What is Faith?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you saying they are equal before making the decision?

Nope. "I prefer eating grilled cheese sandwiches to being flogged" is also a statement of preference, but this fact doesn't imply that the two activities are equal.

Then how does one decide?

However you want. That's how preference works.

 

[MoonWater]

But those things are all guaranteed to exist. You know the soldiers' leaders exist; you know the friends exist, etc. You trust them because you know them personally or because you understand their position, but most importantly, your first qualification for trusting them is their actual existence.

Which is the way it is for many people who believe in god. To them the existence of god is a given and he is as real to them as their friends are.

 

[Meow Mix]

We have faith reasonably.

No, you don't.

(When you just make claims as a response to something without supporting them then two can play that game :drool

 

[Meow Mix]

I know that's what you did. I didn't say otherwise. Why did you pick reason? Just because? That's faith. Because reason said so? That's circular. Because you thought it was a good idea? That's faith.

What do you mean why did I pick reason? Reason works, I observed that it works. There's nothing circular about observing the utility of reason and adopting it. Faith was not involved other than I dropped it like a hot potato upon discovering how irrational it is.

It is a faith statement for the same reason that your example is an example of faith.

I'm not sure why you bother just spouting unsupported claims, or why I should bother responding to non-responses.

 

[Midnight Pete]

We have faith reasonably.

What is reasonable faith, exactly? Is it just "low-risk" belief in things that are of little consequence? Faith in mundane things?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You changed the meanings of words so that they're meaningless. Why would you say you did it?

Just because you think they are meaningless doesn't mean that they are.

 

[Meow Mix]

Just because you think they are meaningless doesn't mean that they are.

I'd have to agree with mball, I've cognized the way you use the terms and it does destroy the purpose of the original use of the words. It seems asinine in a way to try to warp them into something else instead of creating new words. Your system lacks the cohesiveness, the exhaustiveness, and the utility of the normal English terms and I think it's colored your epistemic stance negatively (i.e., crippled it). Not meant to be an insult, just an assessment.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I'd have to agree with mball, I've cognized the way you use the terms and it does destroy the purpose of the original use of the words. It seems asinine in a way to try to warp them into something else instead of creating new words. Your system lacks the cohesiveness, the exhaustiveness, and the utility of the normal English terms and I think it's colored your epistemic stance negatively (i.e., crippled it). Not meant to be an insult, just an assessment.

You both are under the impression that I got up one day and said, 'hey, let's change all these words to mean something completely different'.
Of course, I love to do that. It's a hobby of mine. :sarcastic

 

[Meow Mix]

You both are under the impression that I got up one day and said, 'hey, let's change all these words to mean something completely different'.
Of course, I love to do that. It's a hobby of mine. :sarcastic

Regardless of your intentions, our objections to the inexhaustiveness and incoherence of the way you've created your own terminology stand.

For instance, one huge objection is that you use the word "knowledge" to mean what most people use the word "belief" for; and you freely admit that you use the term "knowledge" in a way that has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth value of a claim. That's just counterproductive to change a word to mean the opposite of what it normally does; to an extent semantics aren't that big of a deal but when you use your own system that's apparently deliberately obtuse it sort of throws a monkey wrench in communication.

Do you have a different term that you use that more closely matches what normal English speakers are referring to when they say "knowledge?" If not, then your semantics have no terms for something which is true (only terms for that which is believed). Your system offers no basis by which to assert anything at all and is therefore -- as has been pointed out -- meaningless in a debate because you can't assert anything at all with your semantics other than you believe (in the normal English sense of the term) something.

Furthermore you don't distinguish justifications by whether they seek truth or not; you only distinguish whether the idea holder agrees with one or not. This further alienates your semantic system from having anything to do with seeking truth; it's simply not a viable system to use for discussion because with your system you can't talk about what may be true but only what you believe. Since your system neglects to assign truth values to justifications, your system can't provide epistemic justifications (in the normal English sense of justifying), which furthermore renders it irrational by way of holding unjustified beliefs (again, in the normal English sense of the terms).

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Regardless of your intentions, our objections to the inexhaustiveness and incoherence of the way you've created your own terminology stand.

Never said they didn't...
It's supposed to be that way.

For instance, one huge objection is that you use the word "knowledge" to mean what most people use the word "belief" for; and you freely admit that you use the term "knowledge" in a way that has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth value of a claim. That's just counterproductive to change a word to mean the opposite of what it normally does; to an extent semantics aren't that big of a deal but when you use your own system that's apparently deliberately obtuse it sort of throws a monkey wrench in communication.

I'd liken this to learning a new language. Yeah, it's hard to communicate when you don't know the language. That's because you're still learning it...

Do you have a different term that you use that more closely matches what normal English speakers are referring to when they say "knowledge?" If not, then your semantics have no terms for something which is true (only terms for that which is believed). Your system offers no basis by which to assert anything at all and is therefore -- as has been pointed out -- meaningless in a debate because you can't assert anything at all with your semantics other than you believe (in the normal English sense of the term) something.

You are superimposing the goal of your system onto the goal of my system. Stop doing that.

Furthermore you don't distinguish justifications by whether they seek truth or not; you only distinguish whether the idea holder agrees with one or not. This further alienates your semantic system from having anything to do with seeking truth; it's simply not a viable system to use for discussion because with your system you can't talk about what may be true but only what you believe. Since your system neglects to assign truth values to justifications, your system can't provide epistemic justifications (in the normal English sense of justifying), which furthermore renders it irrational by way of holding unjustified beliefs (again, in the normal English sense of the terms).

It is far better to learn what you hold to be true, rather than what is actually true. If all you see are truths that science gives you, you never see yourself. Only science.
That, in my experience is counterproductive.

 

[GURSIKH]

Acc to Guru Granth Sahib

ਮੰਨੇ ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਕਹੀ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
The state of the faithful cannot be described.

ਜੇ ਕੋ ਕਹੈ ਪਿਛੈ ਪਛੁਤਾਇ ॥
One who tries to describe this shall regret the attempt.

ਕਾਗਦਿ ਕਲਮ ਨ ਲਿਖਣਹਾਰੁ ॥
No paper, no pen, no scribe

ਮੰਨੇ ਕਾ ਬਹਿ ਕਰਨਿ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
can record the state of the faithful.

ਐਸਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਨਿਰੰਜਨੁ ਹੋਇ ॥
Such is the Name of the Immaculate Lord.

ਜੇ ਕੋ ਮੰਨਿ ਜਾਣੈ ਮਨਿ ਕੋਇ ॥੧੨॥
Only one who has faith comes to know such a state of mind. ||12||

 

[Willamena]

it's simply not a viable system to use for discussion because with your system you can't talk about what may be true but only what you believe.

We believe in things because they hold the appearance of truth.

 

[Magic Man]

Which is the way it is for many people who believe in god. To them the existence of god is a given and he is as real to them as their friends are.

The key is "to them". My point is the only reason he's that real to them is their faith (belief without evidence) that he exists. And regardless of what they say, he's still not as real even to them as their friends are, unless they are schizophrenic or something.

 

[Magic Man]

Just because you think they are meaningless doesn't mean that they are.

You're right. It's not just because I think they're meaningless; it's because they're actually meaningless. You changed them so that their real meanings don't apply at all, and only your new ones that don't make any real sense apply.

 

[Magic Man]

I'd liken this to learning a new language. Yeah, it's hard to communicate when you don't know the language. That's because you're still learning it...

That's not the same thing, though. Learning a new language is learning different words and phrases for the ideas you can already express in your language. What you're doing is changing the current language to mean something completely different rendering the real meanings of the word useless. The words "pomme" and "apple" mean the same exact thing in two different languages, but there's a point in having the two different words because it's two different languages. When you change words to have basically the same meaning as other words in the same language, it's pointless and counterproductive.

You are superimposing the goal of your system onto the goal of my system. Stop doing that.

He's got a point here, MM. You're imposing the goal of actually communicating effectively and accurately on his system. Obviously that's not his goal. The goal of his system is to justify his beliefs and make them sound profound and mystical to everyone else.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Faith in the context of religious belief is defined as "Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine." (Link).

Considering that there exists no independent, logical or scientific evidence for neither the supernatural nor the divine religious faith is by definition faith without evidence.

Mental or anecdotal evidence is not acceptable since it is highly questionable, unreliable and prone to both dishonesty and delusion.

Ergo: Religious faith = Faith without evidence.

 

[Magic Man]

Mental or anecdotal evidence is not acceptable since it is highly questionable, unreliable and prone to both dishonesty and delusion.

Not only that, but it's not accepted in pretty much any other situation. People generally don't accept that kind of evidence for most claims people make, and other groups have the same evidence for different gods.

 

[Willamena]

The key is "to them".

Yes, it is.

My point is the only reason he's that real to them is their faith (belief without evidence) that he exists.

To you, but not to them. To them, they have faith because god is real.

And regardless of what they say, he's still not as real even to them as their friends are, unless they are schizophrenic or something.

To the pantheist (as I jokingly implied earlier) god is absolutely, necessarily as real as their friends. 100%. Really.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, it is.


To you, but not to them. To them, they have faith because god is real.

And in reality they have believe in God without evidence.

To the pantheist (as I jokingly implied earlier) god is absolutely, necessarily as real as their friends. 100%. Really.

Yup, which is why we're not talking about pantheists, but theists.

 

[Willamena]

I'd have to agree with mball, I've cognized the way you use the terms and it does destroy the purpose of the original use of the words. It seems asinine in a way to try to warp them into something else instead of creating new words. Your system lacks the cohesiveness, the exhaustiveness, and the utility of the normal English terms and I think it's colored your epistemic stance negatively (i.e., crippled it). Not meant to be an insult, just an assessment.

No offense, but you've done what you've just assessed, made normal English terms coloured by your epistemic stance. I had no problem understanding strikeviper at all. He is speaking plainly.