Faith - Fact

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It seems to me that faith is the father/mother of fact and in fact in order to trust a fact one must have faith in it. So why the war, why do the sons and daughters of faith and the sons and daughters of fact fight with each other, they're so intricately intertwined, is it because some one has to be on top?

So once again, we redefine "faith" in order to make "faith" and "fact" fit.

This depends entirely on how you define "faith".

Exactly. In equating "faith" and "fact", what will inevitably happen (as is happening now) is a pointless discussion about semantics and nothing more.

Yes it does, doesn't it? So why not try the most simplest and see if it walks?

Because the simplest definition of faith does not equate to the type of faith alluded to with religious doctrine. I need no faith to know that an airplane will fly; but I have to have plenty of faith to believe that Muhammad rode a winged horse.

Yes without faith you can't have fact but people equate faith with religious faith and adding that word religious to it changes its whole meaning. While you need faith for fact you do not need religious faith.

Bullocks. It requires no faith whatsoever to know that I will hit the ground if I fall off a ladder. This is a 'fact". It requires tons of faith to believe that should I ever fall off a later Guardian Angels will watch out over me. This is "faith".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem is that the term has multiple general uses. For example, "faith" can most generally refer simply to a "strong trust" or "belief". However, a lot of people equate this usage and another, that one being a definition of faith which often the one used by people as justification for religious, supernatural or otherwise factually unsupported beliefs. I tend to define this type of faith as "belief despite an absence of evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary".

For example, when I say "I have faith my wife is honest with me", it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as when somebody says "I have faith God exists" or something similar. One simply refers to a strong (not necessarily un-earned) trust or belief, whereas the other only tends to come out in religious debates wherein an individual cannot think of further logical justification for their position. Not always, of course, but it tends to be a fairly common usage.

Ageed. Justified belief and unjustified belief are not the same thing even if both are called faith any more than two sisters are the same person just because they are both named Faith.

A common problem I encounter in religious discussions is when people equate the two. I.E: "you have faith that your wife is honest - therefore, you are no different to me when I say I have faith in God's existence". While they use the same term, they are effectively referring to two very different things.

You are likely aware that the name of the logical fallacy in which the same word is used two different ways is the equivocation fallacy. My experience is that however many times one explains this to the theist, he will come back with the same fallacious argument: "Faith is faith. It's all the same thing. We all believe by faith."

I always assume that that is to try to level the playing field. Bill Maher said it well:

• "We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord."

For the sake of clarity, I recommend you provide at least two distinct definitions of faith and make it clear which one you are referring to - that way you may prevent confusion.

I suspect that equivocation, not clarity, is the goal. There appears to be an active effort to blur the distinction.

 

[ChristineM]

I suspect that you are confusing faith with religion, and religion with bad religion. But I acknowledge your point. Misapplied faith can definitely "set us back" as individuals and as societies.

But it's not faith that is the problem, but it's misrepresentation of it by bad religion, and the misapplication of it by individuals.

No confusion here, however i was referring to religious faith which has held back progress for thousands of years.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suspect that you are confusing faith with religion, and religion with bad religion.

Religious faith is only one kind of unjustified belief. One can have faith that global warming is a Chinese hoax or that Al Gore is gaming us for profit.

But I acknowledge your point. Misapplied faith can definitely "set us back" as individuals and as societies.

Bad religion in America is definitely damaging it: Kim Davis Loses Appeal, So KY Taxpayers Still Owe $224,703 in Legal Fees

But it's not faith that is the problem, but it's misrepresentation of it by bad religion, and the misapplication of it by individuals.

Hence the need for and justification of the belief that some forms of religion do a net harm and should be denounced and resisted.

 

[Mister Silver]

Nonsense.

I concur.

 

[Tmac]

Ageed. Justified belief and unjustified belief are not the same thing even if both are called faith any more than two sisters are the same person just because they are both named Faith.



You are likely aware that the name of the logical fallacy in which the same word is used two different ways is the equivocation fallacy. My experience is that however many times one explains this to the theist, he will come back with the same fallacious argument: "Faith is faith. It's all the same thing. We all believe by faith."

I always assume that that is to try to level the playing field. Bill Maher said it well:

• "We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord."

I suspect that equivocation, not clarity, is the goal. There appears to be an active effort to blur the distinction.

Thank you.

 

[Tmac]

Well that is pretty nasty. Rephrase it and I might answer your question.

The words may change but the image remains, I can do without your thoughts, I think. I have faith I'll get there without them.

 

[PureX]

How do you differentiate "bad religion" from "good religion" (or from simply "religion")?

Bad religion encourages unquestioned allegiance to an authoritarian dogma. And dishonestly misrepresents this blind allegiance as "faith". It's bad because it's a form of control that dehumanizes humans by denying them autonomy and almost always becomes exploitive and damaging as a result.

"Good" religion supports individual autonomy and the choice to apply faith to the theistic ideal. It does not seek to control through obedience, but to support shared experience.

 

[PureX]

No confusion here, however i was referring to religious faith which has held back progress for thousands of years.

"Held back" is a pretty subjective assessment. "Held back" from what?

 

[PureX]

Religious faith is only one kind of unjustified belief. One can have faith that global warming is a Chinese hoax or that Al Gore is gaming us for profit.

No one "has faith" that global warming is a hoax. Willful dishonesty and self-delusion is not "having faith". If the facts are available to us and we choose to ignore them, that isn't 'faith'. And to claim that it is, is just as dishonest as to claim that blind allegiance to some religious dogma, is ' having faith'.

 

[bobhikes]

Bullocks. It requires no faith whatsoever to know that I will hit the ground if I fall off a ladder. This is a 'fact". It requires tons of faith to believe that should I ever fall off a later Guardian Angels will watch out over me. This is "faith".

Never said you needed faith to know anything. I said you need faith for fact. Like you had faith that I would know ladder, fall and ground.

Also you may not fall to the ground depending how high you are and what kind of ladder you could get caught in the rungs or ropes. The ladder could fall with you and get caught leaving you on the ladder. Some one could throw sonething to soften your fall or you could land on a bigger person. You could be in a house in which case you would fall on the floor not ground. But whatever because whenever you fall off a ladder its a fact you'll hit the ground. My sister fell out of a tree and broke her arm on a table. Was that a known fact before it happened.

 

[ChristineM]

"Held back" is a pretty subjective assessment. "Held back" from what?

From advancement... social, technological, scientific.

 

[PureX]

From advancement... social, technological, scientific.

Who is setting the criteria for all humanity's "advancing or retarding", here, you?

 

[ChristineM]

Who is setting the criteria for all humanity's "advancing or retarding", here, you?

Its not difficult to read history

 

[Mister Silver]

Its not difficult to read history

You have to understand that some people interpret things differently than other people when reading the same thing. Of course, critical thinking is key in interpreting it objectively and reasonably, but some people are incapable of doing that.

 

[ChristineM]

You have to understand that some people interpret things differently than other people when reading the same thing. Of course, critical thinking is key in interpreting it objectively and reasonably, but some people are incapable of doing that.

Interpretation is fine for the faithful. I'm (as I'm sure you are) more into evaluating evidence and discerning facts from the data

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No one "has faith" that global warming is a hoax. Willful dishonesty and self-delusion is not "having faith". If the facts are available to us and we choose to ignore them, that isn't 'faith'. And to claim that it is, is just as dishonest as to claim that blind allegiance to some religious dogma, is ' having faith'.

To me, any unsupported or insufficiently supported belief is a faith based belief. If you believe that global warming is a Chinese hoax in the face of the present evidence, your belief is faith based. In this case, that belief not only requires holding a belief that cannot be supported, but it also requires ignoring facts, and ignoring evidence available to you that contradicts an insufficiently supported belief is exactly what I mean by the word faith.

Is this going to be like the atheism discussion, where I tell you how I use a word and you try to disallow it and call usages other than your preferred usage dishonest? If so, that's a futile strategy that only serves to marginalize you. People aren't looking for your permission. They just want to be clear what a word means when they use it. When I write about faith, this is what I am discussing: Unjustified belief.

The best you can do is to try to explain why you think that others should prefer to use the word as you do - how that would benefit them in thinking and communication. Notice that I never call you dishonest or tell you that you cannot use these terms as you see fit. I don't really care how you use them as long as I know what you mean when you do, even if it is something different than I mean.

 

[PureX]

To me, any unsupported or insufficiently supported belief is a faith based belief.

You don't get to decide what "sufficient support" for someone else's beliefs are, though. Just saying ...

If you believe that global warming is a Chinese hoax in the face of the present evidence, your belief is faith based.

No, it's willful ignorance based, because you will have ignored the facts of reality as they are available to you. That's not faith. That's just willful ignorance. I know a lot of people and religions call this kind of willful ignorance of the facts of reality, "faith", but it's not faith, it's just willful ignorance masquerading as faith. And it's dishonest.

In this case, that belief not only requires holding a belief that cannot be supported, but it also requires ignoring facts, and ignoring evidence available to you that contradicts an insufficiently supported belief is exactly what I mean by the word faith.

Yeah, that's your bias: you slander faith by misrepresenting it as willful ignorance. That's dishonest, too.

Is this going to be like the atheism discussion, where I tell you how I use a word and you try to disallow it and call usages other than your preferred usage dishonest?

It is if you can't (or won't) recognize the difference between faith and willful ignorance.

When I write about faith, this is what I am discussing: Unjustified belief.

Go back up to the top, and start again. "Justification" is not yours to determine, for anyone else. People engage in acts of faith when they lack the sufficient facts to progress, otherwise. To willfully ignore the facts available to us is not an act of faith. It's an act of deliberate ignorance.

Again, I know that religions sometimes lie about this, and call this deliberate ignorance of the facts; "faith", but you are being just as deceitful as they are if you insist on parroting their lies, and presuming the same thing.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The words may change but the image remains, I can do without your thoughts, I think. I have faith I'll get there without them.

Therein the "equivocation fallacy". Many (maybe even most) words in the English language vary in "image" based upon context.

"Faith", for example, that:

• My car will start
• The airplane will fly
• My spouse will remain faithful
• etc

are based upon inductive and eductive reasoning; noticing past patterns; having knowledge about how things work.

Faith that:

• Jesus Saves
• I'm going to Nirvana when I ascend
• My Father's spirit is haunting our house
• 70 virgins await me in the afterlife

... within these contexts, "faith" takes on an entirely different meaning and are not equal, no matter how much you want them to be.

No one "has faith" that global warming is a hoax. Willful dishonesty and self-delusion is not "having faith". If the facts are available to us and we choose to ignore them, that isn't 'faith'. And to claim that it is, is just as dishonest as to claim that blind allegiance to some religious dogma, is ' having faith'.

While willful dishonesty and self-delusion is not necessarily "having faith", these tools are often used to defend a "faith" once the facts counter them.

Never said you needed faith to know anything. I said you need faith for fact. Like you had faith that I would know ladder, fall and ground.

Also you may not fall to the ground depending how high you are and what kind of ladder you could get caught in the rungs or ropes. The ladder could fall with you and get caught leaving you on the ladder. Some one could throw sonething to soften your fall or you could land on a bigger person. You could be in a house in which case you would fall on the floor not ground. But whatever because whenever you fall off a ladder its a fact you'll hit the ground. My sister fell out of a tree and broke her arm on a table. Was that a known fact before it happened.

• Not the same kind of "faith" that you imply; this is not needed for "fact".
• "Faith", in the same context that you assert, is not needed for me to surmise that you know "ladder, ground" and "fall". This is observable through your communication that it seems very apparent that you understand the English language; thus understanding the English language and having a modicum of intelligence, it required only deductive/inductive reasoning that you would know these words. No mystical "faith" required.
• I may not "know" how you will fall, or if you will be coincidentally saved from your fall from the ladder by your suspenders getting caught. But I do "know" that your fall will follow the laws of physics.
• It was a "fact" before your sister fell that she would be pulled towards the greater mass. It was a "fact" before she fell that wood is stronger than bone, thus striking the table, the weaker will give way.Your example fails miserably.
• No "faith" is required to accept demonstrable, repeatable, observable facts. I've never seen anything fall "up".I do not need "faith" to know which direction a thing will travel when it looses support or balance. Asserting that I somehow do is absurd.

 

[PureX]

While willful dishonesty and self-delusion is not necessarily "having faith", these tools are often used to defend a "faith" once the facts counter them.

But none of this has anything to do with faith. These are dishonest misrepresentations masquerading as faith. If I dress up like Barack Obama and rob a bank, that doesn't mean Barack Obama robs banks. Yet because some religions falsely claim that "faith" is a blind adherence to their absolute authority and their ideological dogma, a lot of people think faith is bad religion.