Director Roger Nygard traveled the world asking theologians, scientists, skeptics, and everyday people 85 tough questions to try to understand The Nature of Existence! Now that he’s asked the experts, it’s YOUR TURN! To offer your own insights on today’s question, “How can we tell which is which?”, Leave a Reply below!
Joseph Campbell gave a great explanation of the God Brahman. It is sometimes described in three parts; Sat, Chid, Ananda. Sat is truth, Chid is ultimate consciousness and Ananda is your bliss, your delight. You can’t know when you have found ultimate truth or consciousness, but you can know your “bliss”. Follow that and it will lead to the other two. You need to watch out if it is not leading you there, then you are probably just following a physical desire, which leads only to temporary pleasure and usually to long term consequences. Follow your bliss, work hard at it, sacrifice. This leads to long term pleasure for yourself and others in your life and your legacy. Have faith in that, and you will find it is a fact.
This is comparing apples to oranges. Or more appropriately, apples to hunger. Faith is a belief that something is true. Facts are the true things. If you have faith in something, you are asserting it to be a fact. Facts exist whether we have faith in them or not. One cannot always prove or disprove a fact, but any aspect of existence with behavior that we can consistently predict qualifies provisionally as a fact. For practical purposes, this makes it a fact until it can be disproved.
Both fact and faith are perceived as true to each individual. Fact relies on what others know to be true; faith relies on what oneself knows to be true.
To cobble together my previous two responses:
A fact is an assertion, and faith is your relationship to that assertion.
Faith is not well supported but is believed none the less. “Statistical facts” (as I mentioned on the other question) are believed to be true and well supported. The primary difference is the level of evidence. Faith is poor substantiated.
Faith takes care of itself despite new facts.
Scientific theories and laws of nature have to be teased out by rigorous experimentation, communicated to successive generations with greater success as new concepts become more intuitive.
Its depends on the person who want to know what. Most people think that, a concept accepted by people whome he thinks legitimate is a fact. Or else,
People think something as a fact, if there is nothing in his knowledge to contradict.
By the operative basis of acceptance: faith is unquestioning acceptance without evidence; truth is that which is arrived at through skeptical, scientific inquiry based upon observation and critical analysis.
How does one tell ‘faith’ from ‘fact’.
The presuppositions in the question are flawed.
Neither application of attention (toward faith or fact)
are on an existing reality.
Faith is attention toward the non-corporeal…
and facts are only corporeal in short spurts (so long as there is consensus).
When consensus fails, facts become faith.
(ex. the most correct astronomer of his time was Copernicus…
being most correct in his time makes his earth-centric model a fact for a fleeting moment…. as will be the eventuality of all such vanities and confidences.)
it depend on the person because many people believe ridiculous things such as creationism are facts. to be more scrupulous, something with great amounts of empirical evidence is fact, and belief in things that are/can’t be proven is faith