What is Faith?

[strikeviperMKII]

I just wanted to come back to this for a minute. You think the reason we're not understanding you is that we're not trying to and the fault is not with your communication. Let's take an example. You think your ideas are complex and profound, and that's the problem with the understanding.

My ideas aren't really that complex. Hard to accept, but not complex.

An example of such an idea would be "There is no spoon" from The Matrix. That's a sort of deep, complex idea expressed in language that at first makes you say "Huh?". Yet most of us understand that after thinking about it for a minute, even though you have to think differently and outside the box.

And just what does 'there is no spoon' mean?

You seem to think your "God is a relationship" assertion is on the level of that example, but it's not. It's not that we think your ideas are irrational because they're complex, or different or outside the box. It's that you're not communicating effectively. Again, if you just use a different word instead of God, all this could be cleared up. You could say "I believe in gomp", and we'd say "Oh, what's gomp?", and you could explain without confusing things by using a word we already use for something completely different.

Oh, the word God was messed up long before I had anything to do with it. You're still not getting the bigger picture here, i.e. you're not thinking outside the box.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Can you explain how either of the terms "logical" or "true" can be applied to any of these things?

Life is not always logical. Experience is not always logical. Both happen, do they not? Then they are both true.

You don't want to be constrained by one definition? Then why the complaints that we're not acknowledging your definition? You would need to have one before anyone could acknowledge it.

Quite right. I don't like to be constrained by a definition, but you do have to start somewhere. So I gave one a while back as a starting point.

Why would you say that?

Confusion means you are trying to grow. Allowing such confusion is allowing growth.

Growth of a person is a good thing. Growth of other things (e.g. tumours) is bad. "Growth" of a message from beyond the intended meaning is not universally a good thing. In fact, more often than not, I'd say it gets in the way.

I am speaking of personal growth. What you said here is a very good example of an idea 'growing too far'.

And your position doesn't exactly seem to treat growth as a good thing like you claim here. For instance, growth of knowledge is dependent on differentiating true things from false things, but you seem to be opposed to this.

Not opposed. I take a different view on knowledge. I would call it a more encompassing view, actually. Knowledge is telling what is false from what is true, I would agree with that. But what is false and what is true is not always that easy to find.

I say stop looking, and they'll find you.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If an irrational belief is nonsensical, then it shouldn't be held. It abandons the epistemic duties to hold a belief without justification.

And what would happen if a person did this? What would a person who abandons their epistemic duties?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Life is not always logical. Experience is not always logical. Both happen, do they not? Then they are both true.

Could you give an example of a situation where either life or experience is "not logical"?

Quite right. I don't like to be constrained by a definition, but you do have to start somewhere. So I gave one a while back as a starting point.

... that God is "a relationship"?

Confusion means you are trying to grow. Allowing such confusion is allowing growth.

I think you're half right: confusion is a sign that you're pushing your limits, but the confusion itself is an impediment to growth. As your knowledge expands, confusion pushes back.

I am speaking of personal growth. What you said here is a very good example of an idea 'growing too far'.

Ah... so you do agree that too much "growth" can be a bad thing.

Not opposed. I take a different view on knowledge. I would call it a more encompassing view, actually.

Since it apparently encompasses invalid things, I would be inclined to agree.

Knowledge is telling what is false from what is true, I would agree with that. But what is false and what is true is not always that easy to find.

Especially not when one throws away the tools we have to do this.

I say stop looking, and they'll find you.

I nominate this for deepity of the day.

 

[Meow Mix]

And what would happen if a person did this? What would a person who abandons their epistemic duties?

They'll believe irrational things and be unable to discern truth from falsity, sense from nonsense, and the profound from the asinine.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

They'll believe irrational things and be unable to discern truth from falsity, sense from nonsense, and the profound from the asinine.

So, pretty much most members of our species.

 

[Magic Man]

My ideas aren't really that complex. Hard to accept, but not complex.

OK, then why can't you express them simply?

And just what does 'there is no spoon' mean?

To me it seems to indicate that there is no actual spoon, just something our mind forms into what we call a spoon.

Oh, the word God was messed up long before I had anything to do with it. You're still not getting the bigger picture here, i.e. you're not thinking outside the box.

Yes, it was, but that doesn't mean you need to complicate and distort things further. There is no bigger picture to get. If you want me to understand something explain it to me in real terms.

 

[Magic Man]

Knowledge is telling what is false from what is true, I would agree with that. But what is false and what is true is not always that easy to find.

That's true, but that's where reason and rational thinking come in. You're definitely not going to have much luck distinguishing what's true from what's false if you're not using reason.

I nominate this for deepity of the day.

I'll second that, although he's had a few good ones today. Also, your link doesn't work (and I don't think it's just me). That's a great new word, too. I'll have to put that one in the old memory bank.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I didn't mention ghosts I mentioned paranormal entities or unexplained supranatural phenomena that are frequently captured on imaging devices and other instruments...they are a part of reality as these images and the anecdotes of people suggest...whatever they actually are or represent...is another question...but the evidence exists whatever the conclusions of the empirical data.

You can do what mainstream science does and pretend it isnt happening in situations where the scientific explantions have been exhausted and there is no scientifc explantion for an image or video recording of phenomena...relegating the supranatural to the realm of fringe scientists, mediums, occultists and enthusiasts.

But that in my opinion just shows how useless the scientific method is when confronted with particular aspects of greater reality.

Yes the scientific word view can estimate its own inaccuracy an edge on other world views but it cannot qualify what cannot be observed under scientific conditions.

I have never seen a picture or a piece of footage that could not be explained by "mundane" causes, and like I said in my previous post; "copious amounts of irrefutable evidence". Yup. That's what you'd need.

Images can be faked, misinterpreted (often wilfully) and generally misunderstood by those who take them, and anecdotes, even if we suppose that people are honest (I don't) are just anecdotes and given that I know how easily the mind can be subject to suggestion there is little reason to take these accounts at face value.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I have never seen a picture or a piece of footage that could not be explained by "mundane" causes, and like I said in my previous post; "copious amounts of irrefutable evidence". Yup. That's what you'd need.

Images can be faked, misinterpreted (often wilfully) and generally misunderstood by those who take them, and anecdotes, even if we suppose that people are honest (I don't) are just anecdotes and given that I know how easily the mind can be subject to suggestion there is little reason to take these accounts at face value.

You patently do not know what you are talking about, image and other wise, there is much easily available to anyone interested enough that professional scientists have documented but not formulated yet an explanation for..and as for assuming everyone who reports unsual incidents is either lying, 'mistaken' or insane...that is statistically unlikely.

Your assumptions are not based on either logic or evidence...they are articles of faith.

 

[Willamena]

And what would happen if a person did this? What would a person who abandons their epistemic duties?

There is no such beast, "epistemic duty". Epistomology does not prescribe what or how we must think.

 

[Willamena]

Can you explain how either of the terms "logical" or "true" can be applied to any of these things?

Logic requires premises and conclusions. Life doesn't.

 

[Meow Mix]

There is no such beast, "epistemic duty". Epistomology does not prescribe what or how we must think.

Epistemology is doxastic and hinges on the desire to approach truth. If one desires to approach truth they have epistemic duties. If they don't, then they might as well spin in circles or launch themselves out of a catapult because they won't be able to achieve anything, including mastering language to speak to other people or come to the conclusion that other people exist to interact with them.

The funny thing is that nearly all people value those things, and so have already entangled themselves in doxastic epistemic duty. Thus they contradict themselves in the most absurd way possible when they abandon those duties. There's a word for this behavior; it's called "irrational."

 

[Meow Mix]

Logic requires premises and conclusions. Life doesn't.

No statements can be made about life without logic and reason.

Your statement above utilizes reason.

For someone to truly abandon the utility of reason and to declare that there are other methods to knowledge or truth than reason, you couldn't even get that far.

 

[lunamoth]

One cannot have "truth" without faith.

You can have "facts," and "data" and "what works," but to have truth you need faith. And I do not just mean truth about a higher being, God, or the supernatural.

To have truth of any kind depends on trusting that there is a connection between reality and our subjective reason.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You patently do not know what you are talking about, image and other wise, there is much easily available to anyone interested enough that professional scientists have documented but not formulated yet an explanation for..

Oh, I know about many phenomena that science cannot explain yet, but out of focus spots of light on pictures taken by "ghosthunters" are not among them.

and as for assuming everyone who reports unsual incidents is either lying, 'mistaken' or insane...that is statistically unlikely.

I think most people are stupid, ignorant of how their sense can be fooled, attention seeking, prone to be fooled by their first impressions, ignorant about science, and pathologically unable to think critically about their own beliefs and views.

Oh, and please be more original than saying something to the effect of "well, so are you..."

Your assumptions are not based on either logic or evidence...they are articles of faith.

If anything they are articles of lack of faith, but there you are...

Let me give you an example:
My brother dated this girl a while back who was convinced that her apartment was haunted, apparently because she thought that small objects disappeared and then reappeared somewhere else. She found them in different places than she remembered putting them.
My brother is just as much of a sceptic as I am so he flat out told her that it was more likely that the government had agents breaking in to her apartment on a weekly basis to move things around as part of some sick experiment.
She responded that that was ridiculous and so improbable that the thought itself was silly.
And she was right, of course. But what she didn't realize was that her ghostly suggestion was EVEN MORE improbable and silly for one simple reason; We know that my brother's suggestion is at least PHYSICALLY possible and we know that both governments and their agents do really exist, whereas ghosts on the other hand... Not so much.

So in short; Show me the irrefutable evidence. Otherwise all you have is another fairytale.

 

[Willamena]

Epistemology is doxastic and hinges on the desire to approach truth. If one desires to approach truth they have epistemic duties. If they don't, then they might as well spin in circles or launch themselves out of a catapult because they won't be able to achieve anything, including mastering language to speak to other people or come to the conclusion that other people exist to interact with them.

The funny thing is that nearly all people value those things, and so have already entangled themselves in doxastic epistemic duty. Thus they contradict themselves in the most absurd way possible when they abandon those duties. There's a word for this behavior; it's called "irrational."

Plain English, please. It's all right and lovely to desire truth. It's impractical, incomplete, and often unkind, to paint humans with it (unless you're terribly idealistic). Each of us does desire and approach truth; epistemology, as the study of how we do that, does not dictate how we do that.

 

[Willamena]

No statements can be made about life without logic and reason.

Your statement above utilizes reason.

For someone to truly abandon the utility of reason and to declare that there are other methods to knowledge or truth than reason, you couldn't even get that far.

Life can exist just fine without having statements made about it.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Plain English, please. It's all right and lovely to desire truth. It's impractical, incomplete, and often unkind, to paint humans with it (unless you're terribly idealistic). Each of us does desire and approach truth; epistemology, as the study of how we do that, does not dictate how we do that.

The truth is whatever can be most probably is.

 

[Meow Mix]

One cannot have "truth" without faith.

You can have "facts," and "data" and "what works," but to have truth you need faith. And I do not just mean truth about a higher being, God, or the supernatural.

To have truth of any kind depends on trusting that there is a connection between reality and our subjective reason.

I agree, but I don't think anyone has ever disputed this context of the word "faith." It's those other ones that we object to... the unjustified ones.