What is Faith?

[Willamena]

Rationality is repeatable. When have all the same facts and we arrive at different conclusions, this is an indication that at least one of us based at least part of our reasoning on something other than rational logic.

I would think the more reasonable conclusion is that we don't all have the same facts (i.e. your starting premise is wrong).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would think the more reasonable conclusion is that we don't all have the same facts (i.e. your starting premise is wrong).

Why is that more reasonable? Personally, I think that it's quite common to be faced with decisions where you can't get all the way to an answer just by logic alone.

How did you decide what to wear this morning? What led you to choose one outfit over another? If I knew the weather, your wardrobe, and the people you're going to interact with today, do you think I would've picked out the same outfit for you?

Logic only gets us to "you should wear something clean, appropriate for the weather, and suitably formal/informal for the settings you will be in". If you've got more than one outfit that fits that bill, then logic is silent beyond this.

 

[Willamena]

Why is that more reasonable?

Because logic is universal, which means everyone partakes of it. That people use logic is (at least, should be) naturally assumed because it's universal. The conclusion that resembles a contradiction is an indicator that one of the premises needs tweaking, but tweaking the stated premises that lead directly to the conclusion drawn makes more sense than tweaking an unstated premise that's universal. Like so:

1. We have all the same facts
2. We arrive at different conclusions
3. Therefore... there must be something wrong with an unstated premise no: )

Personally, I think that it's quite common to be faced with decisions where you can't get all the way to an answer just by logic alone.

How did you decide what to wear this morning? What led you to choose one outfit over another? If I knew the weather, your wardrobe, and the people you're going to interact with today, do you think I would've picked out the same outfit for you?

Sure. It's very common --we make decisions based on many things besides logic (for example rapport and conformity with other people, the authority of the information available, and because it's easy).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because logic is universal, which means everyone partakes of it. That people use logic is (at least, should be) naturally assumed because it's universal. The conclusion that resembles a contradiction is an indicator that one of the premises needs tweaking, but tweaking the stated premises that lead directly to the conclusion drawn makes more sense than tweaking an unstated premise that's universal. Like so:

1. We have all the same facts
2. We arrive at different conclusions
3. Therefore... there must be something wrong with an unstated premise no: )

I didn't say that "there must be something wrong" with this. I'm just pointing out that logic alone doesn't get us to every answer we need. There's not necessarily anything wrong with this... heck - if every decision I made had to be based solely on logic and empirical fact, then I wouldn't have been able to decide what to have for breakfast this morning.

 

[Willamena]

I didn't say that "there must be something wrong" with this. I'm just pointing out that logic alone doesn't get us to every answer we need. There's not necessarily anything wrong with this... heck - if every decision I made had to be based solely on logic and empirical fact, then I wouldn't have been able to decide what to have for breakfast this morning.

Fair enough.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

How do you know?

Because we can choose not to be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because we can choose not to be.

And that violates Asimov's Robot Laws?

How is your point relevant?

 

[Willamena]

How is your point relevant?

Agency, specifically the agency of choice. While robots may execute choice, they are not the agents of choice.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

And that violates Asimov's Robot Laws?

How is your point relevant?

How is it not?

It does violate the robot laws, which is precisely my point.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Faith is what George Michael has got to have.

 

[lunamoth]

It doesn't need to be derived exclusively from logic, but if it's going to be considered reasonable, it can't be refuted by logic.

In some cases logic is simply the wrong tool, so refutation is a non-sequitur.

Any claim of truth is subject to the facts. What you say is correct only so far as love or faith hold no claims of truth. I suppose that this might work for love, but you wouldn't be able to swing a metaphorical cat in a church on Sunday morning without hitting at least a dozen faith-based truth claims.

Any claim about 'what works' is subject to the facts. Only faith and love can have claims to truth. If you are right, there is no real thing such as 'value' except what is of value to you and there is no such thing as truth except what is true to you. If I am right then there is real truth and real value, and real reason connected to a real and rational world. You have 'what works' and your aesthetic preferences.

How do you know?

Damn it Spock! You argue against our very humanity!

 

[free spirit]

Can you give an example of something you believe in that's both illogical and reasonable?
We're saying when you believe something exists, you're supposed to have evidence for it. Something illogical can't exist. That's the entire point of logic.

Here is something written in "the way God told it" book, I hope it will help.
THE ASSURANCE OF FAITH


We know that religious faith is a conviction of something we believe in, without having tangible proof of its existence. This is also how new inventions are made: in the later case the inventor understands and believe that if he does a certain thing the device will work, and if it does, his faith is rewarded, and the new proven knowledge is shared to the advantage of all. If this is true, then we have discovered that the principle of understanding the matter is the inventor’s assurance of faith.

We should also realise that the assurance of faith for the religious person comes the same way. As we read in Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they all of us are without excuse.” Thus, believing in God, through understanding the awesome of creation, is the start of something inherently good within us. To contemplate the awesome nature of creation should humble anyone, even unbelievers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agency, specifically the agency of choice. While robots may execute choice, they are not the agents of choice.

Are we?

I mean this as a serious question. I feel like I'm an "agent of choice", but I don't think this necessarily means that I am one.

How is it not?

This isn't a contest. I'm actually trying to figure out what you're trying to say. If you want to explain your position, fine - if not, I've got no issue with leaving this conversation where it is, where I think you're just throwing random statements into the mix without regard to what they mean.

Only you can correct this impression you've created, not me. I have no additional information that will lead me to conclude that you know what you're talking about; that all has to come from you.

It does violate the robot laws, which is precisely my point.

So? Asimov didn't carry his "Laws of Robotics" down from Mount Sinai on tablets carved by the hand of God; they're just one man's opinion of how robots should behave. They aren't the be-all and end-all of what it means to be a robot. Heck - even in Asimov's own books, robots didn't always follow them.

Faith is what George Michael has got to have.

I thought that was being woken up before you go-go.

 

[Magic Man]

Here is something written in "the way God told it" book, I hope it will help.
THE ASSURANCE OF FAITH


We know that religious faith is a conviction of something we believe in, without having tangible proof of its existence.

Yes, so far, so good, although this doesn't answer my question about something illogical and reasonable. This is what I've been saying, though. It's belief without evidence.

This is also how new inventions are made: in the later case the inventor understands and believe that if he does a certain thing the device will work, and if it does, his faith is rewarded, and the new proven knowledge is shared to the advantage of all. If this is true, then we have discovered that the principle of understanding the matter is the inventor’s assurance of faith.

And now, this is just more equivocation. No, making new inventions is not the same as the faith described above. You don't have to believe anything without evidence to make new inventions. This is a different use of the word faith, and has nothing to do with the one above which is the one used concerning God.

 

[Magic Man]

Can you give an example of something you believe in that's both illogical and reasonable?

So, Luna, do I not get a response to this question?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In some cases logic is simply the wrong tool, so refutation is a non-sequitur.

In some cases, sure. But in any case where we're basing conclusions on evidence, or drawing inferences from premises, logic is present.

And logic is present even in as simple and fundamental statements as the old lyric "Jesus loves me this I know / for the Bible tells me so". Any time someone says anything of the form "this because of that", there's a logical process involved that can be examined and potentially either accepted as valid or rejected as invalid.

Any claim about 'what works' is subject to the facts.

Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say all along here.

Only faith and love can have claims to truth. If you are right, there is no real thing such as 'value' except what is of value to you and there is no such thing as truth except what is true to you. If I am right then there is real truth and real value, and real reason connected to a real and rational world. You have 'what works' and your aesthetic preferences.

I think you're using the term "real" in a way that doesn't make sense.

I am real. The value I, a real entity, place on a thing is "real" value. Same thing for you: your "atheistic preferences" are real value as much as value can be "real".

Damn it Spock! You argue against our very humanity!

No, I'm human whether I'm a "meat robot" or not. I don't feel like a "meat robot", but that doesn't mean I'm definitely not one.

In any case, you're arguing from consequences... just because we don't like the idea of being "meat robots" doesn't mean that an argument that suggests we are is necessarily false.

 

[lunamoth]

In some cases, sure. But in any case where we're basing conclusions on evidence, or drawing inferences from premises, logic is present.

And logic is present even in as simple and fundamental statements as the old lyric "Jesus loves me this I know / for the Bible tells me so". Any time someone says anything of the form "this because of that", there's a logical process involved that can be examined and potentially either accepted as valid or rejected as invalid.


Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say all along here.


I think you're using the term "real" in a way that doesn't make sense.

I am real. The value I, a real entity, place on a thing is "real" value. Same thing for you: your "atheistic preferences" are real value as much as value can be "real".


No, I'm human whether I'm a "meat robot" or not. I don't feel like a "meat robot", but that doesn't mean I'm definitely not one.

In any case, you're arguing from consequences... just because we don't like the idea of being "meat robots" doesn't mean that an argument that suggests we are is necessarily false.

All great points, 9/10ths! Thank you for the interesting conversation. Now it is time to celebrate God's love for us rather than debate. Have a great holiday season, and great season of reason!

Cheers!

 

[Meow Mix]

We know that religious faith is a conviction of something we believe in, without having tangible proof of its existence.

Here we have another example of faith as "belief without evidence." This is irrational.

This is also how new inventions are made: in the later case the inventor understands and believe that if he does a certain thing the device will work, and if it does, his faith is rewarded, and the new proven knowledge is shared to the advantage of all. If this is true, then we have discovered that the principle of understanding the matter is the inventor’s assurance of faith.

And here is another example of moving from "faith is belief without evidence" to saying "you have faith too, see (begin equivocating contexts of faith)." To Lunamoth: this is what mball and I have been trying to say this whole time. This is absolutely the most common thing that we deal with as unbelievers who try to talk about faith: exactly this.

To Free Spirit, an inventor doesn't have faith in the same sense as your first definition of faith above (that of having belief without tangible evidence). Let's use an example, inventing some sort of electronic device: the inventor knows things about how electrons operate; they know what things like transistors and capacitors are, they have a reasonable expectation of what should happen when they assemble their device because they know a thing or two about the way the pieces of the whole operate such that they can extrapolate what will happen when it's turned on.

That isn't "belief without tangible evidence." They have tangible evidence in their knowledge of how everything should come together if they understand it right. Also, they know that all the pieces of their invention exist; which is more than can be said for anyone that believes in gods.

 

[Meow Mix]

All great points, 9/10ths! Thank you for the interesting conversation. Now it is time to celebrate God's love for us rather than debate. Have a great holiday season, and great season of reason!

Cheers!

Hear, hear. Happy Hannukah, Kwanza, and Christmas everybody!

 

[Willamena]

Are we?

I mean this as a serious question. I feel like I'm an "agent of choice", but I don't think this necessarily means that I am one.

Well, again, it's a matter of perspective. The perspective, the one from which you feel this, really exists. Not as much can be said of the perspective from which you detach yourself in order to say "I am one" (which, ironically, can be said with more detachment without detaching ...but that's another story), which recomposes "the really real" world in imagination.