Originally posted by lucifershammerIf you are looking for a super silly definition of 'faith', you can always go directly to a major source of super silliness:
What other definition of 'faith' is there?
No person believes something just for the heck of it. There would always be some evidence (even if it's contentious) or internal justification for the belief.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
--Hebrews 11:1
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou get this "science is faith" crap all the time. To me the difference is simply that the scientific perspective admits that the data may turn out to be faulty, so there's always room for doubt. "When the facts change, I change my mind". Religious faith admits of no uncertainty despite the apparent lack of evidence.
If you are looking for a super silly definition of 'faith', you can always go directly to a major source of super silliness:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
--Hebrews 11:1
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt would seem to me that any faith-based belief is necessarily defeasible since it is rooted in insufficient evidence. The fact that fundies won't admit as much and stick to their claims of infallibility is very irritating. The word 'faith' is stigmatic when it comes to belief-building, so the fundies try to define faith in absurd ways to make it appear like common currency. It doesn't change the fact that their 'faith' is fundamentally different.
You get this "science is faith" crap all the time. To me the difference is simply that the scientific perspective admits that the data may turn out to be faulty, so there's always room for doubt. "When the facts change, I change my mind". Religious faith admits of no uncertainty despite the apparent lack of evidence.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by LemonJelloPlease feel free to explain the difference.
It would seem to me that any faith-based belief is necessarily defeasible since it is rooted in insufficient evidence. The fact that fundies won't admit as much and stick to their claims of infallibility is very irritating. The word 'faith' is stigmatic when it comes to belief-building, so the fundies try to define faith in absurd ways to make it appear ...[text shortened]... ommon currency. It doesn't change the fact that their 'faith' is fundamentally different.
Originally posted by dj2beckerNumerous people have already explained it to you numerous times. Go find those posts and read them again. You already stated that your beliefs are non-rational and not the product of any careful deliberation, for Chrissakes. No wonder they are so silly.
Please feel free to explain the difference.
Originally posted by LemonJelloMaybe so. But I'm just trying to figure out where you draw the line. 80% certainty? 60%? 50%?
There's the word 'certainty' in there. Under such a definition, my belief that I have hands in based on 'faith' (I could possibly be a handless brain in a vat after all). Practically speaking, that would be a very silly definition of 'faith'.
You can't debate faith without first defining it.
Originally posted by LemonJelloAgain, that does not actually imply complete absence of evidence/justification.
If you are looking for a super silly definition of 'faith', you can always go directly to a major source of super silliness:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
--Hebrews 11:1
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhen is evidence "sufficient"? As you pointed out yourself, you cannot say with complete certainty that you do have hands. At what point does evidence become "sufficient" without certainty?
It would seem to me that any faith-based belief is necessarily defeasible since it is rooted in insufficient evidence.
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy belief that I possess hands is properly basic. Your belief in God isn't. I don't deny that people usually have reasons for their adoption of theism; it's just that those reasons are invariably silly and not the product of proper cognitive function successfully aimed at the pursuit of true belief. In these matters, I do not think you cannot reasonably separate an assessment of whether or not theism is warranted from the assessment of whether or not theism is true. I'll defer my thoughts on this matter until I start up my Alvin Plantinga thread (whenever that will be). Part of Plantinga's work is designed to show that there exists no sensible de jure challenge to theism that is independent of a de facto challenge. In my opinion, that is not necessarily a good thing for the theist because it works both ways: the theist himself must also "put up or shut up," and that is invariably the point at which theism doesn't stand a chance.
When is evidence "sufficient"? As you pointed out yourself, you cannot say with complete certainty that you do have hands. At what point does evidence become "sufficient" without certainty?
Originally posted by LemonJelloBoth are the results of the same cognitive judgment process. How do you distinguish a "basic" belief from a "non-basic" one?
My belief that I possess hands is properly basic. Your belief in God isn't.
I don't deny that people usually have reasons for their adoption of theism; it's just that those reasons are invariably silly and not the product of proper cognitive function successfully aimed at the pursuit of true belief.
That's a very broad statement to make, especially when you imply certainty ("invariably"đ, which is the point we're discussing here...
I'll look forward to the Plantinga thread.
Originally posted by lucifershammerDraw a line between what and what? Between a belief based on evidence and a belief based on faith? If your evidence makes it significantly more likely than not that P is true, then you should believe P. That doesn't mean you ought to be so confident in your belief that you would not revise it in light of future evidence. If your evidence doesn't make it substantially more likely than not that P is true, and you believe P anyway, then your belief if based on faith. Why is it necessary to be more clear than this? It would only be necessary if you thought that if, say, a belief that P was 80% probable then the other 20% had to be based on faith. But that is dumb. Your belief is 80% probable, full stop. Your confidence in P should be accorded that weight in regards to future evidence. There is no extra 20% to be made up by anything.
Maybe so. But I'm just trying to figure out where you draw the line. 80% certainty? 60%? 50%?
You can't debate faith without first defining it.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYeah, get on with the internalism/externalism debate. That will be fun, and it will keep away the riff-raff.
My belief that I possess hands is properly basic. Your belief in God isn't. I don't deny that people usually have reasons for their adoption of theism; it's just that those reasons are invariably silly and not the product of proper cognitive function successfully aimed at the pursuit of true belief. In these matters, I do not think you cannot reasonabl ...[text shortened]... up or shut up," and that is invariably the point at which theism doesn't stand a chance.