What is Faith?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems reasonable to allow people their own descriptions of faith. This was faith for Bonhoeffer. I offered it for reflection, and because his statement resonates with my own view of faith.

So, I disagree with what you wrote above. Faith is, for me, among other things, living unreservedly. Why is it difficult to understand that the experience of faith, for many, is a rich and nuanced phenomenon?

I think it's one thing to suggest that faith can motivate a person to live a particular way. I've got no issue with that at all.

The issue I have is that, IMO, it apparently gives a blanket declaration that "living unreservedly" implies faith in God. As someone who tries to live unreservedly but doesn't have faith in God, I think this needlessly intrudes onto my ability to describe faith in my own way... which is something you say is reasonable.

So do only "people of faith" get to define "faith"? Or do those of us who have examined faith and rejected it also get a say?

 

[Magic Man]

Yes it does. Your (actually Meow Mix's) random reason theory is not what I'm talking about. We are not talking about the probability that something is true, or whether it is really 'true' or not. You're putting the cart before the horse, living in the past and the future, trying to eat the cake before it's baked or other such idioms.

What are you talking about? We're talking about the difference between using reason and faith to find truth. Faith means just believing something without evidence. That's like throwing darts blindfolded. Reason means collecting evidence and determining a conclusion.

'There is no spoon' means a lot more than 'there is no spoon'. Yes, we know there is no spoon. But because there is no spoon, what does that mean?

I ask these questions because this is an aspect of what faith teaches you.

You seem to be missing my point. My point was that is an example of something profound that's actually profound and has meaning when you think about it. Unlike your deepities.

If I used a different word, I'd just be making up a meaning. I didn't just make this up, as many of you think I did.

Whether you made it up or you're using someone else's made up definition doesn't matter. The fact is it's a completely different definition than the standard one for the word, and therefore a different term should be used to avoid confusion (yes, to avoid confusion, because confusion is a bad thing when you're trying to communicate with someone).

Faith is trust or confidence. Faith is also belief without evidence. Both definitions are true, both are valid, and both can be used whenever you like.

Both can be used whenever you like, sure, but depending on when you use them you might be using them incorrectly and you might be hindering communication.

Because you don't think faith in god is the same thing as trust in god doesn't mean I don't.

That's true, but I'm not worried about what you think as much as what's true. It's a fact that the "faith" in "faith in God" is not the same as the "faith" in "faith in your friends".

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that its true.

No, my opinion doesn't change anything, but my opinion is based on the facts, which are true.

 

[Magic Man]

I'll never get over the arrogance of that question.

:spit: OK, well you have fun trying to communicate with people then, if you think telling someone using "shoe" to mean "zebra" is incorrect is arrogant. Good luck with that.

You have not allowed the definitions to be equivalent when talking about God. Why?

Because they're not equivalent. I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you say that it is logical?

It's a coherent, internally consistent statement. Maybe it's factually incorrect, but that's a separate question.

Anyhow, like I said, you can't show that the statement "God is" is true, so it doesn't fit the criteria for what I asked for.

I try not to set those limits, but being like everyone else, I have to so...
Knowledge, as I explained to Meow Mix earlier, is better defined as knowledge of self, rather than the physical world in which we live. It can be used that way, but it doesn't get you very far.

When you set knowledge like that, you are the parameter for knowledge. How would you define yourself?

Your definition is circular. You defined knowledge in terms of knowledge.

Also, it didn't answer the question. Here's what I'm getting at: how do you tell the difference between knowledge and non-knowledge? How would you finish the sentence "____ is/is not knowledge because of ____"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Depends. Did you rename 'leg' into something different?

No, you didn't - that's the point. Simply choosing to use a word in a non-standard way doesn't change its definition, especially when you acknowledge and agree with that definition but simply choose to set it aside.

 

[Willamena]

It's a coherent, internally consistent statement.

But the logic of the statement is not what's at issue. Now who's "redefining"?

 

[Willamena]

No, you didn't - that's the point. Simply choosing to use a word in a non-standard way doesn't change its definition, especially when you acknowledge and agree with that definition but simply choose to set it aside.

That's precisely what's being referred to here as "redefining" ... or are you choosing to put that aside, now?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the logic of the statement is not what's at issue. Now who's "redefining"?

No, the logic of the statement is very much at issue:

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

 

[Willamena]

Also, it didn't answer the question. Here's what I'm getting at: how do you tell the difference between knowledge and non-knowledge? How would you finish the sentence "____ is/is not knowledge because of ____"?

We could just go with the blanks he filled in earlier: belief is not knowledge because of inherent uncertainty.

 

[Willamena]

No, the logic of the statement is very much at issue:

Then, if you only want a claim about statements, any properly constructed sentence will do.

 

[Meow Mix]

I started typing, then realized I don't even know what I'm replying to. I think this just goes to show that one of the very basics to have a conversation at all is that both parties have to understand what logic is, what reason is, and that both parties need to use them... otherwise it's simply impossible to converse anything meaningful.

 

[Willamena]

I started typing, then realized I don't even know what I'm replying to. I think this just goes to show that one of the very basics to have a conversation at all is that both parties have to understand what logic is, what reason is, and that both parties need to use them... otherwise it's simply impossible to converse anything meaningful.

Both parties' understanding is the problem. (I'm just sorry the problem has to detract from Laurie's thread.)

 

[Magic Man]

I started typing, then realized I don't even know what I'm replying to. I think this just goes to show that one of the very basics to have a conversation at all is that both parties have to understand what logic is, what reason is, and that both parties need to use them... otherwise it's simply impossible to converse anything meaningful.

But really whispers do like to fly in the evening glow, and a heart is always where it's supposed to be.

 

[Meow Mix]

But really whispers do like to fly in the evening glow, and a heart is always where it's supposed to be.

LOL. Exactly.

 

[Willamena]

LOL. Exactly.

Exactly, but without the rolly-eyes.

 

[Magic Man]

Exactly, but without the rolly-eyes.

Actually, no, the rolly eyes were the correct reaction.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, no, the rolly eyes were the correct reaction.

They always will be, Matt.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

It's a coherent, internally consistent statement. Maybe it's factually incorrect, but that's a separate question.

Anyhow, like I said, you can't show that the statement "God is" is true, so it doesn't fit the criteria for what I asked for.

You have said that logic is independent of truth, yet you ask for a criteria of truth that is solely based on logic.

Your definition is circular. You defined knowledge in terms of knowledge.

Also, it didn't answer the question. Here's what I'm getting at: how do you tell the difference between knowledge and non-knowledge? How would you finish the sentence "____ is/is not knowledge because of ____"?

Why make the distinction?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have said that logic is independent of truth, yet you ask for a criteria of truth that is solely based on logic.

For a statement to be true, it's necessary for it to be logical. However, logicality isn't sufficient for it to be true.

Anyhow, I asked you if you could give a statement that is both logical and true; have you come up with one yet? Have you given up? If you've got some other criteria for truth, then we can discuss it in the context of the statement you give us.

Why make the distinction?

If you're making claims that certain things are "knowledge", then you've already implicitly made the distinction.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

For a statement to be true, it's necessary for it to be logical. However, logicality isn't sufficient for it to be true.

Anyhow, I asked you if you could give a statement that is both illogical and true; have you come up with one yet? Have you given up? If you've got some other criteria for truth, then we can discuss it in the context of the statement you give us.

I believe my definition of knowledge fits.

If you're making claims that certain things are "knowledge", then you've already implicitly made the distinction.

Hardly. Just because I have said 'x' is knowledge, doesn't mean that something else is the exact opposite. Knowledge is above such dualistic thinking.