What is Faith?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Logic requires premises and conclusions. Life doesn't.

... which is why I wonder how StrikeViper would be able to say that life is "illogical". Illogic requires premises and conclusions as well... faulty ones, but it still requires them.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

Abandoning reason is a pretty flagrant kick to the face of epistemic duty, which requires its use.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

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.

And that is supposed to convince me you are thinking rationally is it?

Fascinating...

Yet your brothers suggestion is entirely illogical...albeit physically possible.
What you are forgetting is your subjective position as a non witness a non observer to the apartment during the 'activities' as they were alleged to have taken place.
You speak from a position of ignorance...as your brother did....as she did..(only she was right to laugh at your brothers suggestion)..as we do...

You must also then to verify and theorise your brother's hypothesis by showing that it is indeed common practice by government agencies all over the planet to break in to random people's houses and re arrange household items for no particular reason...good luck with that one mate.

 

[Meow Mix]

You must also then to verify and theorise your brother's hypothesis by showing that it is indeed common practice by government agencies all over the planet to break in to random people's houses and re arrange household items for no particular reason...good luck with that one mate.

Is there verification that "ghosts" rearrange household items for no particular reason? I think the point of the "government" analogy was a physical example of occam's razor: we know that other people exist but the evidence that this proposed new entity ("ghosts") is the culprit is pretty shortcoming.

Given a phenomenon, is it more reasonable to conjure up new players on the chessboard or to investigate whether the known pieces "dun it?"

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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

This discussion, perhaps?

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.

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

All things in balance. Too much of anything causes misconceptions. Like these:

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

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

I nominate this for deepity of the day.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

... which is why I wonder how StrikeViper would be able to say that life is "illogical". Illogic requires premises and conclusions as well... faulty ones, but it still requires them.

Eh? You're logic can be completely correct and you can still get the wrong answer. That you base your logic off of an incorrect premise doesn't make something illogical, it just makes your conclusion faulty.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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

So basically, if we're 'illogical' truth doesn't exist anymore? Why would abandoning a human creation such as logic make truth suddenly disappear?

 

[Meow Mix]

So basically, if we're 'illogical' truth doesn't exist anymore? Why would abandoning a human creation such as logic make truth suddenly disappear?

What exists will exist regardless of your beliefs, but you won't be able to know about it without the use of reason.

Also, logic isn't a human creation. We create the symbols and the words to describe it, but we discover logic -- not create it.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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

Reason is not the only way to get truth. There. Simple.

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

Yeah, we knew that already. The Matrix is a computer program. A sophisticated virtual reality program that seems very real. So there really is no spoon. Now, what does it mean?

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.

I did. You didn't accept them. You kept telling me, in more words, 'you're wrong'.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

What exists will exist regardless of your beliefs, but you won't be able to know about it without the use of reason.

Also, logic isn't a human creation. We create the symbols and the words to describe it, but we discovered logic -- not create it.

If I run into a door, I will know it exists, no? Did I have to use logic to figure it out? I could have, sure, but I didn't have to. Sometimes, all you can do is run face first into the door to find out it's there.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Abandoning reason is a pretty flagrant kick to the face of epistemic duty, which requires its use.

You require logic for truth, life does not.

 

[lunamoth]

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.

But now that we agree truth is subjective, who gets to decide what is unjustified when it comes to religious experience, or any kind of personal experience for that matter?

 

[jarofthoughts]

And that is supposed to convince me you are thinking rationally is it?

Fascinating...

Yet your brothers suggestion is entirely illogical...albeit physically possible.
What you are forgetting is your subjective position as a non witness a non observer to the apartment during the 'activities' as they were alleged to have taken place.
You speak from a position of ignorance...as your brother did....as she did..(only she was right to laugh at your brothers suggestion)..as we do...

You must also then to verify and theorise your brother's hypothesis by showing that it is indeed common practice by government agencies all over the planet to break in to random people's houses and re arrange household items for no particular reason...good luck with that one mate.

Is there verification that "ghosts" rearrange household items for no particular reason? I think the point of the "government" analogy was a physical example of occam's razor: we know that other people exist but the evidence that this proposed new entity ("ghosts") is the culprit is pretty shortcoming.

Given a phenomenon, is it more reasonable to conjure up new players on the chessboard or to investigate whether the known pieces "dun it?"

Meow expressed my point exactly.
As I already mentioned, thinking that some government agency is rearranging your stuff is ridiculous, but in comparison it is much much more likely than the ghost hypothesis because it includes elements that we already know exists. And those options should be exhausted before we imply entities that lie outside our realm of knowledge.

Also, we should always remember that "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.

Of course, I am more inclined to think that she is merely forgetful and didn't remember moving her stuff to a different location, but that is beside the point of the story.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If I run into a door, I will know it exists, no? Did I have to use logic to figure it out? I could have, sure, but I didn't have to. Sometimes, all you can do is run face first into the door to find out it's there.

If you want to get scientific about it then, no, you, that is, life, wouldn't necessarily know that it exists. External stimuli requires sensory organs of some sort, organs that over evolutionary time and processes has been fine tuned in step with their development to logically deduce through trial and error what the signals they receive actually mean. The nervous system then interprets those signals according to a model of reality and initiates the appropriate response.
This model is based on simple cause and effect, the very basis of logic and thus it is as Meow pointed out, that we do not invent logic, we discover it, since logic at its very foundation is based on observations, that is external stimuli, from the world around us. Which is why even science has to start with at least one assumption to reach any form of logical conclusion; that observed reality is real.

 

[waitasec]

But now that we agree truth is subjective, who gets to decide what is unjustified when it comes to religious experience, or any kind of personal experience for that matter?

if i may,

it's unjustified when some ones religious beliefs trump another's inalienable rights...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This discussion, perhaps?

Let's try this another way:

Give me a specific claim or statement that is both illogical and true.

Eh? You're logic can be completely correct and you can still get the wrong answer. That you base your logic off of an incorrect premise doesn't make something illogical, it just makes your conclusion faulty.

Logic isn't a guarantee of truthfulness, but it is a prerequisite. Not all claims that are logically consistent are true, but all claims that are logically inconsistent are false.

 

[Willamena]

Abandoning reason is a pretty flagrant kick to the face of epistemic duty, which requires its use.

Of that, I have no doubt.

 

[Willamena]

Let's try this another way:

Give me a specific claim or statement that is both illogical and true.

"Existence exists."

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Let's try this another way:

Give me a specific claim or statement that is both illogical and true.

God is.

Logic isn't a guarantee of truthfulness, but it is a prerequisite. Not all claims that are logically consistent are true, but all claims that are logically inconsistent are false.

It is only a prerequisite because you wish it to be.

 

[Meow Mix]

"Existence exists."

That isn't illogical.