What is Faith?

[Meow Mix]

Art can most definitely bring to light Knowledge and Truth of Self foremost,
and in'sight into almost any other topic of life besides.
(particularly relational truths)

Note: Subjective truths are truths in relation to the Subject "I've".

EDIT: and "gnosis" is sudden knowing.
(even before any logical reasoning is applied)

"Truth of self" is sort of ambiguous, but as far as I can guess it either means our aesthetic perceptions (which is not knowledge, but qualia) or analyzing ourselves for how we interpret the piece in question (which sounds like rational inquiry to me).

As for gnosis being "sudden knowing," before reasoning is applied, is this the same concept as a priori reasoning?

 

[blackout]

"Truth of self" is sort of ambiguous, but as far as I can guess it either means our aesthetic perceptions (which is not knowledge, but qualia) or analyzing ourselves for how we interpret the piece in question (which sounds like rational inquiry to me).

As for gnosis being "sudden knowing," before reasoning is applied, is this the same concept as a priori reasoning?

I wouldn't know.
This is not a part of my meaningful vocabulary.

I would call it more a sudden flash of insight.
Like a lightbulb going off.
Or like Edison maybe, KNOWING he could make a lightbulb work
to the extent that he would not give up until he found a fillament
that supported what only he himself was so dedicatedly sure of.
(which would be proven knowledge/gnosis/insight/conviction
or REALized realization,
by experimentation, as opposed to reason)

 

[Willamena]

Many, many, many theists use that definition and equivocate it with other more reasonable contexts of faith. It's a very relevant context to combat when discussing the matter.

And no one's disputing that.

But if you want to actually talk to people, a good place to start is with listening.

 

[blackout]

I wouldn't know.
This is not a part of my meaningful vocabulary.

I would call it more a sudden flash of insight.
Like a lightbulb going off.
Or like Edison maybe, KNOWING he could make a lightbulb work
to the extent that he would not give up until he found a fillament
that supported what only he himself was so dedicatedly sure of.
(which would be proven knowledge/gnosis/insight/conviction
or REALized realization,
by experimentation, as opposed to reason)

If people never believed the "unbelievable" into being,
there are so many wonderful things we would not have today.
From "impossible" inventions to "incredible" artistic feats
and "unbelievable" athletic 'impossibilities'.

Sometimes as an artist, you just do, and do,
and you watch things evolve around you.
(pictures son with a hula hoop) :clap
Sometimes you just learn a new thing by accident.

 

[lunamoth]

But if you want to actually talk to people, a good place to start is with listening.

And listening is an act of love. :yes:

 

[blackout]

And listening is an act of love. :yes:

Or an indication of interest.

 

[lunamoth]

Many, many, many theists use that definition and equivocate it with other more reasonable contexts of faith. It's a very relevant context to combat when discussing the matter.

I see your point MM, and I think it is valid in debate.

However, "belief without evidence" is a very narrow definition to work from, and far from captures what faith is to the majority who have faith in God. Note that in the poll there is very little emphasis on intellectual assent.

Most people of faith I know have evidence that they find reasonable, even if it is not convincing to someone coming from a skeptical position. It is not uncomparable to the evidence we have for falling in love. I acknowledge the unbalanced metaphor - you can see and touch the person I say I love. But, the evidence for why I love that person can not be reduced to logic and based on empirical facts. It is based upon my unique experience of that person.

And, to answer the objection before raised by someone else, is it love if you are compelled by biology/genetics/the selfish gene? Is it reasonable if you really have no choice but to love that person because of the chain of determining events the preceded your relationship, or is love not reasonable? Is love not valid or reasonable if it is 'only qualia?'

 

[lunamoth]

Or an indication of interest.

Hey! You got post #666! Congratulations!

:band:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see your point MM, and I think it is valid in debate.

However, "belief without evidence" is a very narrow definition to work from, and far from captures what faith is to the majority who have faith in God. Note that in the poll there is very little emphasis on intellectual assent.

I've heard the narrow definition from theists often. IMO, I think it's done as a way to spin what would otherwise be a failing of their belief system into some sort of twisted virtue.

Most people of faith I know have evidence that they find reasonable, even if it is not convincing to someone coming from a skeptical position. It is not uncomparable to the evidence we have for falling in love. I acknowledge the unbalanced metaphor - you can see and touch the person I say I love. But, the evidence for why I love that person can not be reduced to logic and based on empirical facts. It is based upon my unique experience of that person.

But even this is still addressable by some level of rational inquiry: if you say that you love someone because he's handsome, if we see that he's actually two-bag ugly*, we can say that there's something wrong in your explanation.

Love or faith might not be reducible to empirical facts, but they still have to allow for the facts at hand for them to be considered true.



*"Two-bag ugly" is the kind of ugly where you wear a paper bag over your own head as well, just in case the bag on the other person falls off.

 

[Meow Mix]

I see your point MM, and I think it is valid in debate.

However, "belief without evidence" is a very narrow definition to work from, and far from captures what faith is to the majority who have faith in God. Note that in the poll there is very little emphasis on intellectual assent.

Yes, but I have a theory (layman's theory, not scientific ) on why: many who feel free to answer "faith" to the question "Why do you believe a god exists" are actually using it as intellectual assent but they also almost always engage in massive equivocation between that and some more reasonable context of the term (such as confidence/trust).

Here's how the typical faith conversations I've ever had go down:

Skeptic: What's the evidence that God exists?
Theist: I have faith.
Skeptic: But belief without evidence is irrational.
Theist: But you have faith too. (Begins engaging in equivocation about confidence the sun will rise, trust in scientific method, etc.)
Skeptic: But all you're doing here is equivocating that original, irrational context of faith for more rational contexts of faith as if they're the same thing, but they're not.

I think it's probably pretty likely that (judging from the number of times I've had some variation of the above conversation) many of the people who did NOT check "intellectual assernt" realize on some level how absurd that is, and so checked one of the other contexts -- but statistically (from my experience) I bet they will still equivocate them in the future.

Most people of faith I know have evidence that they find reasonable, even if it is not convincing to someone coming from a skeptical position. It is not uncomparable to the evidence we have for falling in love. I acknowledge the unbalanced metaphor - you can see and touch the person I say I love. But, the evidence for why I love that person can not be reduced to logic and based on empirical facts. It is based upon my unique experience of that person.

And, to answer the objection before raised by someone else, is it love if you are compelled by biology/genetics/the selfish gene? Is it reasonable if you really have no choice but to love that person because of the chain of determining events the preceded your relationship, or is love not reasonable? Is love not valid or reasonable if it is 'only qualia?'

The feeling of falling in love indeed might not be caused by some logic process or from rational inquiry; it's just a qualia. But you see, there are two different contexts here:

"I feel the feeling of being in love"

"The thing I love exists"

Nobody disputes that theists probably feel something magical to them. I don't doubt that at all. It's when we ask for evidence for the second thingy that things start falling apart, and for whatever reason many (MANY) theists will still respond "faith" as "evidence" for that second one.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but I have a theory (layman's theory, not scientific ) on why: many who feel free to answer "faith" to the question "Why do you believe a god exists" are actually using it as intellectual assent but they also almost always engage in massive equivocation between that and some more reasonable context of the term (such as confidence/trust).

Here's how the typical faith conversations I've ever had go down:

Skeptic: What's the evidence that God exists?
Theist: I have faith.
Skeptic: But belief without evidence is irratiol.
Theist: But you have faith too. (Begins engaging in equivocation about confidence the sun will rise, trust in scientific method, etc.)
Skeptic: But all you're doing here is equivocating that original, irrational context of faith for more rational contexts of faith as if they're the same thing, but they're not.

I think it's probably pretty likely that (judging from the number of times I've had some variation of the above conversation) many of the people who did NOT check "intellectual assernt" realize on some level how absurd that is, and so checked one of the other contexts -- but statistically (from my experience) I bet they will still equivocate them in the future.

Faith as equivocation of the poll options given is yet another option, yes. :yes:

 

[lunamoth]

Nobody disputes that theists probably feel something magical to them. I don't doubt that at all. It's when we ask for evidence for the second thingy that things start falling apart, and for whatever reason many (MANY) theists will still respond "faith" as "evidence" for that second one.

Well, to me it does not at all feel like something magical. To me it feels like a choice.

 

[lunamoth]

*"Two-bag ugly" is the kind of ugly where you wear a paper bag over your own head as well, just in case the bag on the other person falls off.

LOL! :badger::badger::badger:

 

[lunamoth]

But even this is still addressable by some level of rational inquiry: if you say that you love someone because he's handsome, if we see that he's actually two-bag ugly*, we can say that there's something wrong in your explanation.

There would not be something wrong in my explanation. There would be something missing in your perspective.

 

[Magic Man]

I see your point MM, and I think it is valid in debate.

However, "belief without evidence" is a very narrow definition to work from, and far from captures what faith is to the majority who have faith in God. Note that in the poll there is very little emphasis on intellectual assent.

As has been said already, theists tend to use that definition when saying "I have faith in God". Then they equivocate with the other meanings of the term to try to make themselves feel better about faith. They use poetic words and equivocate with "trust and confidence" because that makes it sound cool and virtuous, instead of just what it really is, which is believing something without evidence.

I'm not surprised there is little emphasis on intellectual assent in the poll. I'm guessing it was mostly theists who voted, and so they're just doing what I mentioned above. Those other definitions sound so much better, and make faith sound like something good, so they go with them.

Most people of faith I know have evidence that they find reasonable, even if it is not convincing to someone coming from a skeptical position. It is not uncomparable to the evidence we have for falling in love. I acknowledge the unbalanced metaphor - you can see and touch the person I say I love. But, the evidence for why I love that person can not be reduced to logic and based on empirical facts. It is based upon my unique experience of that person.

First, evidence that they find reasonable is not the same as reasonable objective evidence. Most of the time, those same people even use different definitions of evidence for most other things in their lives. They apply a more vague definition to evidence when it's about God than when it's about who beat up their son. They also don't apply the same standard for evidence when dealing with other religions. That's the biggest problem to me, is that it's not so much that I'm expecting them to use my standard for evidence. I'm expecting them to use their own standard for evidence when it comes to pretty much everything other than God.

Second, knowing when you're in love is quite a bit different from believing some thing exists in reality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There would not be something wrong in my explanation. There would be something missing in your perspective.

Sure... if there was something wrong with my reasoning.

 

[lunamoth]

Sure... if there was something wrong with my reasoning.

If there was something lacking in your experience.

 

[Willamena]

If there was something lacking in your experience.

(In my own words) ...lacking in your picture, the way you've put the bits of information that make up the world together.

 

[Willamena]

Sure... if there was something wrong with my reasoning.

"Ugly" is an aesthetic assessment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there was something lacking in your experience.

... IOW, if I didn't have full posession of the relevant facts?

"Ugly" is an aesthetic assessment.

Yeah... it probably wasn't the best example, but hopefully you see the point I was getting at.

As an example that hopefully works a bit better... if a person says that he loves someone because she's generous and kind to animals, but in reality she lives off money she steals from charities and she kicks any animal that comes with boot-range of her, we can say there's something wrong in the explanation: his love is either not based on what he says it is, or he's used false facts as the basis of his love.