there is a definite
>in what you get for your payment for that "just in case".
>There's a contract. Sure, it's not airtight. Imperfect.
>
>But purchasing insurance is the definitive opposite of faith,
>because there are checks and balances and verification in
>place for both parties.
>
>The prospect of faith in a god is that said god *might* or
>*could* be true, but is much more akin to buying a lottery
>ticket in actuality.
>
>To keep this practical, if person A makes this choice, and
>keeps this faith within themselves, cool. But the second
>person A uses said faith, regardless of the reasoning behind
>said faith, to imposes laws and rules upon others, that's a
>no-go.
>
>And that's just once facet of how and why faith can be
>extremely problematic.

You example fails when it comes to life insurance (and in some instances, regular insurance).

1) You agree to pay something in expectation that when the time comes, you'll be taken care of.

2) There's no guarantee the company will be able to take care of you (a myriad of things could go wrong, bankruptcy, fraud, lack of funds to cover your particular issue...even if contractually agreed upon).

3) In the case of life insurance, you're dead, there is no way for you to confirm your wishes were carried out. You just have to believe that the company you paid penance to will honor it's side of the bargain.

To your example, faith is indeed just as you stated it, an 'imperfect contract' to which behaviors and beliefs are attributed with the understanding that once one departs this existence, a better one will rest on the other side for those who abide those behaviors and beliefs.

And logically, we don't know where we were before we got here and we don't know where we go when we leave. That window of ignorance lends to anything being possible.

To your final point, a huge portion of this faith is rooted in love. The only way to understand the final part is to look at yourself as a parent. Your beliefs based on your years of experience allowed you to develop what you see as key things your children need to learn to have a better path through their lives. The only right you have to levy these beliefs is that you created them via your DNA. You have likely created household laws/rules to govern their growth. Ultimately, they won't see some of those rules as fair or logical or relevant but it's what you think is best for their development. They may choose to ignore your rules but that might also make their lives exponentially more difficult.

In the same sense that some parents abuse this power for their own personal benefit, some will do the same with faith. That doesn't discount the value of faith. Context just needs to be applied and a compromise with logic should prevail.


>>Those that believe in logic are saying, life is short, focus
>>on the tangible and provable.
>
>I'll expound on this. My break is ending soon so I may need to
>come back to it.
>
>But in general, we go with what we know, believers and non
>believers alike. The vast majority of theists who had cancer
>and then went into remission and attribute said remission to
>god, also went to doctors and underwent treatment.
>
>The vast majority of believers in a god get up and go to work,
>clock in and out, and get a paycheck, though they'll attribute
>that income to their particular god.
>
>I do have some more nuanced thoughts on this though, because
>while I do see certain situations where faith can be
>beneficial, I still see that in and of itself as a massive net
>negative. But I'll expound further.

Your point here is valid, but there are also people who get cancer and don't win that battle even if they go to the doctor and received treatment. There are also people who got to go to work today and got laid off with no indication it was going to happen.

While some might attribute this to chance or a group of inevitable circumstances, others might see it is favor via faith. Always two sides to that coin.

Ultimately, faith is needed. Humanity fails without faith. Without the small possibility that what we do on Earth, in this existence, matters beyond the moment that we do it in, all of our societal structures fall.

I akin it to a "if you knew you were going to die tomorrow" theory. The things you did today would have less consequence because you wouldn't care about the personal ramifications as much.

You want to know what a world without faith looks like? Let something like the movie 'Deep Impact' play out in real life. Say we don't find out about a comet hurling at Earth until it's too late to do anything about it or it's too huge to do anything about it.

>Agreed. I don't think faith in anything actually changes this
>though.

Didn't say it would change it. But, think, if someone told you to save up because the economy is going to crash but as a keen economist, you looked at the markets like 'there's no proof that it's going to do so, where's your proof?' and the guys is like, 'I don't have any, I just know.'

Do you really wanna be piss broke if the guy is right? Or would you rather at least save something and hope that he's wrong?

>>My theory is, use logic to try to understand what's in front
>>of you, use faith to guide you to remain grounded and
>respect
>>what's beyond you.
>
>>Both are ultimately used to control morality and preserve
>>humanity, faith is a bit better at it than logic.
>
>I'll have to circle back on these points. Break's about up,
>but I have a lot to say on the morality issue. I'd love to
>hear your thoughts in response to what I've addressed thus far
>though.

Feel free.