Honest question for Theists: Could someone explain 'faith' to me?
Investigate the clear errors of moral relativism / ethical subjectivism vs. Natural Law theory / Objective moral values and you will have my answer as to why I believe; After many hours spent researching the subject I remain more convinced than ever that right is in fact just that, and for that reason we very much ought to do it. It is circumstance and intent that affect the moral culpability of any given act, the act itself remains what it is objectively. Charity is good (right to do) but Charity performed for reward of recognition is insincere and of less value than Charity performed out of true concern for the well being of another. In the former instance the charitable act is not evil, only the intent. Similarly, Stealing is evil (wrong to do) regardless of circumstances and intent. The moral culpability is obviously lower for a mother who steals a car to rush her dying child to the hospital, than for a punk who steals a car to show off to his buddies, but in neither case is stealing good. Charity is good and stealing is evil objectively This seems to me infinitely more "believable" to me than the supposition that all morals are relative. This does not address what "faith" is however; We all believe things on faith, we just don't all believe the same things on faith. I've never been to the moon, but I believe other men have, not everyone does, how do we really know for sure? I believe Jesus existed, you may too, I believe he is God, most likely you don't, how do we really know for sure?
Atheists, why do you deny the powers of your intuition?
In life, we get by day to day on intuition. I know a computer has a maker because it's obvious, it's intuitive. The same way, I know the universe has a maker.....I see logic and order in it, and it must come from a logical and orderly source. The ultimate proof of a Creator is Creation. It's just not complicated. Quit trying to make it so.
Socrates said, "True knowledge is knowing that you know nothing"?
Socrates wasn't philosophically fit to tie Lao-tsu's sandals! His quote fails logically, exemplified in its paradox; He states this as 'knowledge' and then admits he knows nothing of 'knowledge'. It is as asinine conundrum as stating that "True knowledge is knowing nothing!" Besides, there is no 'nothing' that can be 'known'. Knowledge, which he didn't know, is 'experience'! The new, critically updated, all inclusive, final definition of 'Knowledge'; "'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived'!" All inclusive! That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'. All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!! 'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Knowing what 'knowledge' is would have rendered his ignorant (but cute) bumpersticker quote irrelevant! One reason that these bumpersticker quotes last so l;ong is that people are programmed to accept the words of 'authorities' and have never been taught how to think for themselves! So since it has Socrates' signature after it, and he is, to some burned out mindless husks, a God, it is just accepted with appropriate reverence! Faugh! Your Zen reference illustrates my point.
How does knowledge differ from belief? How do we know if what we think to be true is mere belief or knowledge?
This is just a gateway question to a major sticking point, that consciousness and experience are matters of subjective perception. Knowledge and belief are separated by proof, but evidence is only as reliable as the senses we use to perceive it and the mind that gives it relevance. --- From a philosophical standpoint! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't base our choices on the best available evidence. I'm just saying that at the end of the day, even our power to fact-check objective evidence is subject to, well, subjectivity.
What is the difference between secular faith and scientific faith?
You need to clarify what you mean by these two terms. "Faith" is a concept that has a connotation of virtue: if one is said to have a strong faith in a loving god despite the pain in the world, it is meant to be a compliment. On the other hand, one who has little faith (in god) is thought to have a character flaw. While one may attempt to argue that science must grapple with things not immediately verifiable, there is no virtue in it: science attempts to systematically minimize these things. Therefore in science, there is no virtue in accepting something that cannot be derived from more fundamental things: such acceptance is considered a last resort.
What conditions must a truth pass in order to be true?
Im an absolutist. Truths are true in their own right. There are no requirements. There are only requirements for what we can know, how we can know them, and to what degree of certainty we can know them. Empiricism and the scientific method are based on statistics, and have axiomatic assumptions as its foundations. Epistemology tells us how we perceive reality, and how reality may be different. Everything from existentialism to the scientific method to logic are all philosophies. And they are all no better and no worse than any philosophy can be. Philosophy without reason cannot be taken as truth, and what constitutes truth is a philosophy. Logic and empiricism (science) are both philosophies without provable foundations, and yet we scorn philosophy while using it to prove things about reality in the name of "science". Its absurd, its circular. The chain seems stronger than its weakest link, and no learned man of reason seems to care. Logic and mathematics both rest on axiomatic foundations we all take to be truths, though they may not be. Logic has never been proven. How can it be proven? One cannot use logic to prove logic. Much rests on intuition and faith, doesnt it? Mathematics and geometry to its highest levels all rest on the postulates of Euclidean Geometry (flat space)... and yet Einstein proved by demonstration that space is curved. All of modern math rests on premises we know to be false.