Well trodden cattle paths ...

Originally posted by JS357
"Define faith."


"Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

I think it is a mistake to treat Hebrews 11:1 as a definition. There are millions of expressions of the form "S is..." that are not taken as definitions of S. That mistake has been accepted by both sides. I lack credibility on at least one ...[text shortened]... al language and the alternative ways those words were translated in other Bible passages.

I would like to add to this that words can have more than one meaning and that one of
those meanings (or definitions) is not necessarily better or more correct than any of the
other meanings.

I asked the question "define faith" to discover what was meant by the person in the post
I was responding to.


When I use the term faith I almost always mean the act of "believing without or despite
evidence or justification". This isn't the only meaning of the word but it is ONE of the meanings
of the word.

And it is as far as I can see the most relevant meaning to the thread topic.
If you ask someone if 'faith' is needed to believe in something it seems to me to contextually imply
the meaning I have just given over any other meaning of the word.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I would like to add to this that words can have more than one meaning and that one of
those meanings (or definitions) is not necessarily better or more correct than any of the
other meanings.

I asked the question "define faith" to discover what was meant by the person in the post
I was responding to.


When I use the term faith I almost alway ...[text shortened]... to contextually imply
the meaning I have just given over any other meaning of the word.

Here is a case being made for the Hebrews verse being the definition:

http://thegloryland.com/index.php?p=1_11_The-biblical-definition-of-faith

They refer to themselves as "The Glory Land Website Independent Fundamental Baptist"

So it may in fact be that the impasse is over what people are taking to be definitions. There is a rich list of google citations attesting to the advantage that goes to "he who defines the terms".

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
By direct experience of the ultimate reality, call it by whatever name you like.

I have no experience of such a thing.

And what is the evidence they found for the existence of atman and Brahman?
😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
a) Is there a rational basis for the belief that God exists?

b) Is belief-in-the-existence-of-God synonymous with having faith / being faithful?

a) Yes, since the human mind has a difficult time parsing infinite regression, or questions such as "so what was it like before time began?"

b) Not in my opinion. A deist might acknowledge the belief without placing any special conditions thereafter, or even thinking of it ever again.

Originally posted by David C
a) Yes, since the human mind has a difficult time parsing infinite regression, or questions such as "so what was it like before time began?"

b) Not in my opinion. A deist might acknowledge the belief without placing any special conditions thereafter, or even thinking of it ever again.

Your (a) fails due to the fact that ignorance (there is no evidence that G-d is real, that is) remains. Also, everybody who conceives, for example, what exactly a singlularity is, has neither "a difficult time parsing infinite regression", neither a problem to address questions of the type "what was it like before time began" etc.

As regards your (b), if a deist acknowledges the belief without placing any special conditions thereafter, he ends up with fabrications based on a blind belief.
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
...if a deist acknowledges the belief without placing any special conditions thereafter, he ends up with fabrications based on a blind belief.

Can you provide a few examples of the kind of "fabrications" you envisage in a case such as this?

Originally posted by FMF
Can you provide a few examples of the kind of "fabrications" you envisage in a case such as this?

Any unjustified and non-falsifiable thought and theory; all the religions;
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Your (a) fails due to the fact that ignorance (there is no evidence that G-d is real, that is) remains. Also, everybody who conceives, for example, what exactly a singlularity is, has neither "a difficult time parsing infinite regression", neither a problem to address questions of the type "what was it like before time began" etc.

As regards your (b) ...[text shortened]... any special conditions thereafter, he ends up with fabrications based on a blind belief.
😵

Actually, you fail at failing. The question was not whether god exists, rather if there is a rational basis for one to believe there is. That is subjective. Theists obviously feel their scriptures are sufficient evidence for their deity of choice...regardless of your position that they are merely ignorant. 😵 😴

Originally posted by black beetle
Any unjustified and non-falsifiable thought and theory; all the religions;
😵

I must have misunderstood your exchange with David C because your answer doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally posted by David C
Actually, you fail at failing. The question was not whether god exists, rather if there is a rational basis for one to believe there is. That is subjective. Theists obviously feel their scriptures are sufficient evidence for their deity of choice...regardless of your position that they are merely ignorant. 😵 😴

How do I fail on failing?

Since the question is if there is a rational basis for one to beleive in G-d's existence, given that there is no rational basis for the belief that G-d is real due to the fact that there is no evidence pointing towards the slightest possibility that G-d is real, it followes that the theist subjective belief (that G-d is real, that is) does not hold. The fact that our theist friends take their scriptures as evidence for the reality of their deity of choice, means to me simply that they are both ignorant and happy with a unjustified fabrication based on a blind belief.

Also, I hold no position equivalent to a thesis that has to be accepted as "absolute truth". It is theist's attachment to their unjustified subjective "absolute truth" that does not hold, thus turning their religious theory of reality into an untenable and unjustified fabrication😵

Originally posted by David C
... rather if there is a rational basis for one to believe there is. That is subjective. ...

No rationality is NOT subjective it's objective that's the whole point.

For a belief to be rational it must be objectively justified.

Belief in god (or anything else) can't be objectively justified without evidence and there is
no evidence of god.

Thus belief in god is not rational.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No rationality is NOT subjective it's objective that's the whole point.

For a belief to be rational it must be objectively justified.

Belief in god (or anything else) can't be objectively justified without evidence and there is
no evidence of god.

Thus belief in god is not rational.

I see your point, but I will propose a correction to your view.

Methinks objectivity is non existent; all we have is collective subjectivity that justifies specific falsified theories of reality we are developing in specific contexts, on the basis of our consensus as regards the best sets of methods that will drive us to tenable theories of reality, to accurate calculations, to well working machines etc. The fact we both agree that "a rational belief must be objectively justified", means simply that your subjectivity and my subjectivity forced us to accept that our identical evaluation of the mind over a belief is justified by a specific, mutually accepted and accurate procedure, hence turning this belief into a rational one. So, where exaclty do you monitor the so called objectivity if not strictly in the realm of our collective subjectivity?

An example: a religious theory of reality is not accurate because it is based on a core belief that is not justified (and not because it is based on a core belief that is not objectively rational). Even if all the human beings were members of the same religion and in full aggreement that their core belief is justified because it is justified from their scripture, this core belief would never turn into a rational belief that is objectively justified. A subjective non-rational belief it would remain.
On the other hand, the belief that "Earth is not 6.000 yo" is not objectively justified but subjectively justified (because we use Science, thus consensus over a specific procedure, thus our collective subjectivity, which then points towards to specific facts and evidence that forced us to come up with this product). The fact that the Creationists believe that this scientific product of ours is not objectively justified, it does not turn it into a non-rational belief.
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I see your point, but I will propose a correction to your view.

Methinks objectivity is non existent; all we have is collective subjectivity that justifies specific falsified theories of reality we are developing in specific contexts, on the basis of our consensus as regards the best sets of methods that will drive us to tenable theories of reality, ...[text shortened]... t of ours is not objectively justified, it does not turn it into a non-rational belief.
😵

I am going to have to disagree with you on this [Specifically I dispute that objectivity is non-existent]
but to do so properly will take more time than I presently have.

I will get back to you on this later.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am going to have to disagree with you on this [Specifically I dispute that objectivity is non-existent]
but to do so properly will take more time than I presently have.

I will get back to you on this later.

Good luck to both of you. The subject deserves and has gotten untold acres of coverage.

Here is one example:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

It seems to me that it would help if you would see if there is anything you both agree is objective or subjective IOW, state some examples.

a small excerpt from the link:

"So let's get started cleaning things up. Here’s one way, proposed by the philosopher John Searle, to solve the problem.

We should distinguish two kinds of objectivity:

metaphysical objectivity, and
epistemological objectivity.

We also should distinguish two kinds of subjectivity:

metaphysical subjectivity, and
epistemological subjectivity.

Remember the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology?

Metaphysics consists of arguments and counterarguments about what we should call "real" or what we should say "is" or "has being". "Is free will real?" is a metaphysical question. In metaphysics, something exists objectively if its existence does not depend on its being experienced. For example, Antarctica and the Eiffel Tower exist objectively. They exist whether or not anyone has experienced them. Many realities are real in this way.

[edit: do you agree?]

Something exists metaphysically subjectively, by contrast, if its existence depends on its being experienced — like a headache, or how Bourbon tastes to you. A particular headache ceases to exist if the person experiencing the headache stops feeling it. Many realities are real in this way, too — a different way.

Now, you might be thinking your headache is a metaphysically objective event, in the sense that your headache is just your brain state, and your brain state is potentially public and measurable. Or, you might say that your headache is metaphysically objective in the sense that it exists as an event in the history of the world; it is part of the stream of history just like any other event. I agree. Your headache IS a metaphysically objective event in these senses.

So how is a headache metaphysically subjective? Here we have to get a little technical and introduce the word qualia ("qualia" is plural; the singular is "quale"😉. There's been a lot of interesting debate in recent philosophy about qualia. A quale is, roughly, a "raw feel": the taste of pineapple, the particular red of ordinary tomatoes, the smell of wet dog, etc. Qualia are metaphysically subjective, in the sense that "the taste of pineapple" really comes down to "the taste of pineapple for me", and that taste might be unique to me, mine alone, and I can't ever find out if the way it tastes for me is the same as the way it tastes for you, etc. [1] (I am assuming here that the taste of pineapple is consistent enough from pineapple to pineapple to allow me to recognize the resemblance among my pineapple experiences; otherwise, if the taste of pineapple changed radically from pineapple to pineapple, I wouldn't develop a concept of "the taste of pineapple".) "

Clearly this is a big subject unless there is a Gordian knot somewhere.

Originally posted by JS357
Good luck to both of you. The subject deserves and has gotten untold acres of coverage.

Here is one example:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

It seems to me that it would help if you would see if there is anything you both agree is objective or subjective IOW, state some examples.

a small excerpt from the link:

"S ...[text shortened]... learly this is a big subject unless there is a Gordian knot somewhere.

Cool!

The concepts of the metaphysical objectivity, epistemological objectivity, metaphysical subjectivity and epistemological subjectivity are all merely inventions that are subjectively picked up by Searle’s consciousness and they are all parts of his subjective theory of reality. Is his theory tenable?

For starters, what existence is? What kind of experience is that? Is my experience of being myself identical with your experience of being yourself? Since our existing cannot be indicated to anyone, how can we explain objectively what our existing is? Where do you see objectivity over here?
If you say that we exist because we are “objectively real”, then “real” is merely an excluder predicate. It follows that it attributes nothing positive to us, but it operates in a purely negative fashion simply to exclude us from being imaginary etc. To say that “Antarctica exists” meant “Antarctica is real”, attributes nothing positive to Antarctica. So, yes, Antarctica is non “non-existent”. And now Searle has to explain just when Antarctica could ever have been said to be “objectively nonexistent”, i.e. never to have existed. In fact, before it existed, it could never even have been referred to, and hence at that time nothing at all could have been attributed to Antarctica, not even the property of being nonexistent. Therefore, “Antarctica exists” is not to be understood simply as “Antarctica is objectively real”. Finally, since existence is not a first-level property of a real epistemic object, our thesis as regards the reality (we perceive) of the existence of Antarctica cannot be understood as objective.

So methinks Searle’s subjective variations (based in full in axioms he accepts subjectively because he evaluated them as objectively true oh the horror) do not hold. Antarctica and Eiffel “exist” because, since they are experienced by Us, they are acknowledge by Us as “existent” (and again, Searle should get to know that existence is not a property of an epistemic object). If they were not experienced as real by our consciousness, we would were unable to make any kind of statement as regards their existence. On the other hand, since Antarctica and Eiffel are under our constant monitoring and perception, they will exist solely as long as We perceive Them as Existent (or they will keep up existing after the extinction of our species). So there is an interdependence of the epistemic object we perceive (Antarctica/Eiffel), of our consciousness (in the realm of subjectivity alone) that conducts the process of perception by means of an unavoidable interaction between itself and the perceived object, and of the information (meaning) that our consciousness unfolds/ creates out of its interaction with its perceived object. The fact that many realities (the realities we perceive, that is) are real this way (they are real according to our tenable theories of reality, thus according to the subjective evaluation of the mind that is accepted collectively by us as accurate, non-false etc), points clearly towards the evidence that the core of every theory of reality is deeply subjective. Then, our products, ideas, theories, calculations etc. are evaluated as “accurate” or “non-accurate, as “real” or “non real” and so on, and solely after this process we decide, thanks to our consensus (in other words: thanks to the fact that our personal subjectivities came up with the same conclusion as regards a specific evaluation of the nature of a specific epistemic object) to stick on our conclusion the banner of “objectivity”. However, this is not objectivity at all -it is collective subjectivity of a specific species (human beings) in a state of a consensus. Where exactly Searle finds “objectivity” within this process?
😵