On Faith, Doubt, Certainty, and Uncertainty {poll added}

[Thanda]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

That did not take long.

I hope you're not referring to number two since I'm sure you understand that proof and evidence are not the same thing.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I hope you're not referring to number two since I'm sure you understand that proof and evidence are not the same thing.

Of course.....

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Big difference right there.

 

[Thanda]

Of course.....

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Big difference right there.

Yes, big enough. In an effort to convict a suspect a policeman will gather evidence. But a lawyer is still required to argue in a court of law why the evidence proves that the suspect is in fact guilty of the crime he is being accused of - indeed if the evidence was itself proof then there would be no need for lawyers as the policeman himself could simply present the evidence and the case could then be decided

As to our discussion it therefore remains true that faith is belief without proof, but not without evidence. Indeed without evidence it would be impossible for people to believe.

If you have ever been lost or have been unsure of a route to take. You may have asked someone in the area for directions. It would be impracticable or at least very cumbersome for you to prove that the route he is suggesting to you is correct before you act on is correct. But his word and the fact that you found him in the area is sufficient evidence, maybe even for you, that the route he is suggesting will lead you to your destination.

So take note that evidence and proof may be similar but they do not denote the same thing.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Yes, big enough. In an effort to convict a suspect a policeman will gather evidence. But a lawyer is still required to argue in a court of law why the evidence proves that the suspect is in fact guilty of the crime he is being accused of - indeed if the evidence was itself proof then there would be no need for lawyers as the policeman himself could simply present the evidence and the case could then be decided

As to our discussion it therefore remains true that faith is belief without proof, but not without evidence. Indeed without evidence it would be impossible for people to believe.

If you have ever been lost or have been unsure of a route to take. You may have asked someone in the area for directions. It would be impracticable or at least very cumbersome for you to prove that the route he is suggesting to you is correct before you act on is correct. But his word and the fact that you found him in the area is sufficient evidence, maybe even for you, that the route he is suggesting will lead you to your destination.

So take note that evidence and proof may be similar but they do not denote the same thing.

In any case.

Belief without proof is still illogical.

 

[crossfire]

In any case.

Belief without proof is still illogical.

Is extending and assuming "good faith" (sincerity) illogical?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Is extending and assuming "good faith" (sincerity) illogical?

Yes.

 

[crossfire]

Yes.

It's illogical to extend to assumption of good faith to another party in a business transaction?

 

[George-ananda]

I'm interested in hearing about what people think about the following, including any critiques to the logic employed. Thanks.

Truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Untruths are exposed by doubt and questioning. (Truth can stand on its own--lies need to be propped up.)
If both Truth and Untruth are revealed by doubt and questioning, then Uncertainty is the way of revealing, and Certainty is the way of not revealing.

Therefore, Faith and Doubt are both necessary to arrive at Truth. Shutting down questioning and Doubt weakens Faith in that it artificially props it up like a lie instead of allowing it to stand on its own and be further revealed.​

This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that Uncertainty is strengthening and Certainty is weakening.

Please feel free to punch holes is this--to expose any errors.

Thanks.

I basically concur on the above. Hopefully though, we do come to a point where we do become confidant in some knowledge beyond uncertainty. I feel fortunate in that my beliefs now (after much thought and consideration of the evidence) stand up to my own open-minded skepticism and I am very comfortable in my beliefs.

 

[George-ananda]

I basically concur on the above. Hopefully though, we do come to a point where we do become confidant in some knowledge beyond uncertainty. I feel fortunate in that my beliefs now (after much thought and consideration of the evidence) stand up to my own open-minded skepticism and I am very comfortable in my beliefs.

In fact I would add that 'uncertainty has made me more certain'.

 

[viole]

In any case.

Belief without proof is still illogical.

Do you believe there in life outside this planet?

Or do you believe there is life only on this planet?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

More probable is still faith. And you'd still be surprised at how often you take most of the knowledge you live you life on for granted without ever questioning it. If you could quantify how much knowledge you have gained and which you use to live you life it would become pretty clear to you quite quickly that it is impossible to confirm or even take time to make an evaluation of the probabilities of every thing that influences your daily choices.

You are equivocating trust with faith. People do place their trust in various systems not faith.

 

[atanu]

Thank you for pointing this out. Faith that Truth will stand up to questioning and Doubt, which keeps dialog open. If Faith cannot face Doubt, is it truly Faith? (Sorry, I should have made this point clearer.)

If there is faith that truth will stand up to questioning, where is doubt?

 

[crossfire]

If there is faith that truth will stand up to questioning, where is doubt?

Doubt is the one doing the questioning.

 

[atanu]

Doubt is the one doing the questioning.

Are you then talking of two persons? One has a faith that truth will stand up to scrutiny. And another questions because of doubt?

I am seeking to clear my doubt.

 

[1137]

I agree. When we start pretending we're certain about something we stop learning about it.

 

[crossfire]

Are you then talking of two persons? One has a faith that truth will stand up to scrutiny. And another questions because of doubt?

I am seeking to clear my doubt.

Then keep on questioning!

 

[atanu]

Then keep on questioning!

Yeah. But If one has faith in truth one has faith, IMO. Now the question is about the means.

 

[Thanda]

You are equivocating trust with faith. People do place their trust in various systems not faith.

Indeed, faith does encompass trust. In fact, from a religious perspective, faith is almost always associated with trust. Having faith in Jesus Christ is trusting him. Having faith in God is trusting God.

 

[crossfire]

Yeah. But If one has faith in truth one has faith, IMO. Now the question is about the means.

I did say that both Faith and Doubt are necessary in the OP, but many of the other members who have posted in this thread are doubtful about that.

 

[Quintessence]

Truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Untruths are exposed by doubt and questioning. (Truth can stand on its own--lies need to be propped up.)
If both Truth and Untruth are revealed by doubt and questioning, then Uncertainty is the way of revealing, and Certainty is the way of not revealing.
Therefore, Faith and Doubt are both necessary to arrive at Truth. Shutting down questioning and Doubt weakens Faith in that it artificially props it up like a lie instead of allowing it to stand on its own and be further revealed.

If I follow the OP understanding of truth as intended, the truth becomes what I tend to call the territory. If truth is the territory, then it describes reality as it is, or is "the way things are." Barring ontological scenarios that question the existence of the territory, then, it indeed "stands on its own" as it were, in the sense that it is not interpretation-dependent. It is what it is.

Framing what untruth is with the above understanding becomes problematic. The thing with territory is that given humans are not omniscient or omnipotent, our understanding of the territory is always a map. It is not a "this is what is" or "the way things are" but rather a "this is how things appear to me/us given a limited perspective." As no map is the territory, or the truth, all maps can be "exposed" as "untruths." All maps are "propped up" with territory, but none are the territory (aka, The Truth) and cannot themselves stand on their own without making assumptions.

An issue aside - I don't agree with limiting the notion of truth to the territory, or that which is. It eliminates the relational, perceptual, and sensual natures of our experiences.

This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that Uncertainty is strengthening and Certainty is weakening.

There was a thread in the Mysticism DIR a while back about something related to this. I recall going against the there popular notion that uncertainty is wiser or "strengthening," because one simply won't walk down certain roads without the necessary roadbeds in place. Imagine if the cells in our bodies would be stuck in a perpetual undetermined state - we would all still be masses of stem cells, incapable of cellular differentiation and thus development into matured biological organisms. There'd be no muscles, no neurons, no skin, no bones, none of it. Yet certainty - determinedness - is weakening?

Nay. There are strengths/weaknesses in all things, the assessment of which depends much on values and perspective.