Does objective reality require faith

[idav]

Objective reality are the things that we are sure exist. I think that even if objective reality doesn't exist that it still requires zero faith to believe in. Objective things are the only things we can be sure about and know about even if we are in some simulated dream because the simulations would still be real. Things that I have to hope are real can't be verified objectively. Something that is right in front of my face I don't have to hope for cause its in front of me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Objective reality are the things that we are sure exist. I think that even if objective reality doesn't exist that it still requires zero faith to believe in. Objective things are the only things we can be sure about and know about even if we are in some simulated dream because the simulations would still be real. Things that I have to hope are real can't be verified objectively. Something that is right in front of my face I don't have to hope for cause its in front of me.

No. I don't see why faith is wrong, though. Do we always need to be sure of everything? Why or why not?

 

[idav]

No. I don't see why faith is wrong, though. Do we always need to be sure of everything? Why or why not?

I think we need to be sure of a lot of things mostly because ignorance breeds suffering. At the same time though hope is needed so there should be some reasonable way to reconcile the things we hope for with the things we know,

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Objective reality are the things that we are sure exist.

I thought that objective reality was those things that exist regardless of your certitude.

 

[idav]

I thought that objective reality was those things that exist regardless of your certitude.

Well lets say that google vs. bing disagree with each other on these finer points. Reality does exist with or without an observer but only the observer needs it to be objective as opposed to subjective.

 

[Quintessence]

Objective reality are the things that we are sure exist. I think that even if objective reality doesn't exist that it still requires zero faith to believe in.

I'm not sure how you are understanding the term "faith" here, but it seems to me that there is always going to be an element of faith/trust, in particular of one's own senses and sensibilities. Pretty sure a zero faith scenario is not possible for a human unless they are unusually and extremely arrogant to the point that they think they are an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-present being. That's the only scenario where I could see faith/trust not being needed, because one knows everything and is aware of everything, thus has no perceptual biases and limitations. Far as I can tell, humans are not omnimax creatures.

Objective things are the only things we can be sure about and know about even if we are in some simulated dream because the simulations would still be real.

I do not agree. I am quite sure that the story of the original Star Wars trilogy involves Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father. There is nothing most people would call objective about the Star Wars universe or its existence, yet anyone familiar with the story is quite certain of how it goes. Yes?

 

[HonestJoe]

Objective reality are the things that we are sure exist. I think that even if objective reality doesn't exist that it still requires zero faith to believe in. Objective things are the only things we can be sure about and know about even if we are in some simulated dream because the simulations would still be real. Things that I have to hope are real can't be verified objectively. Something that is right in front of my face I don't have to hope for cause its in front of me.

Like a lot of words (especially words touched by religion), I think “faith” carries too much baggage to be of practical use in any general practical or philosophical discussion unless it’s preceded with a very specific and contextual definition.

On the wider question, there is, as you imply, nothing we can be 100% certain definitely exists as we perceive it. After all, there is plenty of evidence that how we each perceive things can be significantly different in the first place. We couldn’t possible operate or remain sane if we second guessed the existence of everything we encounter though so we work on the basis of a series of fundamental assumptions. The whole point about assumptions like this is that they’re not necessarily accurate or entirely true and they’re not necessarily constant or unconditional but they work for practical purposes for a given period of time. If they stop working, they can be reassessed and adjusted appropriately.

A lot of them will be based on things behaving consistently. For example, if I use my usual cake recipe, put the same amount of mix in my standard cake tin and put it in my oven at the same temperature, I expect it to bake in the same amount of time ever time. If I’m baking a cake today, I might plan my day around that assumption. It’s possible for that assumption to be wrong though. Some of the factors could change without my knowledge (the make-up of the ingredients or efficiency of my over) and it’s always possible for the fundamental laws of thermodynamics to suddenly change. I can’t practically account for those apparently low possibilities though so work on the basis of the practical assumptions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well lets say that google vs. bing disagree with each other on these finer points.

Research methodology at it's best. Which of these tools led you to assert that "objective reality are the things that we are sure exist"?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

People "of faith" tend to point to this idea of "well, you can't be completely sure of ANYTHING" as an argument for faith being a necessary part of life. And while I agree with this to the extent that we can't, truly, be sure of the objectivity of the universe and "reality" our sense present us with, there are definitely LEVELS OF UTILITY that can be applied versus the "realities" we are either presented with (such as the universe as interpreted by our senses), or that we present ourselves with (such as religious belief or ideas of "spirituality").

I would say that the level of utility that something like "seeking water for survival" achieves is far, far greater than the level of utility of seeking religious experience or understanding. My point being - while you can't be entirely sure of the objectivity of the water your senses detect or the elements of your religious belief, "water" wins out as being more important to ongoing bodily/intellectual/emotional processes, hands down. Looking at a spectrum of these various levels of utility one could ascribe all of the things we "can't be sure about" - religion, belief in the supernatural, etc. would be far removed from the "more practical" end of the scale.

 

[First Baseman]

Objective reality are the things that we are sure exist. I think that even if objective reality doesn't exist that it still requires zero faith to believe in. Objective things are the only things we can be sure about and know about even if we are in some simulated dream because the simulations would still be real. Things that I have to hope are real can't be verified objectively. Something that is right in front of my face I don't have to hope for cause its in front of me.

Any belief in anything and everything requires faith. You can't even be sure you aren't a figment in some space pig's imagination. You have to believe you exist, you sure can't prove you do, not beyond all doubt.

There is only one absolute truth. This is what we all search for or should be searching for. Since no one can prove absolute truth it requires some degree of faith to believe it.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

There are a lot of things we can be sure of. To take a few

> Everything of which I am conscious exists in some form or another.
> My memory produces true beliefs about past events.
> Perceptual experience produces true beliefs about external objects.
> I have some power over my decisions and my actions.
> The behaviour of other humans shows that they have the same life and intelligence as I do.
> I am to make predictions about human actions from their appearance and behaviour.

As Wittgenstein wrote, if some-one were to deny such statements, how could we discuss the matter? What could we say except "Oh, nonsense"? We don't need faith to believe in such things, because we cannot disbelieve. Philosophers may sometimes argue against them, but that's a display of what Reid called "philosophical lunacy" — making assertions as a philosopher that one would never act on in everyday life. A philosopher writes a book to persuade its readers to change their minds and believe that they have no freewill — think about the logic there!

For other things, we must either learn from experience or from the testimony of others. That obviously requires faith, in one sense. We know that our experiences are generally valid and that the reports of others are generally truthful, but in the last analysis we have to make an act of will to believe in some and not in others.

 

[Nietzsche]

You can't even be sure you aren't a figment in some space pig's imagination.

But is the space-pig benevolent?

 

[First Baseman]

But is the space-pig benevolent?

I think you got the point. I hope.

 

[idav]

Any belief in anything and everything requires faith. You can't even be sure you aren't a figment in some space pig's imagination. You have to believe you exist, you sure can't prove you do, not beyond all doubt.

There is only one absolute truth. This is what we all search for or should be searching for. Since no one can prove absolute truth it requires some degree of faith to believe it.

When I start with "I believe" its usually denotes uncertainty. I can say I know god because I think I know but I am uncertain.

 

[idav]

I think you got the point. I hope.

If I can avoid using the word believe I do and use the word know or knowledge instead.

 

[idav]

Research methodology at it's best. Which of these tools led you to assert that "objective reality are the things that we are sure exist"?

I didn't make up those definitions but your stance is a philosophical one. Anyhow its semantics, how do you have objective without an observer?

 

[idav]

There are a lot of things we can be sure of. To take a few

> Everything of which I am conscious exists in some form or another.
> My memory produces true beliefs about past events.
> Perceptual experience produces true beliefs about external objects.
> I have some power over my decisions and my actions.
> The behaviour of other humans shows that they have the same life and intelligence as I do.
> I am to make predictions about human actions from their appearance and behaviour.

As Wittgenstein wrote, if some-one were to deny such statements, how could we discuss the matter? What could we say except "Oh, nonsense"? We don't need faith to believe in such things, because we cannot disbelieve. Philosophers may sometimes argue against them, but that's a display of what Reid called "philosophical lunacy" — making assertions as a philosopher that one would never act on in everyday life. A philosopher writes a book to persuade its readers to change their minds and believe that they have no freewill — think about the logic there!

For other things, we must either learn from experience or from the testimony of others. That obviously requires faith, in one sense. We know that our experiences are generally valid and that the reports of others are generally truthful, but in the last analysis we have to make an act of will to believe in some and not in others.

I think this is well put thank you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Can't 100% sure of anything, really. I just go with it, regardless. I treat it all the same, not drawing a distinction between "real" and "unreal".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't make up those definitions ...

Excellent. Please reference your source.

 

[idav]

Excellent. Please reference your source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
"Objectivity is a central philosophical concept"