quote:

---

You may not need faith to DO science, but you certainly need faith to USE it. For instance, science can't prove the laws of physics will work tomorrow in the same way they worked today. That is a matter of faith, based on the fact that they've worked that way as long as we've observed. And thus if you are going to use the laws of physics to build bridges that we expect to be safe, it is necessary to actually believe those laws of physics will continue to hold true, and thus it is necessary to have faith in something that science has not proven.

Of course, every time you cross a bridge you have faith in a lot more than just science. You have faith that the engineers and construction workers who built that bridge applied those laws of science correctly. You have faith that they did not forget a decimal point in their calculations. None of these things are known or proven to be true, yet you believe them anyway, or else you would not cross that bridge.

Even worse is a roller-coaster ride. Now THAT is a real exercise in faith.

---

It bothers me that the word "faith" gets bandied about so cavalierly as if it had one specific meaning regardless of context. I submit that the "faith" Tres is talking about is not the same "faith" that someone means when they say "I have faith in God."

We've had this discussion before, but the quote above got me thinking again. Although I could, I would usually not say I have "faith" in the engineers who built a bridge. I'd more likely say "I trust them", recongizing that "trust" and "faith" can be synonyms.

Dictionary.com gives this as one definition of "trust":

1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.

It gives this as one definition of "faith":

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Insofar as we're using this definition of "faith", I'm OK with it in relation to bridges and roller coasters, etc. However, I prefer to use the word "trust" in this sense to avoid confusion with the other kind of "faith":

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

This is the type of "faith" I think most people are talking about in a religious context. Note, it doesn't say the belief is illogical or without material evidence, simply that it does not rely on them. This is the faith that I do not think applies to things like bridges, roller-coasters or even science.

Sure, we have no proof that tomorrow the laws of physics will function as they do today, heck we have no proof that tomorrow will come at all. But our trust that it will come and bring with it the same laws of physics that function today is based on logic and evidence. As far as we know, the laws of physics have functioned this way since before humans ever appeared, and there is no reason to believe they will not function this way as long as the universe continues. At the very least, they function a consistent way every single time they are tested in a given paradigm. Were this not the case, our "faith" in those laws would absolutely not exist.

I think there is ample evidence that "faith" in God is usually not susceptible to that kind of failure. Trust in God isn't based on the same kind of evidence or logic. God isn't a law of physics, and can't be relied on in the same way. I trust that those who tell me they have faith in God have their own evidence and logic, but as we have made abundantly clear in many threads on this forum, it isn't the kind of evidence or logic that can be replicated for the skeptical observer. 50 people praying in the same way for the same thing will not all get the same results. (Though I won't say they won't get results, or that their results aren't consistent with a single concept of God, whatever that may be.)

So, if our discussions about religion and science are to be productive and not just symantic games to score points*, I think it would be a good idea if we either used separate words for the kind of faith that we place in bridges, roller-coasters, and science (i.e. trust) and the kind we place in (or don't place) in God, or at the very least say up front what defition we're using and be careful not to mix them up in the ensuing discussion.

[*note: I'm not saying Tres was doing this in his quote above, though I do think he was blurring a distinction that I think is critical.]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
That is very well put.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I couldn't agree more.

<3
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
I know you are not out to score points, Karl, but you continue to rack up points with me. How did you get to be so swell, anyway?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Exactly. Way to go (again), Karl.

So, BTW, what did you learn about the "wages of sin"? Are they finally going to start paying me something?
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
I really wish I had your powers of expression Karl. I've been having that thought, but have been completely unable to express it. Hat's off to you.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

This is the type of "faith" I think most people are talking about in a religious context.

---

quote:

---

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

This is the type of "faith" I think most people are talking about in a religious context.

---

This is absolutely and 100% NOT what I mean when I use the word "faith" in a religious context. I spend sermons, lectures, and Sunday School classes stating that belief is not the same thing as faith and fatih is not merely belief in something with a low degree of evidence.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Or, what Dana said.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Also what Dag said.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

I think it's the insistence on relegating religious faith to category 3 that motivates people to dig their heals in about science resting on faith as well.

---

quote:

---

Do you think that science does rest on "faith?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Do you think that science does rest on "faith?"

---

As KarlEd said, science rests on category 1 faith, which happens to be the faith most religious people are speaking of when they speak of resting on faith.

---

quote:

---

The first definition is a definition of trust, not of faith. I'm not quite sure I follow you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Do you think that science does rest on "faith?"

---

As KarlEd said, science rests on category 1 faith, which happens to be the faith most religious people are speaking of when they speak of resting on faith.

---

quote:

---

Are you then arguing that religious "faith" and "faith" necessary to cross a bridge are the same thing? Because I wholeheartedly believe that they are not, for the reasons I stated above.

---

I'm arguing that I am most likely using a definition of faith that is far, far closer to definition 1 when I speak of religious faith. If you say that science rests on definition 1 faith, then those faiths are of the same type.

What I think you actually mean, though, is that there is material evidence underlying a person's belief that a bridge can support their weight, and that this material evidence is that person's reason for having category 1 faith that the bridge will not collapse.

That's not a nit-picking distinction. Your original post stems from frustration with Tres saying your faith in the bridge is of the same type as faith in God, and because you view faith in God as category 2 faith, you interpret Tres as minimizing the difference between believing a bridge will support your weight and believing in God.

What I am trying to get at is that Tres probably is not minimizing your reasons for trusting the bridge by that comparison, because he does not view faith as merely belief without material evidence.

You are making a distinction about reasons for belief. Tres is making a distinction about strength of belief. Thus the conflict.

If the concepts of faith and belief are dealt with seperately, the conflict disappears.

(It's probably taking this too far afield to mention that most people actually only have faith 1 type faith when crossing a bridge, because they are accepting it on authority that the bridge was designed correctly. But I don't think that's actually relevant to the distinction you were making nor does it invalidate the distinction. It's just fun. )
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
I'm in the middle of rereading Time Enough for Love right now (it's been years), and Lazarus just said something along the lines of "I try not to have beliefs. They interfere with learning."

This is how I understand the words "faith", "conviction", "belief" and "trust":

Faith comes from the heart or the guts. Or the soul. However you want to put it, it comes from the emotions, and has nothing to do with the intellect. It's not illogical; it's alogical. It has nothing to do with logic; they operate in different realms.

Conviction comes from the intellect. It's a matter of whether or not you are convinced intellectually of a proposition, and to what degree you're convinced of it.

Belief is a reflex. It's like an autopilot. When you believe something, you've internalized it and will very rarely be willing to pull it out and reexamine it.

Trust is a policy. It's like belief, but it takes a lot less to get you to take another look at it.

Very often, if you trust in something long enough, it tends to become a belief. That's just how people are. The longer you haven't questioned something, the more averse most people are to doing so.

Both belief and trust can be based on faith, and both belief and trust can be based on conviction. They can be based on a combination of the two.

The key is (a) the source of the position, and (b) how willing you are to reexamine it and consider the possibility of changing or abandoning it.

Going back to Lazarus Long, I agree with him. I think that belief is a bad policy. And from my personal point of view, I think that faith is a forfeiture of the mind that God gave us. YMMV.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
You are making a distinction about reasons for belief. Tres is making a distinction about strength of belief. Thus the conflict.

If the concepts of faith and belief are dealt with seperately, the conflict disappears.

---

Bingo. Belief and trust are two different strengths, and faith and conviction are two different reasons/sources.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
To get really Catholic for a minute:

"Faith" can be used to refer to steadfastedness (as in keeping faith), trust, and belief.

Faith (belief) is a precondition for faith (trust) which allows us to keep faith (steadfastedness). When speaking of "Faith," elements of all three are usually meant. For example, "faith without works is dead" is conveying all three meanings.

Each usage has nuances of meaning that aren't related with a single synonym. But it's a decent way to think about it.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Dag, I was thinking about what you wrote at 3:31 on my drive home from work and just read your subsequent posts. I see what you are saying and I largely agree with you.

I guess the difference is the basis for having faith in the one versus the reasons for having faith in the other. One is faith based on material evidence. The other is based on non-material evidence (or spiritual evidence, if you prefer). The critical difference for me, then, is that I find non-material evidence to be illusory.

Damn! I thought I had something there. Way to ruin a good essay, Dag.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

It gives this as one definition of "faith":

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Insofar as we're using this definition of "faith", I'm OK with it in relation to bridges and roller coasters, etc. However, I prefer to use the word "trust" in this sense to avoid confusion with the other kind of "faith":

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

This is the type of "faith" I think most people are talking about in a religious context

---

quote:

---

In contrast, I think most people who go on roller coasters have seen absolutely NO logical proof or material evidence of that roller coaster's safety. Has anybody examined a roller coaster's structure before riding it? In truth, when you get on a roller coaster you bet your life on your faith that the people who built that roller coaster knew exactly what they were doing. And you bet it on the assumption that the laws of physics will keep holding true too - something that is also very much unproven by any physical evidence or logical proof. But there most definitely is still a reason for the faith, even if it is just trust in a group of people or an amusement park.

---

quote:

---

I'd like to point out that the kind of evidence we deal with in science is, by definition, demonstrable to someone else. The 'evidence' Dag refers to for his faith, is not. I think that is an extremely important distinction.

---

quote:

---

And you make it sound like a significant number of people expect that at any given moment the laws of physics will just nullify themselves and we'll all just dissolve in a flash of uncontrolled atomic energy.

---

quote:

---

And you bet it on the assumption that the laws of physics will keep holding true too - something that is also very much unproven by any physical evidence or logical proof.

---

This makes me laugh.

Tres, once again, playing Devil's Advocate.

Well, it *could* happen that we all turn into giant purple antelopes made entirely out of marshmallow fluff tomorrow. You have no way of proving that we won't! ::puts fingers in ears::

Heh.

We base our reality on cause and effect. "If I punch that rock with my bare hand, it will hurt." "If I cut my arm deeply, I will bleed." "If I jump off of this cliff, I will fall."

Those are truths that existed long before we had an understanding of science, or the scientific method. Humans, as far back as you want to go, have observed causes and effects and then based future behavior on those observations.

To say that "If I throw a rock in the air tomorrow, it may not come down again" is silly and naive to the point of absurdity. Anyone can tell you that it will fall, based on past experience. Rocks fall back to the ground when you drop or throw them. You don't need science, math, or even the word "gravity" to explain it.

It's not faith that makes someone believe this, though, nor is it trust. It's just plain understanding of the world based on observation of cause and effect.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
And what reason do you have that proves that "understanding" is correct? Every rock so far may have fallen back to the ground when you threw it, but what reason do you have to prove the next rock will do the same? (This is not a question just for the sake of being a devil's advocate - many philosophers have literally spent their working lives trying to answer it effectively.) If you have no such proof, then it is something that requires faith, no matter how fundamental it is.

In fact, that's the point - even many of the most simple, obvious, fundamental and ancient of beliefs rest upon faith, and are not proven by reason. Faith is something you could not survive without.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Hehe.

Again, cause and effect. "If someone makes an argument, Tres will be contrary."

quote:

---

Every rock so far may have fallen back to the ground when you threw it, but what reason do you have to prove the next rock will do the same?

---

quote:

---

I hope you are well prepared for life as a giant purple antelope made of marshmallow fluff. It seems you feel there is at least some chance that tomorrow you will be one.

---

quote:

---

Or of course you could become a microscopic green armadillo made of silly putty. Who can tell really. There's no way of knowing, I guess. Best prepare for all those eventualities, right?

---

quote:

---

I mean, since past observation is not a predictor of future reality, why set your alarm in the morning?

---

quote:

---

I reject the notion that the constancy of the world is a matter of faith, no matter how many philosophers spent their lives trying to prove that very question.

---

quote:

---

No, I said I cannot PROVE there is no chance I won't be a purple antelope tomorrow. I

---

quote:

---

I am not aware of any valid line of reasoning that can show the laws of physics will continue tomorrow as they were today. (You could argue those laws will remain constant because they have remained constant in the past, but that is a circular argument, using the conclusion as a premise to justify itself.) Thus it is a leap of faith to assume any law of science will continue holding true tomorrow - a leap of faith that is not only unproven, but that is also supported by no valid reasoning.

---

quote:

---

I agree that it is important. But the degree to which it makes a belief more trustworthy is very much in question. Does the fact that I cannot demonstrate to anyone the pain I feel when I have a headache reduce the confidence in my belief that I have a headache?

---

quote:

---

I find it very funny that you live in such a potentially unstable world.

---

quote:

---

So, then, if there is essentially no difference between the "faith" of "faith in God" and "faith in science", do you think the phrases are on equal footing?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, I said I cannot PROVE there is no chance I won't be a purple antelope tomorrow. I

---

Yes, so you freely admit that there is a chance that you will be.

---

quote:

---

You don't want proof. If proof is given, you will deny its premises.

---

quote:

---

Why stop there? Under this analysis, no valid line of reasoning can be used to prove anything.

Concepts like "logic" and "evidence" will have no meaning. How can we discuss whether a belief is logical when the very foundations of logic--e.g. causality, deductive reasoning--cannot be trusted?

---

quote:

---

So, then, if there is essentially no difference between the "faith" of "faith in God" and "faith in science", do you think the phrases are on equal footing? Is there no difference between faith based on material evidence and that based on spiritual evidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KarlEd:
So, then, if there is essentially no difference between the "faith" of "faith in God" and "faith in science", do you think the phrases are on equal footing? Is there no difference between faith based on material evidence and that based on spiritual evidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
If "god exists" is a scientifically testable postulate, can you devise an experiment to test it in accordance with the scientific method?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beren One Hand:
Why stop there? Under this analysis, no valid line of reasoning can be used to prove anything.

---

quote:

---

Concepts like "logic" and "evidence" will have no meaning. How can we discuss whether a belief is logical when the very foundations of logic--e.g. causality, deductive reasoning--cannot be trusted?

---

quote:

---

choosing to believe it in the absence of any evidence (which is how the word "faith" is typically used in the context of religion).

---

quote:

---

Humans are the only creatures that worry about such ultimately pointless ideas.

A dog knows that if it jumps off the couch, it will get to the floor. Birds know that if they stop flapping their wings in the air, they will fall towards the ground.

Their understanding of the world informs their actions. A dog will not look over the edge of a fifth story roof at a building across the street and make that jump. It knows it will not make it, that it will fall and most likely die. It will stop at the edge.

Does it have faith? Does it require proof?

No, it understands the world through its past interactions with it, and its future actions are influenced by these past interactions.

---

quote:

---

Whether or not you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow has no bearing on whether or not it will happen.

---

quote:

---

All that is simply a misuse of the word faith. Those are things I know, not things I have faith in.

---

quote:

---

You want to broaden the term faith to include everything. What is 2+2? I have faith that it is 4. What do you call a reqular four sided polygon? I have faith that it is a square. What part of speech is the word "of"? I have faith that it is a preposition.

---

quote:

---

There are things that you can know, that do not rely up faith. If you feel there are not, then you deny the entire concept of knowledge.

---

quote:

---

By taking your philosophically abstract view, we can eliminate the words "know" or "knowledge" from our vocabulary, as it is impossible to know anything, only to have faith in something. "Knowledge" and "faith" are not synonyms.

---

quote:

---

faith is NOT synonomous with belief, evidence based or otherwise.

---

quote:

---

So, dkw, what would be your distinction between the word "faith" and the word "knowledge"? Is there one?

---

quote:

---

Now, Tresopax clearly uses the word "faith" to denote an attitude that justifies beliefs, so I guess you would agree with me that he's not using the word in the right way.

---

quote:

---

I am having trouble separating the statement "He has faith in God" from "He believes in God". Could you elaborate on the distinction for me?

---

quote:

---

No, I don't. 2+2 is 4 because we have defined "4" to be the number 1 greater than 3, 2 greater than 2, and 3 greater than 1. Similarly, we have defined "square" to mean "reqular four sided polygon."

---

quote:

---

Faith is a precedent to knowledge - without faith, there is no knowledge.

---

quote:

---

A rat who is shocked when it presses a food pellet bar will stop pressing that bar. This is true whether or not the scientist in charge of the experiment has detached the batteries.

---

quote:

---

The ones that don't use words like "loyalty", "dogma", or "allegiance",

---

quote:

---

and most that refer to religion include the word "belief" in their definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:
Destineer, I disagree. Because it would be perfectly possible to believe in God and still not have faith in God.

---

quote:

---

"He believes in God" can be a statement about belief - "I believe that God exists" - or a statement about trust. When someone says, "I believe in you, son," do you honestly think they are commenting on the fact that they believe their son exists?

The correct distinction is between "He has faith in God" and "He believes that God exists." And the difference should be obvious at that point.

---

By this semantic tapdance, he could never say "I have faith in you, son" because that would equate to him saying "I have faith that you exist."


 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

But, based on your use of faith, you can say that you have faith that you were taught the correct definitions, and that you have faith that the person who defined these things is correct.

Seems a bit overboard, to me.

---

quote:

---

See, this is backwards. You have to know things before you can have faith in anything. Without a knowledge of language, and the knowledge gained by observation, it would be impossible to even have this discussion about faith.

Without the knowledge of the world, you would have no need to have faith in gravity.

---

quote:

---

Yes, this is true. We have learned that based on the way our brains interpret information, they can be conditioned, especially with regards to pain (which is one of the body's survival warnings).

How often are you being intentionally deluded in a laboratory? Do you believe in some Pavlovian god?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:

quote:

---

"He believes in God" can be a statement about belief - "I believe that God exists" - or a statement about trust. When someone says, "I believe in you, son," do you honestly think they are commenting on the fact that they believe their son exists?

The correct distinction is between "He has faith in God" and "He believes that God exists." And the difference should be obvious at that point.

---

By this semantic tapdance, he could never say "I have faith in you, son" because that would equate to him saying "I have faith that you exist."

---

I see my faith in how you would interpret what I wrote was misplaced.

I stated exactly the opposite of your conclusion. A person saying "I have faith in you, son" IS NOT SAYING "I have faith that you exist." That's my whole point.

The fact that you think the conclusion you incorrectly imputed to me is absurd is enough to demonstrate the difference between "He has faith in God" and "He believes that God exists." Which is all I intended to do in that post.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Could someone define faith for me in such a way that it has no relation to belief?

And could someone also define belief for me in such a way that it has no relation to faith?

The accepted dictionary definitions for these two words imply a far closer connection than many of you seem to be admitting to.

In fact, if you type in "belief" into thesaurus.com, the first thing that pops up is

"Main Entry: belief
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: faith
Synonyms: acceptance, admission, assent, assumption... "

It appears that the these two words are often considered synonyms in common parlance. Where is the significant distinction?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Since it's clear that the word "faith" is easy to misconstrue, why don't we take Karl's original advice? I still think his suggestion of "trust" in place of it is apt.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 

quote:

---

"He believes in God" can be a statement about belief - "I believe that God exists" - or a statement about trust. When someone says, "I believe in you, son," do you honestly think they are commenting on the fact that they believe their son exists?

The correct distinction is between "He has faith in God" and "He believes that God exists."

---

quote:

---

I stated exactly the opposite of your conclusion. A person saying "I have faith in you, son" IS NOT SAYING "I have faith that you exist." That's my whole point.

---

quote:

---

Could someone define faith for me in such a way that it has no relation to belief?

---

quote:

---

Since it's clear that the word "faith" is easy to misconstrue, why don't we take Karl's original advice? I still think his suggestion of "trust" in place of it is apt.

---

quote:

---

At first, you said someone saying "I believe in you, son" is not saying that they believe that the son exists.

Then you say that "I have faith in you, son" is not saying that they believe the son exists.

You used believe and faith interchangeably.

Therein lies my confusion. They appear synonmymous in that usage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
Could someone define faith for me in such a way that it has no relation to belief?

And could someone also define belief for me in such a way that it has no relation to faith?

---

quote:

---

Your "semantic tapdance" aside, you know that "believe" is often used in a fashion similar to "trust" and that "faith" is also often used in a fashion similar to "trust."

---

quote:

---

Dag, I see we exist in two different worlds.

Yours is faith based, because you choose it to be. Mine is not.

Therein lies the difference.

Knowledge in my world exists separate from faith. Faith may exist based on that knowledge or not.

---

quote:

---

Yes, and "believe" is often used as a synonym for "faith" and vice versa. How is something being "often used" useful to us in this case?

---

quote:

---

You know, once again I run into the same difficulty I have when speaking with starLisa. It is impossible to argue with someone who bases their arguments on faith.

---

quote:

---

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

This is the type of "faith" I think most people are talking about in a religious context. Note, it doesn't say the belief is illogical or without material evidence, simply that it does not rely on them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Since it's clear that the word "faith" is easy to misconstrue, why don't we take Karl's original advice? I still think his suggestion of "trust" in place of it is apt.

---

Because the word "faith" is more accurate than "trust," because religious people use "faith" all the time, and because the minute we agree to this, someone like KoM is going to start using such agreement every time a religious person uses the word "faith" to denigrate their beliefs. (Note that I am not accusing Karl of having any such motive in starting the thread nor you of having any such motive in reiterating the suggestion.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
We can never really prove anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
Dagonee, a lot of people posted while I was writing this, but my post was directed at Irregardless. He said that material evidence is obtained by conducting an experiment and observing the results, and then that the means of evaluating evidence for "natural" and "supernatural" claims are the same. But the first way one can evaluate material evidence is, as he notes, to corroborate it with a test of one's own.

---

quote:

---

"Natural" evidence is tested experimentally in accordance with the scientific method; such tests produce repeatable results independent of the person performing the experiment. The same is not true of "supernatural" evidence, insofar as there is even any material evidence to be tested. For example, if the Red Sea parted, it only parted once.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:
I have never been to Alaska. […] And more to point, I'm *not* going to navigate to Alaska, because it's not worth the effort. […] I have faith that Alaska exists. […] I cannot speak for anyone else, but I submit that my faith in God is fundamentally the same as my faith in Alaska, and for comparable reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
So saying that we can never really "prove" anything doesn't detract in the slightest from the usefulness of the scientific method.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by suminonA:
What if there is another group of sources claiming that the place called Alaska (located at the same coordinates) by the first group, is actually called Egypt and there are a number of very nice pyramids to visit? And then another group comes claiming it is called Texas, and more and more groups claiming it to be Normandy, Transylvania, Atlantis etc. Will your faith in Alaska remain the same? Would you reconsider the worth of going and check it for yourself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:
The effect on my faith will be dependent upon my assessment of the credibility of those disputing sources. If one of them could produce adequate evidence, I might very well change my faith. As for the worth of checking it out personally, that would depend as much on the relevance of Alaska to my own life (slim to none, actually) as on my estimate of its likelihood of its existence. [emphasis added by suminonA]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by suminonA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:
The effect on my faith will be dependent upon my assessment of the credibility of those disputing sources. If one of them could produce adequate evidence, I might very well change my faith. As for the worth of checking it out personally, that would depend as much on the relevance of Alaska to my own life (slim to none, actually) as on my estimate of its likelihood of its existence. [emphasis added by suminonA]

---

That's one more reason for me to think that your analogy isn't valid. Your faith in Alaska isn't fundamentally the same as your faith in God.

[editet to rephrase]
A.

---

How so? Obviously there are many competing claims in the world about God's existence and characteristics. If one such source (religion) provided adequate credible evidence of its superiority over what I currently believe, then I'd change what I believe. How is that any different from what I said about Alaska?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Irregardless, we're going in circles. You're saying that faith is predicated on trust in other sources, and therefore that faith in scientific concepts and faith in religious concepts is essentially the same. I'm saying that this trust in others is the only way in which the two are similar and that conflating them is therefore unwise.

password, I'm not suggesting that something has to be logically proven to be trusted, or even provable.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Dictionary.com lists all of these definitions of "faith":

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Technically, I probably should have used #4 as my "what most Christians mean when they talk about 'faith'". This really leaves the question open to the individual whether this Faith is also of type 1, or more similar to type 2. I think we also run into confusion because there is some of definition 3 in what people mean when they talk about "faith in God".

I think this is where the use of "faith" in regards to science bugs me: Faith, in Christianity at least, can be a virtue unto itself. In science, (after the initial acceptance that "things exist and we can know about them) faith is always a result of logic and evidence, and never a virtue if separated from them.

NOTE: I'm talking about religion and science, not individual people. That is to say, while Dag's "faith" is based on things he calls evidence (if I understand him correctly), not all Christians feel that way. While I was incorrect in claiming that "most" Christians mean def. #2, I am not incorrect in claiming that many do. I have known several. I believe that most Christians actually use a combination of several of those definitions in their personal definition of faith.

I think that the problem I have that prompted the original post is that for those of us who have "faith" in science to accept the use of that word, we have to define "faith" very narrowly and mean only a very specific thing. However, I don't think many Christians (Dag and dkw please correct me if I'm wrong) will accept the same limited definition of "faith" when they speak of "faith" in religious terms. To them I believe "faith" is something more than "faith in a bridge" or "faith in the self-correcting nature of the scientific method", etc. although it may include that narrow faith within the whole of religious "faith".
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 

quote:

---

Because it would be perfectly possible to believe in God and still not have faith in God.

---

Of course. This shows that faith is one kind of belief, but it is not the only kind. Not all belief is faith, but all faith is belief.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Clearly, I should have just waited six minutes and let Karl say exactly what I meant in a much more eloquent manner.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 

 

---

Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
 
Karl, I'm going to try to speculate (despite the disasterous results I had last time I tried this) and say that I think many people use definition #2 with respect to themselves in the process of exaggerating their emphasis on the idea that their faith is in something not rigidly provable, or possibly even demonstrable. Somewhere along the line I think this became enshrined as more virtuous, for some people.

"Blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe", Jesus says to Thomas. I think that got set up as a standard in and of itself, eventually leading to the idea, which some, but not all, Christians do seem to have, that faith is more (or even only) valuable when there is no reason for it.

But, as I do not agree with that view, I may be totally off in in my description of it.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

That is to say, while Dag's "faith" is based on things he calls evidence

---

quote:

---

I think that the problem I have that prompted the original post is that for those of us who have "faith" in science to accept the use of that word, we have to define "faith" very narrowly and mean only a very specific thing.

---

quote:

---

Not all belief is faith, but all faith is belief.

---

quote:

---

Now, Tresopax clearly uses the word "faith" to denote an attitude that justifies beliefs, so I guess you would agree with me that he's not using the word in the right way.

---

quote:

---

Coming to believe something on the basis of evidence that is sufficient but not undefeatable is quite different from choosing to believe it in the absence of any evidence (which is how the word "faith" is typically used in the context of religion).

---

quote:

---

Dag, I see we exist in two different worlds.

Yours is faith based, because you choose it to be. Mine is not.

---

quote:

---

He has graciously accepted our word that we do not use the word "faith" in that manner very often.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure why you can't do the same. Do you have some special knowledge about what I mean when I say "I have faith in God" that I don't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
You know, once again I run into the same difficulty I have when speaking with starLisa. It is impossible to argue with someone who bases their arguments on faith.

---

quote:

---

Contrarily, you *know* that if you drop a rock, it will fall to the ground.

---

quote:

---

Karl, I believe, is trying to draw a distinction here. Instead of saying you have "faith" that the world will still be here, he feels that is something that you "trust" based on scientific observation. He's trying to separate the two usages of the word, for sake of clarity.

---

quote:

---

Has he? It seems he's still trying to draw a line of distinction in usage.

---

quote:

---

I guess the difference is the basis for having faith in the one versus the reasons for having faith in the other. One is faith based on material evidence. The other is based on non-material evidence (or spiritual evidence, if you prefer). The critical difference for me, then, is that I find non-material evidence to be illusory.

---

quote:

---

Karl, I believe, is trying to draw a distinction here. Instead of saying you have "faith" that the world will still be here, he feels that is something that you "trust" based on scientific observation. He's trying to separate the two usages of the word, for sake of clarity.

---

quote:

---

You *know* a rock will fall to the ground in just the way that a religious person with extreme faith in God *knows* that God exists.

---

quote:

---

Meaning that you cannot prove it is true, but you are so confident that it IS true that you are willing to consider it knowledge anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
What I was curious about was whether Dag (or dkw, for that matter) draws a distinction between faith in God and faith that a rock will fall to the ground when dropped. I'm assuming there is a difference, and I'm curious to hear what they feel that difference is.

---

quote:

---

What I was curious about was whether Dag (or dkw, for that matter) draws a distinction between faith in God and faith that a rock will fall to the ground when dropped. I'm assuming there is a difference, and I'm curious to hear what they feel that difference is.

---

quote:

---

Something has to be proven in order for it to qualify as knowledge? I certainly don't think so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by suminonA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:
The effect on my faith will be dependent upon my assessment of the credibility of those disputing sources. If one of them could produce adequate evidence, I might very well change my faith. As for the worth of checking it out personally, that would depend as much on the relevance of Alaska to my own life (slim to none, actually) as on my estimate of its likelihood of its existence. [emphasis added by suminonA]

---

That's one more reason for me to think that your analogy isn't valid. Your faith in Alaska isn't fundamentally the same as your faith in God.

[editet to rephrase]

A.

---

How so? Obviously there are many competing claims in the world about God's existence and characteristics. If one such source (religion) provided adequate credible evidence of its superiority over what I currently believe, then I'd change what I believe. How is that any different from what I said about Alaska?

---

Right. There are many competing claims in the world about God's existence and characteristics. I would say that a significant competing group exists for any given religion (even if we reduce it to Christians and Muslims).

Now, there is no significant group competing for the characteristics of the laws of science (take gravity, the rising Sun, the existence of Alaska and any other scientifical fact/theory).

If that is not a fundamental difference, I wonder what is.


A.

[edited to remove a controversial formula]
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Dag, I apologize, I'm not sure how I skipped it, but I somehow missed your post at 09:08 AM, which clears up almost all my questions about your distinctions between the two.

Your position makes a lot more sense now, I just needed those pieces to complete what was a very confusing puzzle.

I can see now where you're coming from, although I am certainly not coming from the same direction.

Tres, however, I still can't take seriously.
 

---

Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by suminonA:
Now, there is no significant group competing for the characteristics of the laws of science (take gravity, the rising Sun, the existence of Alaska and any other scientifical fact/theory).

If that is not a fundamental difference, I wonder what is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
To quote password, "As you said, it doesn't require faith, or proof. It just *is*. Those who question it do so to their detriment."

---

In all fairness, once you accept that there is a class of phenomena that fit this statement, it's very easy to include "the existence of a creator" in that class...and I also said that I was overreaching what I intended to say in making that statement.

The weird thing is, I would argue that I do have knowledge of God's goodness, and by extension, of His existence and that it is the same kind of knowledge that I have of gravity-- that is to say, I have experienced it, not to say that it is a definable law like Newton's universal gravitation. My knowledge that a rock will fall is not only based on my observations that it does so, but my experience that I also do so. That's why birds and balloons are such a source of wonder... they don't. Even when I have explained why they don't, I still get a thrill at seeing them, because they don't and I do.

I'm not sure where I'm going with all this, but it seemed important to say that. I wonder about this, though. We can "know" things that aren't true. So how do we define the difference between knowledge of that which is true and knowledge that we are sure of, but, it turns out, isn't correct?

For instance, back to Einstein, before him, everyone "knew" that things don't change length or mass without being acted on. We still "know" it, in the sense that first hearing the implications of relativity certainly screws with our worldview. Our experience teaches us that time flows at a constant rate and that length and mass are properties of objects. Einstein proved that wasn't the case. Which do we "know"? Can we "know" both? Does the one knowledge preclude the other?

Just flinging out random thoughts hoping someone else can make sense out of them...
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
Dag, I apologize, I'm not sure how I skipped it, but I somehow missed your post at 09:08 AM, which clears up almost all my questions about your distinctions between the two.

Your position makes a lot more sense now, I just needed those pieces to complete what was a very confusing puzzle.

I can see now where you're coming from, although I am certainly not coming from the same direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by suminonA:
Now, there is no significant group competing for the characteristics of the laws of science (take gravity, the rising Sun, the existence of Alaska and any other scientifical fact/theory).

If that is not a fundamental difference, I wonder what is.

---

So your 'fundamental difference' is the number of people who agree or disagree with a particular claim? Weak. My point in making the analogy was that I apply reason & standards of evidence the same way whether we are talking about a religious claim or not. The presence or absence of people who disagree with my conclusions has no bearing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee: Bolding mine.

Originally he was trying to draw a distinction between trust and faith type 2. Since no one was using faith type 2 , the distinction wasn't applicable to the discussion he thought it was.


You're still hung up on the original distinction, andf the only way you can actually make it is if someone else is using faith in the sense of definition 2. No one is . So your distinction doesn't work.

That doesn't mean other distinctions don't work. Just that yours doesn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
What I was curious about was whether Dag (or dkw, for that matter) draws a distinction between faith in God and faith that a rock will fall to the ground when dropped. I'm assuming there is a difference, and I'm curious to hear what they feel that difference is.

---

I'd say that any difference is one of degree, not kind.

---

quote:

---

The weird thing is, I would argue that I do have knowledge of God's goodness, and by extension, of His existence and that it is the same kind of knowledge that I have of gravity-- that is to say, I have experienced it,

---

quote:

---

The idea of using such a concept to refer to a falling rock is ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

When I use the word "faith" in the religious sense of faith in God, I am not talking about knowledge or belief. I am talking about the ordering of ones life towards something such that it becomes the ultimate priority toward which all other aspects of life are subordinant. The idea of using such a concept to refer to a falling rock is ridiculous.

---

This might be another artifact of both my professional backgrounds, but I can couch this in terms of degree as well.

In an earlier post, I mentioned faith as a basis for decisions. My faith in God is such that (ideally - I'm not there yet) God becomes the most important factor in every single decision I make, which would subordinate every other aspect of life.

In my mind, faith in God can be viewed as the ultimate fulfillment of the idea of a foundation for ordering ones life - a light made so bright it makes all other lights seem like darkness, a concept so big that everything else is infinitesimally small, a faith so sure that everything else is doubt. To speak Platonically, faith in God is the true thing, the rest are shadows on the cave wall. As such faith grows toward perfection, new aspects and nuances are exposed that cannot be detected in leser faiths. Eventually these newly noticeable aspects will dwarf the attributes that were present before.

But I think that recognizing what the two different faiths have in common is necessary to beginning that transformation.
 

---

Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
 
I don't disagree with your conclusions Karl, though your description of the circular process doesn't feel right. That seems even more tangential, so I'm not going to bother arguing it and just write it off to my inability to express myself.

What I'm trying to explore now is different meanings of the word "knowledge". What I was getting at is my knowledge of gravity, particularly that knowledge of it which Flying Cow was getting at-- "it just is" -- is neither based on abstract logic nor on the (very valid) scientific demonstrations of gravitation. It is based on my experience of gravity, which I understood long before I knew there was an, as you say, arbitrary name given it.

Personal experience definitely imparts knowledge. But the hitch is that knowledge isn't always true (cf. the relativity idea). I think what we maybe ought to say is that we all have knowledge of things, but that knowledge is necessarily incomplete. Knowing that I will fall down is rawer and baser than knowing the theory of gravitation, but it is still knowledge, even in cases where may not be true... i.e., not knowing about airplanes doesn't imply that I couldn't fly in one, but were I totally ignorant of them, I'd probably be scared witless at finding myself suddenly in one several hundred feet up.

Science and the scientific method allow us a greater and surer, in my words, a more complete, knowledge about some things. Does that mean that things which aren't demonstrable don't qualify as knowledge?

I don't think so...

Jumping back to Lewis, he wrote an essay called "horrid red things" about a child's understanding of poison. The child actually thought that something which was poisonous must contain "horrid red things" in it. This was false, but the child still has some knowledge of poison, and even an essentially correct knowledge, though it isn't scientifically explored and refined, and is, in fact, false in some respects.
 

---

Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
As a total tangent, British brewers, before yeast had biologically been determined as the cause of fermentation, had simply called the process "God is Good" and went along their merry way.

---

quote:

---

Well, yes, but I think your proposed solution was backwards.

---

Well, yes, I've come to realize that.

I still think there's a need for some sort of distinction there, though.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 

quote:

---

Now that is intelligent design!

---

I knew there was a clever rejoinder to that post. I just couldn't think of it.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

When I use the word "faith" in the religious sense of faith in God, I am not talking about knowledge or belief. I am talking about the ordering of ones life towards something such that it becomes the ultimate priority toward which all other aspects of life are subordinant.

---

quote:

---

I think "religious faith", [in my incredibly narrow definition of the term that doesn't take into account any of the discussion any one else has gone through so far on this board], is the faith that one has in certain religious beliefs, not the priority of those beliefs. It is that sort of faith that I think atheists often object to. And it is that sort of faith that I consider comparable to faith in scientific theories or faith that rocks will fall when you drop them.

---

quote:

---

It is that sort of faith that I think atheists often object to. And it is that sort of faith that I consider comparable to faith in scientific theories or faith that rocks will fall when you drop them.

---

What we object to isn't the faith, it's the comparison. I can go outside right now, pick up a rock, drop it, and watch it fall. I can't kneel down, pray to god, and expect an answer.

If you're going to ascribe collective objections to a group, at least do them the decency of getting it right.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
See, password, Aristotle made an incorrect leap based on first hand knowledge.

A rock falls to the earth. Anyone can see that, true. Everything in Aristotle's world fell to the earth when dropped. He therefore concluded that all things fell toward the center of the Earth.

His error came not in predicting that another rock, when dropped, would fall to the earth, but trying to make universal generalized statements about "all things", many of which are beyond his understanding (and he neglected that the sun, moon, and stars did not fall to the earth).

Newton took more factors into account when he made his generalizations, but even then, that was to the best of his ability. Same with Einstein.

None of their theories of the greater picture, however, stops a rock from falling to the earth.

That it will, when dropped, is still first hand knowledge.
 

---

Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
 
Agreed, Flying Cow.

And I bet every one of the three would have been content to have the qualifier "as far as we know" added on to their work.

The existence of the phrase seems to imply that "knowledge" needn't be complete or universal to be "knowledge". That what we know isn't necessarily "true" but it is still knowledge.

I'm honestly not sure why I'm suddenly fascinated by this concept, but I am. There's a big philosphical point poking around my subconscious, but it doesn't want to come out and play yet. ah well...


I feel like Richard Dreyfus, staring at a lump of mashed potatoes, saying "this... means something," while you all stand back from the dinner table convinced that I've lost my mind
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Do what the rest of us do: Talk around it until you or someone else says what you meant originally.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Meh, philosophy is mental chewing gum. Tasty for a time, but ultimately unfulfilling - plus, tiresome once it loses its flavor.

Great fodder for short stories or films, but nothing I'd want to devote more time than that to. There's too much in the real world that's more satisfying.
 

---

Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
 
ok... what do you mean when you say you "know" something?

Edit: Flying Cow, well, yeah, but when you're stuck at work doing something that takes little concentration it does make for an interesting diversion.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Fair enough.

When I say I know something, I mean that it is true beyond any rational doubt. I am sitting down. I know that. Is there any way for me to deny to myself that I'm sitting down? Not without denying reality utterly. It is fact, and it is something I know.

I know my name, I know I exist, I know what I'm wearing, etc. I know that if I knock a pencil off my desk, it will fall to the floor. To question these things is not useful in any way, they are basic facts upon which the framework of reality is built.

Now do I need to go into the whys and wherefors? Do I need to know the formula that describes the pencil falling to the floor mathematically, complete with air resistance and all other factors to know that it will fall to the floor? No. Do I need faith that there was a supreme being that created the pencil and the floor and set the world in motion a certain way so as to cause that pencil to fall? No.

The pencil falls. It's as simple as that. Moreover, I *know* it will fall, so I don't need to test it. To question that is silly, but any tests will hold up that the pencil will indeed fall to the floor if I push it off my desk.

And, just to annoy Tres, it will fall if I do it tomorrow, too.
 

---

Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
To question these things is not useful in any way, they are basic facts upon which the framework of reality is built.

---

quote:

---

Moreover, I *know* it will fall, so I don't need to test it. To question that is silly

---

quote:

---

Tres: yes, but this isn't a discussion about whether or not it is rational to believe, it's a discussion about what the word faith means.

---

quote:

---

What we object to isn't the faith, it's the comparison. I can go outside right now, pick up a rock, drop it, and watch it fall. I can't kneel down, pray to god, and expect an answer.

---

Why can't you kneel down, pray to god, and expect an answer? Because you don't have the same faith in God's prayer-answering as you do in the physics of rocks?

quote:

---

Can I do that?

---

quote:

---

And this particular discussion began as an attempt to refute a quote of mine taken from a thread which was discussing whether it is rational to believe.

---

Well, not quite. I wasn't trying to refute anything. I was using your quote as an example of what I still believe is a hopelessly cavalier use of the word "faith", without any qualifiers, yet with a specific meaning in that context that may or may not match a meaning the word has in other contexts in which you use it, and in such a way that it obfuscates any real meaning you are trying to convey.

And since by this usage I was pretty much unable to understand exactly what you were trying to convey, I would hardly take it upon myself to try to refute it.

. . . and I bet you think this post is about you.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Why am I supposed to think that post is about me?

The quote you gave was an attempt of mine to argue that faith ought to be used in just that fashion - that it is misleading to use one word to describe an attitude towards religious beliefs, but not apply the same word to describe the equivalent attitudes towards other beliefs. So you were refuting it, even if without realizing it.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there just a big hullabaloo that relgious faith was not faith in religious beliefs? That the idea of faith is divorced from the idea of belief in the minds of many? That faith is the underpinnings of all day to day activities for the faithful, the lens through which they view the world - rather than the narrow "faith in religious beliefs"?

I could be totally wrong with this, but I'll defer to Dag or dkw, since I'm not one who considers faith to be a big part of my life.
 

---

Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
FC, Personally I would generally distance the two, if not completely separate them.

In my own personal definition of faith (at least as it applies to religion) I have faith that God Exists and is a belevolent deity. On a separate note, through some small part faith and a larger part logical/theological reasoning I believe the Catholic church's views coincide most closely with my views on God (i.e. my beliefs).

To a certain extent I might say that I have faith that there are physical laws to the universe and that they are in general at a steady state (i.e. unchanging).

Pretty much anything else beyond those couple very basic statements I don't think I would apply the word "faith" to. The rest would be some manner of belief, trust, knowledge, certainty, reasoning, etc.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there just a big hullabaloo that relgious faith was not faith in religious beliefs?

---

quote:

---

I am not questioning the foundations of logic or deductive reasoning. I am questioning inductive reasoning. Logic is not based upon that.

---

quote:

---

I submit that you can't prove anything without postulating something first. You have to start from unproven first principles before you can prove anything. Fortunately, many of these we can agree on or at least admit for the sake of argument. Often we can agree to the results of inductive "proof" even though, technically speaking, it's not proven at all. "Demonstrated" might be a better word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there just a big hullabaloo that relgious faith was not faith in religious beliefs? That the idea of faith is divorced from the idea of belief in the minds of many? That faith is the underpinnings of all day to day activities for the faithful, the lens through which they view the world - rather than the narrow "faith in religious beliefs"?

---

I think you took dkw's original comment about that and went off the deep end with it. The words 'faith' and 'belief' have multiple senses that frequently overlap or make them synonomous, and other senses that are quite different.

Dkw insists that 'faith' in the religious sense ought to connote "the ordering of ones life towards something such that it becomes the ultimate priority toward which all other aspects of life are subordinant." That's fine, but the original topic (IIRC) was about the appropriateness of the word 'faith' to describe confidence in scientific facts, which clearly is nothing like the definition dkw gave (and she acknowledges as much -- "The idea of using such a concept to refer to a falling rock is ridiculous.")

As for me, I have no problem using the words 'faith' and 'belief' interchangeably. In fact, various forms of these words in the New Testament are usually translated from the same root Greek word (pistis, with various suffixes), so for a Christian to make a hard and fast distinction seems arbitrary.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
It seems to me that dkw is quite un-necessarily dragging in the sense of "the Christian faith", which matches the description she gave, but has little to do with "faith in the existence of the IPU", which the thread was actually about.
 

---

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
 
I see that people are trying to show that the concept of FAITH covers many shades, some close to BELIEF, some close to TRUST, but also some that have nothing to do with those. If only the Eskimos would have an interest in this concept as they have for SNOW

I also see that there are people who have a stronger faith in the benevolence of their god than the faith in the laws of physics. They might think that should the laws of gravity change at any given moment, the god is still benevolent. That’s fine with me. [These are differences of strength, and are subjective by definition]

But while using the same word of “faith”, there are not only differences of degree, but fundamental differences. There are difference of MEANING. At least for some people, me included. Acknowledging those differences would help communication, as I stated before.

The phrase: “I have the same faith in God answering my prayers as I have in this bridge holding my weight” is rather devoid of meaning for me. [I would only agree to it if meaning “the same strength of faith”] I’m not saying it cannot be true (in the implied sense of “the same kind of faith”) for the one uttering it. And I know we are not here in the science class. But if you want to say something meaningful to me, keep the blurred shades for your inner thought and use their meaning when you express yourself about faith. At least specify if you’re talking about strength or kind. Then I could agree or disagree, but at least I would understand what you’re saying.

Is there anybody ready to do that?

A.

PS: I’m not the centre of the Universe, but I try to avoid phrases like “if you want to say something meaningful to the others …” If I can’t generalise, I have to particularise.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xaposert:
Why am I supposed to think that post is about me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
It seems to me that dkw is quite un-necessarily dragging in the sense of "the Christian faith", which matches the description she gave, but has little to do with "faith in the existence of the IPU", which the thread was actually about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xaposert:

quote:

---

What we object to isn't the faith, it's the comparison. I can go outside right now, pick up a rock, drop it, and watch it fall. I can't kneel down, pray to god, and expect an answer.

---

Why can't you kneel down, pray to god, and expect an answer? Because you don't have the same faith in God's prayer-answering as you do in the physics of rocks?

---

Actually, it's because god doesn't exist.

In all seriousness, though, it's because the falling of rocks is a consistent observable phenomenon regardless of who the observer is, while the answering of prayers is not.

Added: I should be clear that I don't think this diminishes the meaning or usefulness of prayer for people who do believe in god. I'm simply trying to highlight the differences between belief in the accuracy and usefulness or a scientific theory and belief in a supernatural entity to show why I think it's such a bad idea to conflate the two.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

It seems to me that dkw is quite un-necessarily dragging in the sense of "the Christian faith", which matches the description she gave, but has little to do with "faith in the existence of the IPU", which the thread was actually about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

Oh, and back-Anon, the snow thing is a myth.

---

I suppose you are addressing to me. [Are you making a pun based on a board game?]
I can accept that I was indoctrinated about this “myth” just as anyone else. I’ve never talked to an Eskimo. That would be a reliable source on the subject.

And even if the “myth” is wrong and laughable (“over 100 words, ha-ha!”), I still think that it would be natural for the Inuits (aka Eskimos) to be concerned about such a concept and to MAKE THE DISTINCTION between a dozen “kinds of snow”.

<speculation>
Frozen snow and fluffy snow might be different enough for them to be careful when they cross a crevasse filled with it. They might even have two different words for them.
</speculation>

So my point is that for someone interested in a concept, making the distinction is important and might be even vital. It’s the case for me with the concept of “faith”, when I try to communicate. If there are others who are content with just “shades of faith”, they can understand each other. But their discourse about it makes no sense to me. And maybe my discourse makes no sense to them. We are unable to communicate, which defies the main purpose of a forum.

But if we agree that it is possible to make a distinction when talking about faith (and use the various definitions as a base) then we can hope for understanding

A.

PS: we can measure a 17.5 feet line with a 1 inch stick, but we cannot measure a 17.5 inch line with a 1 foot stick.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

But your critique of inductive reasoning can just as easily be applied to deductive reasoning.

If laws of physics are not constant, then other things like causality, our conception of linear time, and our very perception of reality can also be called into question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xaposert:
[…]based on the fundamental observation that certain things cannot be true at once - such as X being true and X being not true simultaneously. This I do not call into question.

---

I think Gödel would have said otherwise .

You surely know about this. My point is: do not overestimate “common sense”. There are limitations to what we can achieve by intuition. Newton’s “absolute time and absolute space” was painfully (but eventually) replaced with Einstein’s “relative space-time”.

Accepting the limitations guides not only my faith but also my trust in this Universe.

A.

PS: “This sentence is false.”
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
The law of Gravity did change not too long ago, not just the relativity thing but also more recently when we discovered that the universe is accelerating in its motion of flying apart. Most cosmologists posit an additional repulsive force which was never noticed before, but you could just as easily say that gravity becomes negative under certain circumstances. So yes, rocks that used to fall down are now flying up and away.

I think one thing about religious belief is that when you acquire it, part of that process is realizing that the way you know ALL the things you know (such as physics, gravity, etc.) is similar to religious faith. There is a step in there where there's just a leap. If anyone has read Lewis Carroll's dialogue of Achilles and the Tortoise, they will see that even mathematical reasoning (which is supposed to be the purest of pure knowledge) includes this Zeno's paradox that you can't get from A to B in fewer than infinite steps of reasoning. I think that's why religious people and non-religious people have such a different viewpoint about scientific faith or scientific beliefs or scientific knowledge (whatever word you want to use).

Another thing that illustrates roughly what I mean is how you learn the meaning for words as a baby. Helen Keller's breakthrough understanding that "water" meant water is a good illustration. The connection can be supported by associating the things in time and space, but the spark, the miracle, that makes "w-a-t-e-r" MEAN water, that connects them inside someone's mind, has to just happen. It's as mysterious and unelucidated a process as religious faith.

[ March 30, 2006, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Also, there's a profound mystery about Gravity itself, scientifically, in that nobody knows WHY gravity happens. We can describe HOW in great detail, but there's no explanation for the spooky action at a distance. It's just an equation. Physics, at its heart, is equations that describe how things act. There are no explanations for the equations, no nuts-and-bolts mechanical underpinnings. Only math in a void, so to speak.

Richard P. Feynman, my hero and an atheist explained it like this. He said in the middle ages scientists used to believe that the planets continued in their orbits because there were angels behind them pushing them along by beating their wings. Now we have a different theory, he said, now the angels push inward.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tatiana:
The law of Gravity did change not too long ago, not just the relativity thing but also more recently when we discovered that the universe is accelerating in its motion of flying apart. Most cosmologists posit an additional repulsive force which was never noticed before, but you could just as easily say that gravity becomes negative under certain circumstances. So yes, rocks that used to fall down are now flying up and away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
"M" theory (strings) is the most promising field of thought, however it presents difficulties because M theory is impossible to experiment with and observe in a meaningfull way.

---

Aah... so it's based entirely on 'category 2' faith.


 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

"M" theory (strings) is the most promising field of thought, however it presents difficulties because M theory is impossible to experiment with and observe in a meaningfull way.

---

quote:

---

But as to the "law of Gravity." This is a lay concept that never existed, thus it couldn't really change. Newton's universal gravitation has been known to be slightly innacurate for a very long time, and we have found through observation that Einstein's general relativity does not explain the universe on a quantum level.

---

quote:

---

Yes, but deductive reasoning and logic are not based on causality, conceptions of time, or perceptions of reality either. They are based on the fundamental observation that certain things cannot be true at once - such as X being true and X being not true simultaneously. This I do not call into question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beren One Hand:
You have faith that two things cannot be true simultaneously. But that is just an assertion. Can you prove it anymore than you can prove that the sun will rise tomorrow?

---

quote:

---

You have faith that two things cannot be true simultaneously. But that is just an assertion.

---

quote:

---

If you cannot trust your perception of reality, how can you rely on a system derived from "fundamental observation"?

---

quote:

---

Once again "faith" is misunderstood.

---

quote:

---

I don't need faith in it, because I can see directly that it is certainly true.

---

 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Note that neither you nor I can see directly, in that same fashion, that it is certainly true that rocks will fall if we drop them. That is a prediction of the future, not an observable thing. Hence the need for faith in the laws of physics.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
First of all, Tres, I know I'm derailing this thread a bit so thanks in advance for all the detailed and thoughtful answers.

quote:

---

There are two ways to accurately be certain about the truth of a belief. The first is if it is something that is observed directly - not through our eyes or ears, but rather in our minds directly. This is a very limited category of things (a=a, 1+1=2, "I am in pain", "I exist", etc.) but we have the capacity to know them for sure.

---

quote:

---

I don't accept that because some faiths are clearly better to have than others, and because I think it is possible to observe things in a way that they cannot be false.

---

quote:

---

Are we born with the ability to comprehend that 1+1=2 without any observations of the physical world? Is any part of your absolute confidence in your "inner observations" solidified or enhanced by your sensory observations of the physical world?

---

quote:

---

Do you think that this ability to observe things is:

(a) Correct 100% of the time;

(b) Correct often enough to make it a principle you can rely on; or

(c) Not necessarily 100% correct, but should be presumed to be correct because no intelligent discourse can take place without that assumption?

---

That depends on what "things" we are observing...

Things like "a=a" or "1+1=2" fall in category (a) I think. This list is limited, but I think there are some things you can observe that you know you can't be wrong about. Predictions about the future would not be in this category. (I don't view 1+1=2 as a prediction that taking 1 and combining it with 1 will result in 2. I see it as the definition of a concept, that 2 literally is what you get when you combine 1 and 1.)

Most observations are not 100% certainly true, however - observations about what will happen in the future, or what did happen in the past, or what is true in the physical world (which I can only get at through my fallible senses), etc. They'd be a different category all together: (d)Not necessarily 100% correct, but supported by enough evidence that we can act as if it is 100% correct until we have reason to believe otherwise.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Actually, it was me who said that. My teacher just got huffy and insisted that mathematical principles such as 1+1=2 (or, her example was that a traingle had three sides) was a given that we had to accept.

She didn't like the fact that I said without observation we wouldn't know what a triangle *was*, that it was even a *shape*, or even just what a *side* was. Let alone the idea that without observation, you are limited to self (sans other) and the concept of "one".

Even a=a has it's roots in observation. Equality itself is a comparison - the idea of comparing would require there to be two things, which is precluded in the absence of the concept of "other". To say something equals itself is to use the idea of comparison reflexively, but the idea of comparison between two things is already there.

Reality and thought is based, at least in part, on perception and observation.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
enochville's story in the integrity thread is a really good example of why I think that the second part of the faith definition is so important (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence). As strong as they might be, logical proof and material evidence are a shaky foundation without a core of
something deeper.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
As I said, perhaps not too well, in my marathon post on JennyG's thread, I think Faith means something more profound than mere intellectual assent... but intellectual assent is necessary for faith.

To agree with you, Kate, faith absolutely requires you to go further than "I have seen enough evidence to be convinced." Where I disagree is that you should, or even can, have faith in something of which you remain unconvinced. Obviously you can "take a flyer" on something that hasn't been proven, but I don't really think that's faith as much as it is, perhaps, hope.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 

quote:

---

Where I disagree is that you should, or even can, have faith in something of which you remain unconvinced. Obviously you can "take a flyer" on something that hasn't been proven, but I don't really think that's faith as much as it is, perhaps, hope.

---

quote:

---

It is believing in the love of God despite all the wrong that is done in the name of God, despite all the terrible things that happen in the world. It is believing in God, even when you have proof that those who taught you about God were false.

---

quote:

---

I think of hope as an optimistic version of expect. To expect something that one wants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
As strong as they might be, logical proof and material evidence are a shaky foundation without a core of something deeper.

---

So materialist atheists are out of luck, since they must by definition lack this "something deeper?" I'm not sure I agree.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I don't follow you, Twinky... are you saying that materialist atheists do feel a faith with something that transcends material proof? if so then I would suppose they don't qualify as materialist atheists...

or are you just pointing out that Kate's (and my) worldview mean that materialist atheists are definitionally missing something? it would hardly be surprise, you have to admit, for a theist to think an atheist might be missing something important...

but I suspect, rather, that *I* am missing something important in what you are saying...help me understand you better?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Let me put it this way: if material evidence and logical proof are a "shaky" foundation for belief in the absence of "something deeper," a decent chunk of human philosophy was a big fat waste of time.

Do you see why I might take some issue with that suggestion?
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I think Kate is specifically referring to spiritual things here... with apologies for putting words in her mouth.

On the other hand, I think I've been largely on your side of this when I maintain that reasonable intellectual assent is a prequisite for, but not sufficient to impart, faith.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
So she's saying that material evidence or logical proof would be insufficient reason to believe in a deity?

Maybe I'm just confused. It's Friday, and it's been rather a long week.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I think she's saying that it's not sufficent to predicate "faith" in a deity... and I agree with her there...

where we disagree is that I do think they are prerequisite, whereas she is saying you can have faith without there being rigorous proof.

I am not so much disagreeing with her as raising a couple of points of order:

1) what she describes lands closer to what I would call "hope"--acting on something you are not certain is true.

2) what she says could be misconstrued as saying you ought to believe something *in spite of* logical evidence that it is true-- which I don't think she is actually saying
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

where we disagree is that I do think they are prerequisite, whereas she is saying you can have faith without there being rigorous proof.

---

I agree with Kate on that one, but of course if I believed that there were a rigorous proof of a particular deity I would probably believe in that deity.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
"rigorous" is a relative, not a technical term as I am using it here... no worries
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Let me put it this way: if material evidence and logical proof are a "shaky" foundation for belief in the absence of "something deeper," a decent chunk of human philosophy was a big fat waste of time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
If one is referring to the physical phenomenon represtented by 2+2=4 - that taking 2 objects together and grouping them with 4 more objects results in 4 objects being present - I'm not sure it's in a different category than predicting a rock falling to the ground. There could hypothetically be a physical law that when two objects come into contact with two others, one is destroyed or a new one is created.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
are babies aware that their weight will drag them off the edge of a cliff if they stray too far?

---

quote:

---

In one of her studies, Adolph gathered a group of 9-month-olds who had been sitting up for a while but had only just started to crawl. In the first scenario, the babies were placed on a platform in view of a bright red ball 2 feet below. In their excited pursuit of the ball, the babies would have fallen off the platform if no one had caught them. Yet when they were seated with their legs dangling over the edge of the platform, the babies gazed at the tempting red ball but didn't reach for it because they knew they would fall.

Why were babies more cautious in the second instance? The 9-month-old babies, with several months' of sitting experience, knew what they could and couldn't do from that position. On the other hand, as novice crawlers they lacked both the depth perception and eye-hand coordination to judge their own abilities correctly during the precarious new activity.

---

quote:

---

) what she describes lands closer to what I would call "hope"--acting on something you are not certain is true.

---

quote:

---

what she says could be misconstrued as saying you ought to believe something *in spite of* logical evidence that it is true-- which I don't think she is actually saying

---

quote:

---

My faith does not depend on those things...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
It seems to me that if they tell you something is true, they are a sort of sense.

---

"Everything that is in the mind was first in the senses..."
--Thomas Aquinas as summarized on this particular topic by G.K. Chesterton

Of course *our* Tom thinks Aquinas was looney tunes, so I may not be helping here
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Man, it's good to have you back, Jim-Me.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No. I don't think Aquinas was nuts. I think he was desperate to justify his faith despite the fact that his reason told him it was foolish, so he came up with foolish reasons to have faith.

That said, his philosophy was quite good. It was his apology that blew chunks.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
It seems to me that if they tell you something is true, they are a sort of sense.

---

"Everything that is in the mind was first in the senses..."
--Thomas Aquinas as summarized on this particular topic by G.K. Chesterton

Of course *our* Tom thinks Aquinas was looney tunes, so I may not be helping here

---

Either I disagree with Thomas Aquinas
(quite possible) or faith, for me, doesn't necessarily reside in the mind.

And it is very good to have you back.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 


you missed the constant GKC references, did you?
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
That said, his philosophy was quite good. It was his apology that blew chunks.

---

I stand corrected, sir, and shall endeavor to better represent your position in the future



but it's still fun to needle you about it so I hope you'll forgive me
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Kate,

"Mind" and "heart" are, to me, merely the two modes of operation of that thing called "soul" or "will"... one rational, one intuitive.

I know you are arguing that faith is supra-rational, but I think where we disconnect is actually that you seem to think that something can be in your heart before you apprehend it. I think, and Aquinas agrees with me, that the opposite is true-- that by the very nature of having feelings or intuitions with respect to something you, ipso facto, apprehend its existence.

Even in the case of a really great work of art which unleashes a feeling you've never experienced before, it is able to do so precisely because you are perceiving something new.

But now we get away from Scholastic thought and into Simulacra and Simulation, which, I confess, I put down because it was too complicated.

Not because I don't think I could have understood it, but because it became increasingly clear that that whoever translated the copy I had was using as large and obscure words as possible and I just don't have the spare time to be patient with that sort of thing.

... and thanks for the kind words
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
So where does the HS come into the equation? Is God's call to us something we "understand" in the mind or something we "feel" in the heart. Both? Or something else?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Kate, to boil it down: how do you know something's in your heart if you don't sense it?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Kate, to boil it down: how do you know something's in your heart if you don't sense it?

---

Well that is kind of the question, isn't it?

Tom, I think that, up to now, we may be using "sense" differently. I have been talking about the usual 5 senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste) - the ones that would be used to examine "material evidence". I don't use those senses to know what is in my heart. I am suggesting that, to know what is in my heart, I use something other than/beyond those five senses.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I submit that you sense an emotion due to physical changes in your body chemistry, and reason about the possible causes, ultimately concluding (based on the nature of those sensations) that God put it there.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
And I (respectfully) submit that you are wrong. As a matter of fact, I have faith that you are wrong.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
I submit that God put it there, but that it is nevertheless a sort of evidence that supports your faith rationally.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So what does it feel like, exactly, when you feel something in your heart? I'm curious as to how you notice it without any sensation or conscious awareness.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Well, I don't taste, touch, hear, smell, or see it.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
As a matter of fact, I have faith that you are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
As a matter of fact, I have faith that you are wrong.

---

Kate, I'm not sure I'm following here... you seem to be placing a great deal of emphasis on human knowledge as an entirely spiritual experience. I disagree. In fact this approach denies the whole reason (as I understand it) for the Incarnation.

am I off?

and I'd submit that you *do* sense feelings in your heart through touch... there's a reason that "heart" got labled as such... the physical organ of your heart responds strongly to emotions and you can identify emotions based on what you feel in your chest.

---

quote:

---

It isn't all that important, because my faith does not depend on that either.

---

quote:

---

So where does the HS come into the equation? Is God's call to us something we "understand" in the mind or something we "feel" in the heart. Both? Or something else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

It isn't all that important, because my faith does not depend on that either.

---

Well, that's what I'm trying to understand. If your faith doesn't depend on a feeling in your chest, on any logic, or on your understanding of your religion, or on any of your personal observations, on what else can it possibly depend?

---

On God. On grace. On the Holy Spirit.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
But how are you aware of any of those things without your senses or reason making you aware of them? In other words, it is only POSSIBLE for your faith to be based on God or Grace or the Holy Spirit inasmuch as you are capable of perceiving or rationalizing the existence of these things.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Forgive me for pressing but I think this is an important point. Your response does truly beg the question, "what, aside from God does it depend on?"

Because it *has* to depend on you at some point, or it isn't you that has faith. This is where I part ways vehemently from a lot of fundamentalists... we can't have faith without God, but we *do* play a role and we aren't merely passive recipients of Grace.

Otheriwse it's a very short set of steps, that I *know* you don't advocate (which, BTW, is an example of Faith on my part-- faith in you ), from "I know this and he doesn't" to "God loves me and not him."
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Absolutely, it depends on me as well. I make the decision to respond. I believe that God calls to each of us, wants to be in relation to each of us. My decision to respond to that with faith is my own.

But the part of the Holy Spirit that is me (or the part of me that is the Holy Spirit?) is still me.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
And, to clarify, you DO sense God's call, right, with some sense or another? That is, you're aware of the call in some way, even if you aren't necessarily able to describe it?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
And, to clarify, you DO sense God's call, right, with some sense or another? That is, you're aware of the call in some way, even if you aren't necessarily able to describe it?

---

quote:

---

Edit: I take it back. I can think of one way, which is "I believe in God because God makes me," but that would seem to fly in the face of most modern theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:
I just think, now, that we are operating on different definitions of "know" now.

I can see, Kate, how you could choose to believe in something you do not apprehend in any way, but I don't see how you can call that "knowing". That it's not what many of us here mean when we use the word "faith" is, I suppose, well-worn territory.

And, again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, much less beliefs in your heart... this is just what it sounds like you are saying to me, and, evidently, to Tom as well.

---

quote:

---

The potential for faith, the "seed", the invitation, is internal, God-given - and given to everyone.

---

quote:

---

My point is that if your faith depends on "material evidence or logic" then you are vulnerable when either of those fail you - just as enochville was.

---

I think faith always entails being vulnerable. This is true no matter what you base your faith on.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
The thing in myself that is closest to what Kate seems to be decribing would be whatever it is inside me that makes me an over-all optimist. It's also a "big picture" kind of faith that I just "feel" without being able to say it's a 5-senses kind of "feeling". It's also a feeling that isn't born of any real rational thought. I mean, I can make a semi-plausible rational arguement for remaining optimistic, but it's more a justification for the way I already feel than it is a reason for feeling that way.

This "faith" is important to me and likely a fundamental part of my most basic personality. It informs many of my attitudes and decisions on some level. But it isn't a source of any kind of knowledge, which is where I feel that it differs from most kinds of religious faith. There is no way I can progress from my faith, no matter how I nurture it, to any kind of faith in Jesus Christ, God, The Bible, The Pope, Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, or any other religious lynchpin.

Is this "faith" that I'm talking about anything remotely similar to the idea you are trying to describe, Kate? What is it about your inherent kernel of faith that tells you it comes from God? Because without the "god" part, I know what you mean. When I examine the base kernel of faith upon which I operate, not only is it irrelevant whether Jesus was married or not, it's irrelevant whether he existed or not, or indeed whether "God" exists or not. All paths I can trace that would connect "God" to this kernel of faith are external cultural labeling, and not informed from the thing itself.

(Does that make sense to you? Anyone?)
 

---

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
 
KarlEd, I hear you

I think that we need labels in order to communicate. So at the beginning of the communication era, there was a need of a label for “the good/moral” concept. A benevolent, loving, all powerful deity seems to be an obvious and useful choice (as a source of all that is good and moral and such). Having faith in that kind of “good” is quite acceptable for me. But the concept evolved and the “deity” became a concept more powerful than the original “good”.

So, when someone says: “I’m good in response to the call of the deity I believe/have faith in.” I find it more than OK.

What is not OK for me is when someone says something like “the deity I believe in is better than the deity you believe in” (based on the “obvious” premise that we all NEED to believe in some deity). We find ourselves here on the slippery edge of the slope. Not only one would start judging the others by “self-sustained reasons” but the “need to save the souls of the rest” becomes “justified” (see human history) …

My personal theory is that the goodness/usefulness of the “deity concept” was broken when people noticed (and craved for) the power that comes with the “spoken by the deity” office.

I’m not saying that all organised religion is “bad”, I just don’t like the “true believers” preaching and feeling righteous and worthy and all that, while “obviously” distrusting the ones that “don’t respond to the call of the (same) deity” …

A.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Made sense to me, Karl, and I think Optimism would be a very good example of both something you "feel" without feeling it physically, and faith in the sense Kate means it.

In case I haven't mentioned it lately, Karl, I really do enjoy and appreciate your perceptive ability.

A., this part:

quote:

---

I just don’t like the “true believers” preaching and feeling righteous and worthy and all that, while “obviously” distrusting the ones that “don’t respond to the call of the (same) deity”

---

is what worries me about over-emphasizing the internal aspect of "God reveals this to us". I don't attribute this attitude to Kate, but I have seen a correlation between "God revealed this to me so I know it's true" and "God revealed this to me, so I'm better than you", though that is admittedly anecdotal evidence and not a detailed study.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Thank you, Jim-Me.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Karl, yes. That is very much what I am talking about. The further step is that my "big-picture-good-moral (I would add "love") thing" has a "personality" and a desire to be in relationship. It is the source of "good-moral-love-ness". I also agree that naming it (which defines it as smaller) and claiming it as different or better than that other tribe's source of "good-moral-love-ness is the cause of great wrong. I think that religion runs into problems when instead of saying that this is the way I choose to be in relationship with/respond to the invitation to be in relationship with, the source of good-moral-love-ness, we start thinking that that facet of this infinite concept is the whole thing.

Karl, I think that you and I have a very similar faith. I have different channels to access it and I believe that Jesus is one way that "good-moral-love-ness" has reached out to us. And I believe that, despite the dangers, getting together with other people to acknowledge and be in relationship with g-m-l-ness is useful - mostly because the most concrete way to be in relationship with gmlness is to recognize the gmlness in each other.

And Jim - if God has revealed anything to me, it is that, since God's love is infinite and God loves all God's children, that defining myself as "better" than someone else because of my relationship with God is a ridiculous idea.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
And Jim - if God has revealed anything to me, it is that, since God's love is infinite and God loves all God's children, that defining myself as "better" than someone else because of my relationship with God is a ridiculous idea.

---

I figured Not everyone gets that, however.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

That is very much what I am talking about. The further step is that my "big-picture-good-moral (I would add "love") thing" has a "personality" and a desire to be in relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Absolutely. If I could not sense my daughter and could not think about my daughter, I am completely confident that I would not love my daughter. Moreover, lacking these thoughts and sensations, I would be completely unaware that loving my daughter would be possible, much less desirable or necessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Absolutely. If I could not sense my daughter and could not think about my daughter, I am completely confident that I would not love my daughter. Moreover, lacking these thoughts and sensations, I would be completely unaware that loving my daughter would be possible, much less desirable or necessary.

---

quote:

---

The aliens took away her son physically, and then erased every memory of her son. And yet, she didn't forget.

---

Then they clearly missed a memory or two, by definition.

--------

quote:

---

I know that even when my Dad isn't thinking about me and I'm not anywhere near him so he isn't sensing me, he still even in that moment, loves me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Logical but not rational:
A) All elephants are grey.
B) This object is grey.
C) Therefore, it is an elephant.

---

quote:

---

And I am saying that, while my faith is shaped and informed by all of the above, it does not depend on it.

---

quote:

---

When that sensation/emotion - I hesitate to call it physical, but it isn't important - is absent, even when I look for it, my faith is not changed.

---

But that's rather like saying that when your father isn't saying "I love you," he loves you. It's TRUE, but there would presumably reach a point where, barring any demonstrations of your father's love, you would begin to doubt its existence. no?

In the same way, if that sensation/emotion were absent EVERY time you looked for it, wouldn't you start to wonder?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
No. You are too concerned with the sensation. or you think I am. The conversation has focused on that because you questions led that way, but it is not about the sensation.

Faith is a choice, a decision. It is in response to an invitation. That invitation makes itself known through many means. One of those, but by no means the most important, is a sensation/emotion.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
And I'm curious what other means could be used. Would you elaborate on those?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Testimony of other people - written and otherwise, observation of creation, the resonance of the idea itself. For example.

But honestly, Tom, why? You aren't really curious. It isn't going to convince you of anything - nor would I try. I am answering your questions mostly to be polite, but my answers are only going to be frustrating for you, because the real answer is something you don't think exists.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No, see, that's the problem. You're arguing about the EXISTENCE of God, which is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
 

---

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
 
Note: kmbboots IS NOT this conversation

A.
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 
What are you trying to say suminonA? Did you leave out a word or two?
 

---

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
 
Amanecer, *hint #1* take my post together with the prevoius one (TomDavidson's). His last sentence, to be more precise.


A.


PS: *hint #2* TomDavidson also presented some "logical/rational tools" before
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
If it makes you feel any better, Amanecer, I have no idea what he's trying to say, either.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
All I can guess from suminonA post is that I am being too pushy? Dominating the conversation? If so, I apologize.

Tom (or anyone else), feel free to e-mail me if you want to continue where I won't annoy people.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
screw that, kmbboots. Threads change direction all the time, so as long as you have something to say and people are responding, you're welcome in any thread I start.

At any rate, I wouldn't get too offended. A's post was too cryptic to jump to any conclusions.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I've certainly been reading the conversation with interest.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Me too, and for what it's worth, I have a new insight into "faith" that I wouldn't have were it not for Kate's posts.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Oh, I wasn't offended - just reminded of my own tendency to hog the soapbox. Thanks for the reassurance, though.

Tom, the existance of God is central to the conversation, because it is the Holy Spirit (or that "divinity" or "part of God" that exists in me) that responds to the invitation to faith. And God that, I pray, helps me to continue to respond even when as Merton says,"the time comes to enter the darkness in which we are naked and helpless and alone; in which we see the insufficiency of our greatest strenght and the hollowness of our greatest virtues.; in which we have nothing of our own to rely on, and nothing in our nature to support us, and nothing in the world to guide us or give us light."

When I am long past being able to reason, or to believe in my senses, or even to comfort myself with "feelings", I trust that something in me will still respond.

See? Without God, that doesn't make any sense.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Tom, the existance of God is central to the conversation, because it is the Holy Spirit (or that "divinity" or "part of God" that exists in me) that responds to the invitation to faith.

---

Ah. You're having a different conversation than I'm having, then. Because I'm asking what form the invitation to faith takes, and what form(s) the response takes, and how you're aware of either. If that response doesn't constitute 'reason' or 'feeling' or 'emotion,' I'm left baffled as to how you can be conscious of it in any way.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I imagine that I am aware of the invitation in a way similar to the way that I am self-aware at all. I'm not sure what that is.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
"I think therefore God is"? So to speak?
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 
Add me to the "reading this conversation with interest" list.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Except, Karl, that "I think, therefore I am" is precisely an argument for existence based on perception. Kate's argument boils down to "I exist, therefore I am full of imperceptible jellyfish;" it doesn't follow in the same way.

Kate, I submit that you're self-aware because you perceive yourself and are conscious of your own thoughts, something which makes it possible for you to conceive of yourself as an individual. We would describe the absence of such perception as "oblivion."
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 
Maybe "I believe, therefore God is"?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No. Because I doubt she'd say that God's existence is conditional on her belief. I get the impression that she's saying the opposite: that her belief is a direct and completely non-incidental product of God's existence.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
No. Because I doubt she'd say that God's existence is conditional on her belief. I get the impression that she's saying the opposite: that her belief is a direct and completely non-incidental product of God's existence.

---

Yup. But the part I am struggling with is (and maybe you are, too) is perceive how ? It isn't just logic and it isn't just sensory input. We have machines that do that and yet are not self-aware. Instinct? But that doesn't really explain anything. Soul? Again, doesn't explain and you all may not think such a thing exists.
 

---

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
 
Ups, I hope I didn't spoil the discussion. It wasn't my intention at all. And thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
Here is what I meant:

[following hint #1:]

quote:

---

(1)Originally posted by TomDavidson:
You're arguing about the EXISTENCE of God, which is completely irrelevant to this conversation.

---

quote:

---

(2)Originally posted by suminonA:
Note: kmbboots IS NOT this conversation

---

[hint #2 is about LOGIC, so:]

From (1) and (2) I infer that "the EXISTENCE of God" might be relevant for kmbboots.

And with that I wanted to say that even if the existence of the deity is completely irrelevant for TomDavidson's side of discussion, we should not confuse that with kmbboots, who is entitled to place great relevance on that existence.

Maybe it wasn't my place to "point that out", but I did it hoping to add "an external POV" on the otherwise truly interesting discussion.

A.

PS:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KarlEd:
"I think therefore God is"? So to speak?

---

Descartes said: “Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum, sum ergo Deus est.” [I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am, I am therefore the deity exists.]
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Ahhh. SuminonA, I get it now. Thanks for the clarification.
 

---

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
 
kmbboots, you're welcome. And by the way, you're on my list of "non-atheist" people I really admire.

A.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It's worth noting that "ergo Deus est" is the weakest part of that argument.

Descartes, like Kate, relegated every thought he couldn't classify as a "sense perception" to the res cogitans -- a hypothetical "immortal soul," the part of us that does the thinking even when we aren't perceiving things -- and used the fact that he could imagine seeing something even when his eyes were closed to justify the existence of an immortal soul, and therefore a God. But this is bad philosophy and even worse science.

-------

quote:

---

It isn't just logic and it isn't just sensory input.

---

quote:

---

What part of "us" remains when the electronic transfer of information across neurons doesn't work well enough for logic? Perhaps that is where the spark of faith resides?

---

quote:

---

I'll have to read back to see how I gave that impression.

---

quote:

---

What part of it have you experienced that wasn't thought about or sensed (i.e. experienced?) I believe the issue here is that -- now that we know more about the brain than Descartes did -- it's important for people who don't want to admit to some materialism in their divine communication to somehow make the distinction between things we've simply "thought about" and actual constructs of the "soul;" to Descartes, who didn't know that thought was the electric transfer of information across neurons, thought ITSELF was the soul and (tautologically) proof of the soul's existence. But since "thought" is now a materialistic function, shown to be affected by chemicals and electromagnetism, we have to create a whole NEW class, the res acogitans, to accomodate "thought without thinking."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I'll have to read back to see how I gave that impression.

---

You've said that you don't use your brain or your senses to perceive it. That seems to imply that it's not perceived.

---

quote:

---

If by "thoughts" we mean everything that isn't purely sensory; ideas, emotions, fear, love, passion, dreams, instinct and so forth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*bump* Seriously, why aren't dreams and love thoughts?

---

quote:

---

To clarify: My faith is not dependent on logical proof. Although I can think and reason regarding my faith, I do not have faith because I can prove it logically. That does not mean it is contrary to logic, but that it is beyond logic.

My faith is not dependent on material evidence. Although faith does evoke feelings, if those feelings were (as they sometimes are) absent, it would not alter my faith. And though I often witness the goodness of God, my faith in God does not change when I cannot rely on such witness.

---

quote:

---

They are not reason.

---

quote:

---

That may be a broader definition of reason than I am using. So you would include dreams, intuition, emotion, etc?

---

Yep. All these things are products of thought, even if you don't concede that they're necessarily products of the brain.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Let me rephrase that to 'a faith that cannot be shaken by any means.' Really, if you believe X because your brain is built that way, or because (if you prefer) your god shaped it that way, what's the point? You could just as easily believe in the IPU, Communism, or free love. It doesn't say anything about the utility or truth of the concept.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
What is wrong with believing in free love?

What you have said is true. It doesn't. Faith is dangerous. A lot of people have faith in some really evil stuff - or good stuff that has been perverted.

Let's see if I can keep using the foundation/structure analogy.

The foundation is the invitation, the call, the desire to believe that we are more than the sum of our parts. That we are meant for something. The generalized optimism for the "good/moral/love" thing.

The structure is our response to that invitation. That is what is shaped by our thoughts, reason, experience, personality and so forth.

That is why, for me, the sort of absolute faith that I am talking about is not big on details. God loves me; God wants me to love. That is all I know for sure. The rest, the structure, is subject to change - not likely, but possible. But change won't trouble the foundation. And I am more certain of the foundation, God loves me; God wants me to love, than I am of anything else, even the evidence of my senses or my logical thought.

Where I think religion gets into trouble is when we equate and confuse our certainty in the foundation with certainty in the details. When we can't separate them. Then, people who have built different "structures" - even slightly different - become a threat. And challenges to our "stucture" become challenges to the "foundation". Instead of meeting people of different religions and thinking, "Now that is interesting. How does that fit with my belief? I like it, will it fit? Can I make room?" We either defend our faith (sometimes violently) or reject everything - including the "foundation".

That may make no sense at all and be either more of less than the answer you were looking for.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I've got nothing against free love - I was trying to use for my examples something imaginary, something evil, and something neutral.

For the rest of your post, I'll need to think a bit.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
You're not going to think about the free love part? I am losing my touch!

I do appreciate the thought you are putting into this discussion. I am sure that you understand that I am not trying to "convert" you, but it is fun to use you and Tom as an incentive/whetstone.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

And I am more certain of the foundation, God loves me; God wants me to love, than I am of anything else, even the evidence of my senses or my logical thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Have you never wondered why YOU are so sure of this, whereas the majority of the planet is not? Since this surety doesn't depend on any behavior of yours, God has chosen you for this sensation and has presumably not chosen others. Do you ever wonder why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Have you never wondered why YOU are so sure of this, whereas the majority of the planet is not? Since this surety doesn't depend on any behavior of yours, God has chosen you for this sensation and has presumably not chosen others. Do you ever wonder why?

---

Tom, I don't think she feels that the majority of the planet disagrees with her, but precisely the opposite. I'm putting words in her mouth here, but I'd be willing to bet that Kate views practicioners of other religions as having the same *base* faith she speaks of, even if they are antagonistic to hers-- from the way she described it, being Catholic, or even Christian, is built, perhaps by reason, on the "God exists and loves me" foundation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Is this due to a difference in their background, or in some quality of the invitation itself?

---

and that's the big question with Kate's line of thinking which, while I don't outright disagree with it, causes me to not quite assent to it either... which I guess makes me one of those "semi-pelagians"
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
So, Kate, is it correct to say of the faith you are talking about that all people have this faith from birth, but respond to it in different ways? (Assuming one of those "different ways" might be to not respond to it at all?)
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Good morning! Tom, I can't really speak to the experience of others except that I believe that God wants to be in relationship with each of us. I imagine that the "invitation" is experienced differently by different people and that would likely be because people themselves are different. I think that I have had it pretty easy. For example, I have loving, supportive parents who, while giving us access to various religious traditions, never imposed them on us. As a matter of fact, my sibs and I weren't even baptised until we chose to be. This freedom is one thing that has made it easier for me to respond.

Karl, I think that God loves us and wants to be in relationship with us quite possibly from the beginning of time, but otherwise, yes, I think that's right.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Is this due to a difference in their background, or in some quality of the invitation itself?

---

and that's the big question with Kate's line of thinking which, while I don't outright disagree with it, causes me to not quite assent to it either... which I guess makes me one of those "semi-pelagians"

---

Wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with St. Augustine. Maybe it's an "Irish thing".
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Yep... you just disagreed with him on infant baptism, too

But I rather thought this idea of internal calling was very Augustinian... not that I've specifically read it in him but it certainly seems very much more Platonic than Aristotelian-- that is to say, more like Auggie than Tommy.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
As I understand it (which is "barely"), the "call" is common to both, but the emphasis on response is more Pelagian than Augustinian. And you already know my stance on Adam and original sin.
 

---