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

[crossfire]

There is no mathematical 'proof' of the existence of other planets. It was a theory until proved by evidence. People create theories with intelligent judgement (before 'proof' is possible). So it is not illogical (as you described it earlier) to sometimes believe things are highly likely before they are proven.

I'm still waiting for a link to these so-called mathematical proofs. The only thing I've heard so far is hearsay. It would be illogical for me to believe that just based on hearsay.

 

[Acim]

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 think it is erroneous to say truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. It is more like a path to arrive at truth is revealed by doubt and questioning, or having greater awareness around a more direct path to truth is found by being able to doubt and question other paths. Thus the maps/territory thing that @Quintessence brought up earlier makes sense to me.

With mathematic truths (i.e. 2+2=4), I don't see how this truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Instead, it seems to rely on certainty in the ability to properly process addition. Whereas 2+2=1 (a mathematical untruth) would be exposed by doubt and questioning. Certainty in the proper processing of addition would help expose this as an untruth. Uncertainty in how addition works would not reveal this as untruth, and could plausibly show it to be a truth.

With greater certainty comes greater authority. With less certainty comes less authority or reliability.

With authority comes truths that are deemed truths beyond question and doubt. Doesn't mean that they can't be questioned nor doubted, but that from the authoritative (or certainty) perspective, they are not worth any time or effort to entertain doubts. Hence why I didn't feel a need to explain 'proper' in the above example of processing addition. I feel the authority on that is beyond question and doubt. Intellectually, I realize it may not be, and feel I could make case for how it is possibly not, but rather adhere to the authority of it having a proper process, as that path strikes me as more direct.

 

[Acim]

Bull****.

Faith is having belief in something regardless of evidence.

Do not try to twist words to make your argument.

I see the assertion of 'faith is belief without evidence' as twisting words, and/or circular reasoning as it assumes the evidence is trustworthy. One would need to have faith/confidence in the evidence for it to be a belief that is not inherently doubtful based on the evidence being presented.

Like believing God exists because the bible says so.
Or believing the physical world exists because my physical eyes tell me so.

Both of these really just beg the question, but for the believer who rather not deal with what they consider to be trivial (or beyond doubt), the evidence is assumed to be trustworthy, and not a matter of doubt itself.

 

[Acim]

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

The top definition of most dictionary entries for faith equivocates faith with truth. The earlier entry in this thread for faith, that cited dictionary definition of the term did just that. I would love to question and share doubts with anyone who is expressing trust in something who also thinks they are in no way utilizing faith.

 

[Acim]

Anything using an assumption is illogical.

Then this assertion is inherently illogical.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I'm still waiting for a link to these so-called mathematical proofs. The only thing I've heard so far is hearsay. It would be illogical for me to believe that just based on hearsay.

Dang it, I have been trying to find the article.

But I cannot find it, so you should not believe me until I do.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Then this assertion is inherently illogical.

It is based on the support that an assumption does not use supports and is thus illogical.

Therefore my statement is valid.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I see the assertion of 'faith is belief without evidence' as twisting words, and/or circular reasoning as it assumes the evidence is trustworthy. One would need to have faith/confidence in the evidence for it to be a belief that is not inherently doubtful based on the evidence being presented.

Like believing God exists because the bible says so.
Or believing the physical world exists because my physical eyes tell me so.

Both of these really just beg the question, but for the believer who rather not deal with what they consider to be trivial (or beyond doubt), the evidence is assumed to be trustworthy, and not a matter of doubt itself.

We do not know for 100% certainty that the physical world does exist, but we can gauge that it probably does based on evidence.

The same is not true for the bible.

 

[crossfire]

It is based on the support that an assumption does not use supports and is thus illogical.

Therefore my statement is valid.

Oh, you mean the assumption that the assumption has no supports?
It may be based on inexplicable observations, witness testimony, inference, or other stuff, or any other combination thereof, which may in and of themselves may be logically true, but may be disproven with more evidence.

 

[crossfire]

I don't have aversions to Faith, and neither do I have aversions to Doubt. I love them both. (I'm a bit eccentric in that regard.)

I'm wondering how many here love BOTH Faith and Doubt, instead of loving one and hating the other? (I'll see if I can add a poll. )

 

[crossfire]

Please take a moment to answer the new poll at the top of the thread.

Thank you.

 

[Willamena]

I'm wondering how many here love BOTH Faith and Doubt, instead of loving one and hating the other? (I'll see if I can add a poll. )

They are both very shiny.

 

[idav]

There is no mathematical 'proof' of the existence of other planets. It was a theory until proved by evidence. People create theories with intelligent judgement (before 'proof' is possible). So it is not illogical (as you described it earlier) to sometimes believe things are highly likely before they are proven.

I agree with this. With all the doubt and uncertainty that exists, all we can go by is by what is highly likely when we decide to make any sort of judgement on a particular issue.

That is what science has been doing for a long time, able to make predictions before we have even gathered evidence thats convincing enough for most layman.

 

[Shad]

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.

This is not the trust people place in systems and people. As I said your are equivocating

 

[McBell]

This is not the trust people place in systems and people. As I said your are equivocating

It isn't?
How is it not the same?

 

[Thanda]

This is not the trust people place in systems and people. As I said your are equivocating

How is the trust people place in systems and people different?

 

[Shad]

The top definition of most dictionary entries for faith equivocates faith with truth. The earlier entry in this thread for faith, that cited dictionary definition of the term did just that. I would love to question and share doubts with anyone who is expressing trust in something who also thinks they are in no way utilizing faith.

Nope. Faith is based on a view which has no evidence while trust is built upon experience which is evidence.

 

[Shad]

How is the trust people place in systems and people different?

Systems exist outside a narrow religious precept. These exists for me and you regardless of what religion we are part of or not. These systems can be verified as existing without using a holy text. People exist, we can verify their existence, evaluate their acts thus evidence.

 

[Shad]

It isn't?
How is it not the same?

Faith is to follow something, or accepting it, without evidence. Trust is evidence based.

 

[Thanda]

Systems exist outside a narrow religious precept. These exists for me and you regardless of what religion we are part of or not. These systems can be verified as existing without using a holy text. People exist, we can verify their existence, evaluate their acts thus evidence.

Verifying someone's existence and trusting them are two very different (unrelated) things. We can verify Clinton's existence but trusting her? Secondly, my inability to show someone else verifiable evidence of something I know to be true doesn't make it any real the people or systems.