quote:I am not questioning the foundations of logic or deductive reasoning. I am questioning inductive reasoning. Logic is not based upon that.
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: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.
That's a very good point.
[ March 29, 2006, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Well, no, the thread was never about "faith in the existence of the IPU". It was about the differences in the way the word "faith" is used in different contexts, and it was in part a call to explore the idea of using different, less ambiguous, and emotionally charged words for the two (or more) different meanings the word "faith" is used to convey in different contexts. I erroneously, and regrettably, over-stated the difference and ended up pigeon-holing the religious use of the word faith in such a way that at least some of those who use it in that context disagreed with. However, they also agreed with my primary point, which was that they do not mean precisely the same things in the two different contexts of "religious faith" and "faith" used as a mere academic term denoting "trust".
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Karl answered this perfectly. I'll just point out that this is a perfect illustration of part of step 2 in my post at the bottom of page 2.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.”
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Yes and no. Your right about the theory of the cosmological constant, it was first presented as an addition to special relativity by Einstein; and in fact it was something Einstein himself called "the greatest blunder of my life." Despite this, some physisists now believe he could have been right about it. So it definetly has been a point of interest for nearly a century.
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. Physisists at one time believed they were close to a " universal theory of quantum gravity," to explain both the quantum and macroscopic universe, but sadly no longer do many hope to discover such a theory. "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.
What we do know for sure now is that certain kinds of information can be transmitted between pair particles over indeterminate distances, instantaneously. The question remains as to how useful this information is, and if it constitutes a physical effect. If it does, then effects can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, and everything in relativity is drawn into question.
I always found it useful when I heard this analogy for the effect of gravity. If you consider the relationship between gravitation and the fourth dimension, since gravity may represent a curvature in four dimensional space, consider a bowling ball set down on a trampoline. The curvature that the 4 dimensional bowling ball creates in the tramp is a curve in the fourth dimension, and it pulls objects on the trampoline closer to the bowling ball, instantaneously.
The analogy is flawed because it depends on a three dimensional model where gravity has an effect in three dimensions (the other objects falling inward, down). However it is a somewhat interesting idea. In a very slight way (relatively slight, since gravity is billions of billions times weaker than other forces), objects curve the four dimensions inwards toward themselves. This effect is difficult to observe because we don't experience the 4th dimension visually, so it looks like objects actually "pull" eachother. They don't though, they really just create curves in space which other objects move into naturally.
This is just my dumby amatuer image of the whole phenomenon, but I find it pretty cool to think about, no?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
Orincoro, most of what you say is right, but this I think needs clarification.
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.
The best understanding we humans have of gravity at any given time has indeed changed several times, and it makes no difference to me if you call it a law or equation or rule. As for being a "lay concept", I don't accept that. Plenty of professional physicists have referred to "Laws" of physics, including gravity. Read Richard P. Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law" for instance.
I think this is beside the point, though, which is that when you examine closely how it is that we know the things we know in Science or Math, there is a logical or cognitive leap there that we must make, which is similar to the leap of religious faith.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
If you cannot trust your perception of reality, how can you rely on a system derived from "fundamental observation"?
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?
Certainly deductive reasoning is different from inductive reasoning. But I don't think you have provided good reasons why one is based on faith while the other is not, other than that it was your intent to apply it to one but not the other.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
I don’t know about Xaposert, but I don’t need faith to believe that two things cannot be true simultaneously (e.g. the "third excluded" principle). It is a principle. It is a choice based on its UTILITY, on its practical value. Using this principle we can develop logical reasoning a great deal. Gödel showed that no logical system can be complete, if it tries to be meaningful (describing reality). Not being complete doesn’t mean it is useless, because the “holes” are not essential, again, at a practical level (depending on application, almost untrue in A.I.)
So I use this choice and I trust it (being aware of its limitations). I saw that if I use it, I can find “true” (i.e. useful at a practical level) descriptions about reality. I even got descriptions that are not at all intuitive, but then proved by experience (Back to the “relative space-time”.) That means obviously that I trust that experience (even if it isn’t first hand). I chose to trust “scientific method”. If I discard the principles of logic and the scientific method, then my practical life loses its meaning.
If we are talking about religion, my parents made a choice about the existence, name and properties of the divinity. (They also chose not to impose it on me.) That choice makes sense in their life. In a religious community, it seems to be better being religious (see the “ha – ha, don’t trust the atheist!” thing). So I guess it has its practical utility too. [Disclaimer: I’m not saying that my parents, or any other truly religious people, are just “conformists”. Not at all.] I think that religion has mainly a SPIRITUAL utility. It answers transcendental questions (“Where do we come from?”, “Where we’re going when we die?” etc) that even science might not have an answer for (yet). And It also provides a base for a moral code (as noted again and again). Accepting those answers requires faith. And I’m not saying it in a derisory manner. As noted before, this faith can even be stronger than the kind of faith religious people have in scientific knowledge.
But,
Muslims and Christians (again reducing drastically) have made different choices about their divinity. For each and every one of the “true believers”, their choices make sense and helps them spiritually and practically. Each group is “right”. But the problem is when different groups come in contact, and their communication and reciprocal trust is not aided, but rather blocked by their respective faiths.
This does not happen with “scientific faith”. Muslim scientists and Christian scientists do agree on science.
For me, this is a fundamental difference between KINDS of faith.
I make one more step (tangent) and I advocate “inoculating science” to masses, but “don’t inoculate YOUR religion”. Teach and learn as much as possible about religion(s), and then make a choice. Use faith as you see fit, but make a distinction about its “universality” when it comes to science and religion.
quote:If you cannot trust your perception of reality, how can you rely on a system derived from "fundamental observation"?
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. The second way is by proving a belief using other beliefs observed in the first manner.
Note that most things cannot be directly observed in the manner I described above. The physical world cannot, because it can only be judged indirectly though our senses. Any prediction about the future cannot, because we cannot observe the future. These two limitations combine to take science out of that category, along with much of common sense.
You could attempt to say we really don't know even things we observe directly, such as 1+1=2 - philosophers have made such arguments. I'm not making that argument here, however - and if you do make it, I suspect it is inevitable that you are going to eliminate all knowledge, and leave yourself with no evidence even which with to say any faith is better than any other. 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:Once again "faith" is misunderstood.
No, I think that is a correct usage, in this context. I just think my relationship with that belief is misunderstood. I don't need faith in it, because I can see directly that it is certainly true.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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: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.
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?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beren, your first question is the one I asked my Philosophy 101 teacher when she made the same statement Tres made about 1+1=2 and mathematical principles.
That without ever having any sensory input, there is only the oneness of self. There is no such concept as "two" until you can accept an "other" that is somehow perceived.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
For both the rock falling and the objects being grouped, we have millions of observational data points to rely on.
If one is simply talking about the abstract math statement 2+2=4, it might be in a different category than the falling rock, simply because that's definitional.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
I agree with FlyingCow's teacher I think. I don't think I knew that 1+1=2 when I was born. But I do think at some point I began to observe it is true. It's possible that it began as a scientific idea, tested each time I put one thing together with another - but at some point I think I gained the ability to see how it was simply true by definition.
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Another very important distinction, IMO.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that intellectual assent is necessary for faith. There are people who are incapable of intellectual assent (senility, disability, children) yet they still have faith. Often very profound faith.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like we mean different things by "assent."
I mean by it the act of saying "QED" -- "That which is demonstrated." In other words, I mean agreeing to something because you've been shown... which is something anyone can do. Some people may be more easily deceived than others, but the basic principle remains the same. You can "demonstrate" to a child that magic exists by pulling a coin out of their ear... a scientist under laboratory conditions would be a little harder to convince... but both of them are basing their conclusions on what they have observed. Everyone does that.
What I'm saying is that believing with all your heart that magic exists before you've ever seen it is not faith, but closer to hope, and believing in the magic of that particular trick after you've been shown that the magician had the coin in his hand all along is, I think not only the wrong thing to do, but actually impossible.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. It is stronger than "hope" and more sure.
It is more like believing in the idea of magic even though you know that pulling coins out of ears is a trick.
To give a non-analogy. 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. It is why, unlike poor enochville, I won't (GW) have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, I don't really understand your distinction. As far as I can tell, what you're describing is basically "hope that remains stubborn in the face of evidence to the contrary."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm inclined to think what you are talking about is still belief based on evidence - only the sort of evidence is a "deeper" sort of evidence than typical material evidence.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would just like to note that hope is, like faith, a cardinal virtue... I don't at all mean to say, in fact I again disagree with you, that hope is in some way "less" than faith. Just that it's different.
What you go on to describe:
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.
sounds very much like hope to me and would be pretty much precisely what I mean when I say "hope".
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. I think of hope as an optimistic version of expect. To expect something that one wants. Somewhere between expect and wish. A "keeping one's fingers crossed" kind of thing.
Not at all how I think of Faith.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think of hope as an optimistic version of expect. To expect something that one wants.
That's pretty much what I got out of your quote, really. What distinction are you drawing between these things?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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? Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
I disagree. A "shaky" foundation is much better than no foundation at all! If human philosophy can get us enough of a foundation for me to have faith in its conclusions, then I think it was no waste of time.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
