What is Faith?

[Magic Man]

Majority rule, eh? So because a lot of people agree with you, you're right?

Nope. I'm talking about being able to verify experiences or observations with something other than your own mind. I can verify that the sun has risen because it's an established fact observable to every other human being. I'm not saying it's true because they all say it is; I'm saying it's true because of the evidence, which is evidence verifiable through a source other than your own mind. Verifying things only in your own mind isn't a good way to study them.

The confidence is the same. The faith is the same. You can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow if you are blind, can you not? Of course, as I said, you don't have any idea what that means until you actually see the sun rising. Once you do, you have evidence, whether other people think you do or not.

Sorry, but no. In one case, you have confidence in something for which you have evidence. In the other case, you believe in something without evidence. They are not the same thing. This is very simple. It is equivocation to say that faith in God is the same thing as faith in your friends or your own abilities.

If you say so.

Not just if I say so, it's just the way things work.

 

[Willamena]

This just doesn't make sense. Incorrigible truths are incorrigible truths, there's no "gap" to be had when there's knowledge and truth.

While I agree that ostensibly there can be no gap between knowledge and truth, that's precisely what the practice of "thinking" was devised to do.

I think I read that wrong. My apologies.

An incorrigible truth is not justified by being incorrigible. That's what it means to be incorrigible: it cannot be justified (corrected) by any means.


Edit: I'm out of this thread.

 

[Meow Mix]

I think I read that wrong. My apologies.

An incorrigible truth is not justified by being incorrigible. That's what it means to be incorrigible: it cannot be justified (corrected) by any means.


Edit: I'm out of this thread.

Incorrigible truths are necessarily self-evident, which is to be self-justifying. It's justified by reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Willamena]

Incorrigible truths are necessarily self-evident, which is to be self-justifying. It's justified by reductio ad absurdum.

The problem with that is contradiction.

If it's justified by something else, then it's not self-justified.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with that is contradiction.

If it's justified by something else, then it's not self-justified.

But "reductio ad absurdum" implies that the thing is justified by the thing itself, carried to its logical conclusion.

 

[Willamena]

But "reductio ad absurdum" implies that the thing is justified by the thing itself, carried to its logical conclusion.

And how is "existence exists" reduced? If existence doesn't exist then it's not true that existence exists. It's justified by qualifying its truth and reducing --therefore it's not self-justified.

The true axiom, by definition, requires no justification because it is self-evident.

Edit: Further, it's only by qualifying its truth that you have something to reduce. The axiom itself is not reducable.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Nice red herring, but he only listed confirmation by external observers as part of a whole; not the entire justification.

It would seem to me that is the only justification he gave.

No, the faith is not the same. A blind person has evidence of the sun such as the warmth on their skin, the knowledge that birds chirp in the morning, confirmation by external observers, an understanding of solar physics. It's still rational confidence, which is a separate context of faith than the "belief without evidence" sort.

All examples of something that can be observed and confirmed by someone else. Again, this is majority rule. This has no bearing on faith and confidence. You can have faith and confidence in someone or something with out such justifications. Having them is like having the fossil record to prove evolution. You don't need it, but it is nice to have.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

The problem with that is contradiction.

If it's justified by something else, then it's not self-justified.

Bingo.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Nope. I'm talking about being able to verify experiences or observations with something other than your own mind. I can verify that the sun has risen because it's an established fact observable to every other human being. I'm not saying it's true because they all say it is; I'm saying it's true because of the evidence, which is evidence verifiable through a source other than your own mind. Verifying things only in your own mind isn't a good way to study them.

But is a very good way to find out what you believe.

Sorry, but no. In one case, you have confidence in something for which you have evidence. In the other case, you believe in something without evidence. They are not the same thing. This is very simple. It is equivocation to say that faith in God is the same thing as faith in your friends or your own abilities.

Am I talking to Meow Mix or mball? I can't tell.

Not just if I say so, it's just the way things work.

If you say so.

 

[free spirit]

Penguin

No, every educated person in Columbus' time knew that the Earth was round. They also knew how big it was, and knew that no ship would be able to hold enough food and fresh water to sail straight from Europe to Asia without the crew dying of dehydration or starvation long before they got there.

Thanks to a unit conversion error on his part (he interpreted "miles" in a Latin translation of an Arabic text to mean Spanish miles when the author had actually meant Arabian miles), Columbus "understood" the Earth to be half the size that it actually is, and "understood" that the Azores were the midpoint between Europe and Japan. That led him to conclude (wrongly) that the trip to Asia was doable.

But even in his case, it wasn't a matter of "faith", it was a matter of evidence. He just interpreted the evidence spectacularly wrong, and was only saved by the existence of a continent that nobody in Europe at the time (including Columbus) knew anything about.

(quote
[/QUOTE])

In both cases rightly or wrongly they believed in an unknow or unprooven factor: that is faith in my book

 

[Meow Mix]

And how is "existence exists" reduced? If existence doesn't exist then it's not true that existence exists. It's justified by qualifying its truth and reducing --therefore it's not self-justified.

The true axiom, by definition, requires no justification because it is self-evident.

Edit: Further, it's only by qualifying its truth that you have something to reduce. The axiom itself is not reducable.

As you can see, you answer your own question.

It requires no justification (i.e., no other justification) because it self-justifies. What did you think self-evidence means?

 

[Meow Mix]

All examples of something that can be observed and confirmed by someone else. Again, this is majority rule. This has no bearing on faith and confidence. You can have faith and confidence in someone or something with out such justifications. Having them is like having the fossil record to prove evolution. You don't need it, but it is nice to have.

So... feeling the warmth of the sun on their skin is "majority rule?"

Knowing from experience that birds chirp when the sun comes up is "majority rule?"

With respect, either your reading comprehension is abysmal or you should think harder on what's being said.

Yes, you can have faith in something without justification -- but that would be irrational and unlikely to be true. It's also a different type of faith than to have rational confidence in some outcome based on evidence.

It isn't just "nice to have." It's necessary to be rational and to seek truth/knowledge.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

So... feeling the warmth of the sun on their skin is "majority rule?"
Knowing from experience that birds chirp when the sun comes up is "majority rule?"

So you're allowing those? I thought that wasn't evidence.

Yes, you can have faith in something without justification -- but that would be irrational and unlikely to be true. It's also a different type of faith than to have rational confidence in some outcome based on evidence.

No, it just has rational support. The faith is the same regardless.
Whether something is true is a completely different matter.

It isn't just "nice to have." It's necessary to be rational and to seek truth/knowledge.

Hardly. It is an aspect of knowledge, yes. But it is not the whole pie.

 

[Willamena]

As you can see...

No; as YOU can see. We obviously do not see eye to eye. Just as "evident" is not "justified," self-evident is not self-justified.

What did you think self-evidence means?

It's self-evident.

Mirram-Webster: "evident without proof or reasoning"
Dictionary.com: "evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic"
Wikipedia: "known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof"

Frankly, I find the concept of a claim being self-justifiable disturbing. If a claim is justifiable at all, it properly should be by something other than itself. I think you're misusing the concept. Edit: Wikipedia and the dictionary support this by defining self-justification in a way other than the context you're using.

 

[paolops181]

Let us be biblical.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." -Heb.11:1-3

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." -Heb.11:6

 

[chinu]

Which Meaning of Faith Do You Most Identify With?

Faith means Which can break any time, or which is maximum upto 99%.
Above this there is no need of "Word" FAITH.

How funny it would be hearing if somebody is saying , I have compleate faith that my mother is my mother.

And we are using this same word for our "God" S,
This means that we ourself are ready that it can break any Time.

However the spiritual progress needs FAITH to devlop more & more, but it has its percentage,
Like 10%, 25% , 50%, 75% Maximum upto 99%.

100% does not require the word FAITH.

_/\_Chinu.

 

[Magic Man]

But is a very good way to find out what you believe.

That's a very weird thing to say. The way to find out what you believe is to think about an issue. The way to find out whether your beliefs have an basis in reality is to study reality and compare.

Am I talking to Meow Mix or mball? I can't tell.

Does it matter? The point is still true, and you still seem to refuse to accept it.

If you say so.

Not just if I say so, it's just the way things work.

 

[Magic Man]

So you're allowing those? I thought that wasn't evidence.

Feeling the warmth of the sun on your skin is evidence, but only of the feeling of warmth on your skin.

Birds chirping can be objectively verified. You can do experiments to find out whether it's true. That's what you'd do if someone challenged the assertion. Generally that doesn't happen because people don't make assertions like that, and even if they do, no one cares enough to challenge them.

No, it just has rational support. The faith is the same regardless.
Whether something is true is a completely different matter.

No. Faith in God is belief without evidence. Faith in friends and yourself is trust/confidence. They are different things. I'll keep saying it with the hope that it gets through one of these days.

Hardly. It is an aspect of knowledge, yes. But it is not the whole pie.

No, it's the whole pie. Rational thinking is the whole knowledge pie.

 

[free spirit]

As you can see, you answer your own question.

It requires no justification (i.e., no other justification) because it self-justifies. What did you think self-evidence means?

quote

you all make it so complicated and in the process you get lost in fruiteless discussions

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Feeling the warmth of the sun on your skin is evidence, but only of the feeling of warmth on your skin.

So now you're allowing limits in perception?

No. Faith in God is belief without evidence. Faith in friends and yourself is trust/confidence. They are different things. I'll keep saying it with the hope that it gets through one of these days.

You allow limits in perception, yet you assert that your perception of faith is correct, and can be the only perception of it.
The two don't go together, yet you are somehow insisting that, in this instance, they do.

No, it's the whole pie. Rational thinking is the whole knowledge pie.

If you say so.