What is more important for the future well-being of humankind: Faith or Reason?

[Meow Mix]

My position:

'Do you believe God exists' is not the same question as 'does God exist'. To the first, I answer no. To the second, I answer yes.

This is more a personal difference than anything else. When people say 'I believe in God' they mean something completely different than 'God'. When you say 'God exists' it forces people to ask 'What is God?'. Believing in God does not. If they believe in God, they can believe that means just about anything. If God exists, then God has to be something, rather than anything.

This doesn't make any sense.

The use of the word "God" in "Do you believe God exists" is exactly the same use as in "does God exist?"

You assert that one is specific while the other is general but that isn't the case; I'm not sure where you get the bizarre notion that the use of the word "God" is different in those two contexts.

If you answer "yes" to the question "Does God exist" then it means you do, in fact, believe that a god exists. Nothing about the question indicates that you know anything specific (I'm not sure where you get this notion), just that a god exists. It's still a belief statement and it's still theism to answer affirmatively to the question "Does god exist."

So, indeed, if Roman Catholics answer "yes" to the question "Does God exist?" then they are theists. I'm still not quite sure why it's taken us several pages of text to establish this elementary fact, but I'm glad it's over.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

So, just to check if I'm on the right track, in your opinion you don't have to have to have a well defined concept of something you believe in, but it's a must if you know something that it's well defined?

Not exactly. I have said before that God cannot be known. The purpose of saying 'God exists' rather than 'I believe God exists' is to invite someone to actually find out what God exists means. In my mind, saying that you believe something exists has no real power and allows anyone to come in and say 'Yeah, I do too and this is what it means..." (Which is exactly what the Church has done).

'God exists' means that someone has found God at their level, no one else's, whereas 'I believe God exists' means that someone has taken someone else's definition of God and adopted it. There's nothing wrong with that, but as Catholics, we believe God is a personal God.(Here's a belief, by the way) To say 'I believe God exists' and taking on the standard definition is contrary to that belief.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

This doesn't make any sense.

The use of the word "God" in "Do you believe God exists" is exactly the same use as in "does God exist?"

You assert that one is specific while the other is general but that isn't the case; I'm not sure where you get the bizarre notion that the use of the word "God" is different in those two contexts.

If you answer "yes" to the question "Does God exist" then it means you do, in fact, believe that a god exists. Nothing about the question indicates that you know anything specific (I'm not sure where you get this notion), just that a god exists. It's still a belief statement and it's still theism to answer affirmatively to the question "Does god exist."

So, indeed, if Roman Catholics answer "yes" to the question "Does God exist?" then they are theists. I'm still not quite sure why it's taken us several pages of text to establish this elementary fact, but I'm glad it's over.

The questions are two very different things, as I have explained.

 

[Meow Mix]

'God exists' means that someone has found God at their level, no one else's, whereas 'I believe God exists' means that someone has taken someone else's definition of God and adopted it. There's nothing wrong with that, but as Catholics, we believe God is a personal God.(Here's a belief, by the way) To say 'I believe God exists' and taking on the standard definition is contrary to that belief.

As pointed out elsewhere, this is not what the word "belief" means.

To believe is to regard something as true. Answering "yes" to the question "Does God exist?" is the same thing as saying "It is true that God exists," which is a belief. In other words, if you answer "yes" to "Does a god exist?" then you believe a god exists -- period. Answering yes is a statement that you possess a belief that a god exists; it doesn't mean that you've adopted someone else's definition or anything like that (I have no idea where you got THAT idea).

So, the problem here is that you just have a bizarre definition of the word "belief," that's where all this semantic dissonance is coming from.

 

[Meow Mix]

The questions are two very different things, as I have explained.

They aren't if you use the word "belief" like the rest of the world does. You do not, in fact your definition is very bizarre to me and I'm still not quite sure what the full ramifications of your semantics regarding that word are.

If you re-examine everything I've been saying using the word "belief" to mean "regarding something as true" then maybe that will shed some light on this?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

As pointed out elsewhere, this is not what the word "belief" means.

That's not what it means to you, obviously. And that's not what it means to a lot of people.

But, if you're asking me to accept your definition when you won't accept mine...why should I?

To believe is to regard something as true. Answering "yes" to the question "Does God exist?" is the same thing as saying "It is true that God exists," which is a belief. In other words, if you answer "yes" to "Does a god exist?" then you believe a god exists -- period. Answering yes is a statement that you possess a belief that a god exists; it doesn't mean that you've adopted someone else's definition or anything like that (I have no idea where you got THAT idea).

Look around. The evidence is everywhere. Most people don't even know the standard definition of God in the Catholic Church. All they know is they need to go to church on Sundays, Christmas and Easter. That isn't belief in God, just a belief in the Church telling them what to do.

 

[Nothing]

Some seem to think that reason should take a backseat to faith. While others seem to believe not only is faith unnecessary but it is detrimental.

So which do you think is more important to humanity and why?

I fail to understand the REASONing behind wanting to separate everything into THIS or THAT. Is it not possible that faith could be reasonable? We all have dreams, desires, goals and intentions. If faith helps us realize these things then is faith not REASONable?

 

[nrg]

Logic doesn't succumb to either of Godel's theorems because it doesn't set up the paradox. Of course, mathematics are essentially the same as logic and many paradigms therein do give Godel the coup de grace, but for the most part 99% of logic can't possibly trigger GIT, so there's no worries That identity is true and absolutely so is one area of logic that's safe from GIT.

Is that because identity doesn't state that itself is true, it's just that we can logically prove that it's true?

 

[Willamena]

because it's the degree of emphasis or level of confidence placed in trust doesn't make it trust anymore, it makes it a presumption



so what if i don't understand? wouldn't your trust become presumptuous?

it can if we both agree that when it's -10 degrees F outside, it gets pretty nippy. i trust you that'll you understand why i want to wear a jacket based on evidence that we both agree how cold it is outside. would you call that presumptuous? i wouldn't (i don't think, i'm so confused).

all i know is that in a few hours i know i am going to be very full because i have always been very full after a thanksgiving meal, is that presumptuous of me?
but then again, a few hours from now, no one really knows what will happen...
so maybe that is being presumptuous...

I see. Yes, there is always a presumption made when belief or trust is expressed, because of inherent uncertainty. But the same presumption is present in knowledge, if one is honest about knowing. So I didn't (and don't) see it as significant.

 

[Willamena]

We don't have to "conform" to things, but it is true that we are all either theists or atheists given that theism is a belief in the existence of at least one god and atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Given these definitions, all sentient beings are either theists or atheists. Someone may play semantics and define terms differently -- that's fine -- but it's true that given those definitions each and every person is either a theist or an atheist, and never "both and neither at once." This comes down to logic; and it's never possible for anything illogical to be true.

And there you go, implicitly asking us to conform again. If it's objectively true, that means it conforms to reality. So if we don't conform to it, then obviously we don't conform to reality.

It's just words chosen to describe reality. It's not in itself reality.

 

[tarasan]

I want a both option, they both have their advantages and disadvantages, so id say a nice slice of both of them in Dicotemy

 

[Meow Mix]

Is that because identity doesn't state that itself is true, it's just that we can logically prove that it's true?

Not essentially... it's more that GIT only kicks in when a particular system's premises form the foundation for the paradox Godel discovered... normally this would include a complete description of natural numbers in an effective sense. It's possible to describe consistently and completely many systems because they never give rise to Godel's paradox -- this is sort of like how we can describe many set theories which never give rise to Russel's paradox (they contain no "sets of all sets").

As an example, here's a system of arithmetic that's consistent and complete (GIT does not apply):

1) ¬(0 = x + 1)
2) (x + 1 = y + 1) -> x = y
3) x + 0 = x
4) (x + y) + 1 = x + (y + 1)
5) (P(0) & ∀x(P(x) -> P(x + 1))) -> P(y)

You can do arithmetic (but not multiplication/division) with this system happily without ever invoking GIT because it never produces the foundation for the paradoxes Godel discovered. In the same sense, basic logic such as identity is also immune for the same reason.

 

[Willamena]

Belief doesn't imply doubt considering knowledge is a form of belief; and it would be absurd to say "I know X is true but I doubt it."

Belief is a person holding up truth in their hand --high, so that everyone can see it above the faces in the crowd --and pointing at it, says, "This is true."

Belief both does and doesn't imply doubt, relatively --for the person that uses it, it is the truth held high, but for the people in the crowd, that's precisely what it cannot be.

 

[Willamena]

It's not a false dichotomy the way I had defined the terms (which are common definitions), and simply throwing up your arms and declaring it a false dichotomy doesn't make it so any more than if I threw up my arms and called your objection an ad hominem (which it isn't).

If you insist that it is, then I request you clarify.

I believe he's referring to this:
Peter Suber, "Truth and Validity"

 

[Meow Mix]

That's not what it means to you, obviously. And that's not what it means to a lot of people.

But, if you're asking me to accept your definition when you won't accept mine...why should I?

I just find your definition confusing, and I'm not sure it's exhaustive. For instance I'm still not entirely sure what it is you mean when you say "belief." I don't know why you find it necessary to change such a basic and universally understood word; it unnecessarily makes your arguments and speech seem obtuse.

It's as if I were to use an awkward definition for the word "and," then responded to any statement you made with the word using my strange definition -- do you agree that would be unnecessarily confusing?

Look around. The evidence is everywhere. Most people don't even know the standard definition of God in the Catholic Church. All they know is they need to go to church on Sundays, Christmas and Easter. That isn't belief in God, just a belief in the Church telling them what to do.

They regard it as true that at least one god exists. That's a fact. If you want to shy away from the word "belief" then so be it.

Regard as true = belief (when I and 99.9% other English speakers use the word)

So let's see if we're in agreement now that we've found the source of the semantic dissonance:

Theism is defined as regarding it as true that at least one god exists.
Atheism is the state of not regarding it as true that god(s) exist.

Roman Catholics regard it as true that at least one exists. Therefore, Roman Catholics are theists as the term is defined above.

Are we in agreement now?

 

[Meow Mix]

I believe he's referring to this:
Peter Suber, "Truth and Validity"

I know the diffrence between truth and validity, but it doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. The point is that the semantics I was using had theism and atheism as a true dichotomy. He said he was fine with using those semantics -- which are inevitably dichotomous -- but then proceeded to make a statement outside of the dichotomy, which is irrational.

Turns out it was because even though he was accepting the definitions of atheism and theism, he was not accepting the common definition of the word "belief," which is where the dissonance was coming from. That's why he mistakenly believed it wasn't a dichotomy as defined. Now that we're being more clear on what I mean by "belief" it should be more obvious that I (and many philosophers) have defined theism and atheism dichotomously.

 

[Willamena]

The point is that the semantics I was using had theism and atheism as a true dichotomy.

No, it's a linguistic dichotomy, entirely reliant on definition, and definition is arbitrary. There are very few true dichotomies (truth being one of them).

 

[PolyHedral]

You can do arithmetic (but not multiplication/division)

How can this be possible, when I can define multiplication in terms of addition?

 

[nrg]

Not essentially... it's more that GIT only kicks in when a particular system's premises form the foundation for the paradox Godel discovered... normally this would include a complete description of natural numbers in an effective sense. It's possible to describe consistently and completely many systems because they never give rise to Godel's paradox -- this is sort of like how we can describe many set theories which never give rise to Russel's paradox (they contain no "sets of all sets").

As an example, here's a system of arithmetic that's consistent and complete (GIT does not apply):

1) ¬(0 = x + 1)
2) (x + 1 = y + 1) -> x = y
3) x + 0 = x
4) (x + y) + 1 = x + (y + 1)
5) (P(0) & ∀x(P(x) -> P(x + 1))) -> P(y)

You can do arithmetic (but not multiplication/division) with this system happily without ever invoking GIT because it never produces the foundation for the paradoxes Godel discovered. In the same sense, basic logic such as identity is also immune for the same reason.

Thanks for clearing that for me. So, as long as those 5 axioms is everything I play around with, and don't try to venture outside of them, they won't run into identity problems?

But, I should be able to divide and multiply with these axioms. A computer can only add, but that's no problem.

 

[Meow Mix]

How can this be possible, when I can define multiplication in terms of addition?

You asked me this before so asked my professor, it's because Presburger arithmetic can't use recursively defined predicates because it would then become indistinguishable from Peano arithmetic (and succumb to GIT). The whole point of it is to avoid exactly that, so you therefore can't include quantifications over finite sequences... which you'd have to do in order to work multiplication in there using addition.