On the Nature of Beliefs - Part 1

[Projoiner1]

Interesting stuff ...

[mtstassie]

You used the word, without it having an object. You say "religious beliefs... are grounded in faith" as distinct from rationality. So you define faith as a thing irrespective of object. I think faith is not contradictory to rational thought & analysis. Faith is trusting something, & you can trust something perfectly rational, but it is an extra step.

[MenoftheInfinite]

You evaded my question: faith in what?

Anyway, faith is by definition antithetical to rational thought and analysis. They are inherently contradictory. Faith is not merely "trusting" something. Faith is belief in an absence of actual evidence. That's exactly what religious faith means.

[mtstassie]

I didnt evade the question -I applied it back to the original context I used the word. I was effectively quoting you when you claim Faith & rational thought are inherently contradictory. You dont say Faith "in something" & I was responding to you. a) Presubably your statement applies to Faith in anything & b) Why do I have to give an object to faith to challenge your "objectless" statement?

[mtstassie]

Why do you demand that Faith be used in the way you use it, when it is not used this way by religious people themselves? a) It sets up a false distinction, which is therby not valid b) it prejudices others to assume the word means what you mean.

Instead of arguing "by definition", which is too easy to discard, as I have a different definition, why not argue that Faith doesn't use reason -a question of empirical observation, not pre-definition.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Excuse me, but faith is used by religious people in *exactly* this way: belief in an absence of evidence.

I think I already said what evidence is and is not.

You can say faith doesn't use reason or empirical evidence if you want. That just makes it irrational by default.

[mtstassie]

That is not true -it may be how some people use the word, but not all. This can be empirically tested by listening to what they say. I'm afraid that you are wrong.

I dont say what you quote at the end -its what I suggest you say. I don't think you realise that you are using an empirical arguement [your experience of religious people] rather than a logical one.

[MenoftheInfinite]

You don't seem to understand what a logical argument is and how to apply it to the world.

Faith is only necessary where evidence doesn't exist. The two are by definition antithetical.

[mtstassie]

MoI -do you think by continuing to claim this limited definition of Faith it makes it right? As I have said repeatedly this is not how people use the word. You only come to the conclusion "Faith is irrational" because you start with the premise "Faith exists where evidence doesn't". The premise determines the conclusion. Why be illogical?

Kelly -MoI is using "Faith" genericly, thus presumably faith can be in almost anything, mythic or reasonable. I have faith in my car's brakes.

[KellyJones0]

As you define faith to be in something, pray tell in what.

[mtstassie]

"Faith" can be in anything -sometimes well-founded,sometimes irrational. MoI's argument that "Faith [in anything I presume] is what you have when you don't have evidence" is a different definition to those I know who use the word. His definition determines his conclusion. If faith can rest on evidence then we have Faith in all sorts of things & the validity of this faith can be tested. In all but logical statements the results will be inconclusive, but may still require action/trust/faith.

[KellyJones0]

What do you call the trusting in something for which you don't have any evidence? Blind faith?

[KellyJones0]

I don't like confusing the issues by calling that which is based on reason the exact same as that which is not.

[mtstassie]

I am happy using "blind faith" because it inherently indicates there is "not-blind faith" [what I would call "reasonable faith"]. Unfortunately most people use "Blind faith" & "Faith" interchangably.

The problem is that there are at least 4 categories, but most people assume only 2

1) That based on nothing -pure guess, myth, presumption.

2) That based on unverifyable data -experience, wisdom etc

3) That based on "non-absolute" data -witnesses, repeatability

4) That based on absolute logic

[KellyJones0]

- Blind faith is based on nothing, e.g. trusting thoughtlessly in hearsay.

- Reasonable faith is based on verifiable data (experience can be verified by oneself if one is a thinking person).

- Pure logic and wisdom don't require faith at all, because neither are contingent.

[mtstassie]

This is how I use the terms, but the "reasonableness" of my "reasonable faith" may not look reasonable to someone else if I have only reasonable data available to them -they will interpret it through their pre-existing beliefs. Thus I distinguish between 2) & 3). There may be even more distinctions others would like to include.

"Blind faith" doesn't have to be thoughtless. Many beliefs look like lots of thinking, but are based purely on presuppositions. [This is how MoI comes over to me]

[KellyJones0]

"the "reasonableness" of my "reasonable faith" may not look reasonable to someone else if I have only reasonable data available to them"

This doesn't make sense.

[mtstassie]

If I know I didn't kill someone & have some reasonable,but not conclusive evidence to show someone else,whether they will believe that evidence (given its inconclusiveness) will depend on whether they think I killed the person or not. We always look at the "reasonableness" &"inconclusiveness" of evidence through our preconceptions. Thus MoI argues there is "no evidence" of God,whereas there is evidence,but its not conclusive for him. He therefore interprets it as unreasonable. He assumes 3)is 1)

[KellyJones0]

At this point, I think the best way to respond is to ask you to define God (as you yourself conceive it to be) precisely.

[mtstassie]

I don't think I do "define God". I can only describe him. Defining God presumes he is a concept, or construct, of the mind. If that is the case then we could conceive something real, or imagined. Instead I can only work with the description of God that Jesus himself gives -& you can read that as well as I can.

[KellyJones0]

How many amanuenses were there, really? How many translators, editors, vested interests, paid 'holy men' looking for more disciples, and Christian wars to destroy opposing viewpoints? On top of that, Jesus wrote none of it himself.

I believe in Zeus and the other Grecian gods, because there are so many corroborating historical stories about them, and they had so many descendants. ;-)

[mtstassie]

The fallacy in this argument is that you make the assumption that metaphysical beliefs "admit no analysis by accepted rational means" & that rational analysis & faith are incompatible. This is not my faith! I am contstantly testing my faith with evidence & rational means, & uphold it tentatively & open to revision depending on the evidence. Lots of Christians I know do exactly the same. Please dont stereotype religious belief.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Faith in what?

[MenoftheInfinite]

I agree it's remedial stuff. Nevertheless, 5 minutes surfing Youtube is sufficient to demonstrate that there is still an urgent need for it. Those that don't need it can think of it as paying a visit to an old friend. Or, they can just ignore it - either way is fine.

Thanks for the continuing feedback and the quality therein.

[Naturyl]

This is like "remedial thinking 101." I don't intended that in a derogatory sense, but rather as an expression of my ongoing amazement that people need to be told very basic things like this.

Our various cultures very much need to begin to value thinking and add at least some basic "rationality courses" to the educational curriculum.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Thank you for your interest and feedback.

[ElizabethIsabelle]

Best one so far!