• Joshs
    21
    Faith is not a reliable method of justification because it is content free.Tom Storm

    I don’t think faith is content-free. It is the expression of a value system. A particular faith can only generate the assumptions you listed above because it generates predictions and anticipations based on the content of the faith. Religious culture in the west evinces a parallel evolution of understanding in relation to the history of science. This isn’t primary because those religions availed themselves of the latest empirical
    evidence, but because on its own tems , within its own language and methods of inquiry it is capable of invalidating older views and replacing them.
  • Tom Storm
    10
    I don’t think faith is content-free. It is the expression of a value systemJoshs

    For me it is the value of nothing and, perhaps, everything as there is nothing it can't cover off on.
  • Joshs
    21
    I know that’s something Dennett and his band of atheists would say but I disagree. I think this misses the central role of faith and values in science. I could read Einstein through Kant and Kant as the proponent of a certain form of liberal theology.
  • Tom Storm
    10
    I'm not taking any cues from Dennett but he may be onto something here and there.

    Perhaps you could provide an example of faith in the context you are suggesting. :wink:
  • Tom Storm
    10
    A particular faith can only generate the assumptions you listed above because it generates predictions and anticipations based on the content of the faith.Joshs

    You see I would say the faith doesn't generate, it's retro fit in order to justify.
  • Joshs
    21
    . I could read Einstein through Kant and Kant as the proponent of a certain form of liberal theology. Or I could connect Newton and Galileo with certain theological assumptions.
  • Tom Storm
    10
    I could read Star Wars in the same way. But can you drill down without getting too theoretical?
  • Joshs
    21
    can you drill down without getting too theoreticalTom Storm

    Not sure I could. But arent there all sorts of
    fundamental discoveries about human nature bound up with the changes in religious doctrine over the centuries? What about the shift from Platonic (Augustine, Philo) to Aristotelian rationalist approaches (Aquinas, Maimonides) to faith? What about the abandonment of fundamentalist readings of scripture in favor of interpretive ones? And more recently the abandonment of the trinity? Or Spinoza’s pantheism? Or Tillch’s existentialism? I wouldn’t know where to begin to mark the dividing line between theology and philosophy , or for that matter, between philosophy and empiricism.
  • Richard B
    0
    Some thoughts:

    Words like “God”, “Space”, or “Time” are concepts that have some use for people. They can accept the use and go along with its implications. Or not accept the use, and go on with their lives. If accepted, they may start saying “God exists”, “Space exists”, or “Time exists”. But this is very different than talking about everyday common material objects. But coming to use such concepts need not be started with some logical proof or reasoning, just a simply act of accepting and seeing where it takes them in their lives. They are concepts that help bring some sort of understanding to this world we live in. Then, in what sense do they “exist”? Obviously this is not something you point at and see, but experience in the stream of life.
  • Hanover
    149
    casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. ~F.N.180 Proof

    My point wasn't that faith has value. It was that where K=JTB, faith is the J. You were arguing that faith was not T and therefore fails under a correspondence theory of truth. I'm saying that your K may be invalid if the J you used was faith, but it has no bearing on T. "The cat is on the mat" iff the cat is on the mat, regardless of whether I base that on faith or empirical evidence.
  • Hanover
    149
    Faith is the excuse a person gives when they don't have a good reason for a belief. The real problem with faith is there is nothing you can't justify with an appeal to faith. People have it on faith that there is no COVID 19; that some races are inferior to others; that women are not as smart as men, etc. And within a single religion - in Christianity - faith is used to justify the beliefs of members of the KKK and Desmond Tutu. Faith is not a reliable method of justification because it is content free.Tom Storm

    Again, not responsive to my post. Just not what I was talking about.

    You also make a presumption that a faith based epistemology is being advocated for empirical claims. You're creating strawmen by defeating the argument that covid vaccines ought not be proven on the basis of faith. That is as absurd to one of faith as one of science.

    Faith based reasoning is properly limited to how one ought live one's life in terms of meaning and value, questions science does not address. Different categories of questions require different methods of epistemology.
  • Tom Storm
    10
    Again, not responsive to my post. Just not what I was talking about.Hanover

    I brought this up because it was left out as it so often is and really should not be.

    You also make a presumption that a faith based epistemology is being advocated for empirical claims.Hanover

    I simply quote what I have heard directly from the faithful. I make no such claims without evidence.

    Different categories of questions require different methods of epistemology.Hanover

    That can be pretty slippery. There are still good and bad ideas.
  • Joshs
    21
    Faith based reasoning is properly limited to how one ought live one's life in terms of meaning and value, questions science does not address.Hanover

    Certainly the natural sciences don’t address these questions , but I wouldn’t say the same for certain approaches within psychology, such as clinical psychology.


    “Suppose we regard clinical psychology as if it were the purest of sciences." George Kelly
  • 180 Proof
    41
    Irrelevant truism. "Faith" does not 'justify' believing that "miracles" happen, only rationalizes that a belief in "miracles" does not require "justification" in any "faith"-based contexts, or discourses. "Faith" indicates 'this or that faith-based belief we take for granted as true without question' etc. Sellars had something to say about such fiats (re "myth of the given"). As Martin Luther confessed: "Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God" because his "faith" doesn't "justify" anything except to other "faith"-based believers (cult-like). Not epistemic – justificatory – whatsoever, just tantrum-like babytalk, or as Witty said more nicely "ineffable".
  • frank
    10

    That's at the base of any belief system tho.
  • 180 Proof
    41
    Please elaborate a little.
  • frank
    10
    Please elaborate a little.180 Proof

    Any belief system is built off of unthinking confidence demonstrated by actions. We analyze our actions and say they were based on assumptions.

    This kind of analysis has the side effect of picturing assumptions as abiding in some nether region of the mind, but they're really just an aspect of our capacity for rationality; they're part of how we explain ourselves to ourselves. But here on out, I'll talk about them the way rationality presents them: as abstract objects.

    The same set of assumptions can act as the bedrock for multiple worldviews. The variation is a matter of emphasis. Or think of basic assumptions as a piano, and worldviews are music.

    If we take a long view of human belief, we'll find that the same elements have always been there. For an atheist, all the things that divinity has been are stuffed between an individual's ears: the power to create, the capacity to feel and care. The world outside the skull is lifeless and inherently meaningless. This is dramatic music. It's a worldview rooted the same way they all are, in a kind of faith.
  • 180 Proof
    41
    No idea what you're talking about, frank, as it relates to my posts about "faith".
  • Jan Ardena
    1
    1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes?Corvus

    Didn’t have to arrive at it.
    I arrive at doubts, and contrary understanding of God.
    Any kind of proofs, evidence, or explanations came about as an alternative to ground zero. Theism.
    “Religious experiences” are simply experiences. We have different experiences when eating food, but it does not take away from the reality of eating food whether you have those experiences or not.
    Religion is just a way to 1 remember God always, and 2 conditioning of the self via rituals, observances, control of the senses, etc. Most religious institutes have long gone away from that.

    2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence?Corvus

    Good question!
    Theists don’t believe in “God’s existence. They believe in God. There is no need to believe in the existence of anything.
    That would be like relating to your child, friend, wife/husband only because they exist.

    The idea of whether or not God exists occurs from someone who is atheists, or agnostic.

    Another thing is that God doesn’t “exist” in the way we, or anything that exists. God just is.

    About trying to prove God…
    It’s such an easy thing to comprehend, at least to the theist, we want atheists to comprehend it, instead of tying themselves up in knots.
  • Cuthbert
    2
    It’s such an easy thing to comprehend....we want atheists to comprehend it.....Jan Ardena

    Some atheists want us to comprehend that it is mere comforting delusion at best and wicked trickery at worst. It's equally easy for them to comprehend and they would love us to stop tying ourselves in knots over a fantasy. The position of 'you guys just can't see what's obvious' is all too common in debates on religion. The case seems to be that what is obvious to one is obvious nonsense to another and we still have to live with each other. I agree with what you say about relationship not existence being the issue for theists, I made a similar point in the thread somewhere.
  • Jan Ardena
    1
    agree with what you say about relationship not existence being the issue for theists, I made a similar point in the thread somewhere.Cuthbert

    We have to be careful . Atheists talk as if their position is the normal position, and all other positions are to be proven to be true. Or else they are correct.

    Some atheists want us to comprehend that it is mere comforting delusion at best and wicked trickery at worst.Cuthbert

    Because they are without, or lack belief in God, they can view God as a concept.
    Because they God can be anything they choose to conjure up, it must be like that for everyone.
    They basically refuse to see past their own comprehension. Their choice.9


    The position of 'you guys just can't see what's obvious' is all too common in debates on religion.Cuthbert

    Notice they’re not real debates because they do not acknowledge God at all, unless they comment on God’s call to kill. They don’t mind that.
    If you cannot accept, for the purpose of discussion, God, it ceases to be a debate, or a nice discussion about God.
  • Corvus
    7
    I thought about the nature of different beliefs, and concluded that there are two types of beliefs. I also thought about the case of Placebo regarding faith requirement for it.

    1. The beliefs based on the rational or inductive knowledge such as believing that flying is a reasonably safe form of transportation or Covid vaccines will protect the takers from the infections.

    2. The beliefs that have no definite rational or inductive knowledge or ground. The beliefs that come from a private psychological state, which does not require evidence, justification or proof. Religious beliefs are in this category, and only in this case, the concept of faith should be applied to the beliefs.

    In the case of placebo takers believing the placebo will cure his symptoms, it is in the form of misled knowledge rather than belief. When placebo is given to the taker, he will be told what it is about, and what it will do even if it is fake. He could believe it might work, but he doesn't have to. There is no logical condition of necessity for him to believe that it might work, even if he is knowing falsely what it is supposed to do in curing his symptoms.
    The point here is that he knows about it in detail in the form of knowledge, although it is false knowledge. It is no longer beliefs.
  • Hanover
    149
    Certainly the natural sciences don’t address these questions , but I wouldn’t say the same for certain approaches within psychology, such as clinical psychology.Joshs

    You find meaning in your life through psychology texts?
  • Hanover
    149
    "Faith" does not 'justify' believing that "miracles" happen, only rationalizes that a belief in "miracles" does not require "justification" in "faith"-based contexts, or discourses.180 Proof

    I guess the strawman is understandable because you couldn't know the beliefs I'm forming through faith. My faith is in a higher power, not whether certain miracles might have occurred. I don't really even think faith is the basis for a belief in miracles, but one would believe in miracles based upon empirical evidence like anything else. If you see a miracle, you'll believe in it. Miracles actually eliminate the need for faith. Moses didn't need to have faith. He saw the Red Sea part and manna fall from heaven, and then he spoke to God on Mt. Sinai. I'd say the same for Abraham. His faith isn't wasn't drove him to so believe in God that he was willing to sacrifice his son. His faith was strong because God spoke to him previously and allowed his 90 year old wife to become pregnant. If you see Jesus rise from the dead and you then believe him the son of God, I wouldn't call you faithful. I'd call you someone who has ample justification for a belief in God.

    Do I think any of those things actually happened. No. None of them. Do I think them fiction? Of course. Do I think they are untrue, no. Truth is in what they mean, but not their literal meaning.

    Not epistemic – justificatory – whatsoever, just tantrum-like babytalk, or as Witty said more nicely "ineffable".180 Proof
    I take ineffable to mean something that cannot be adequately expressed in words, not "tantrum like baby-talk" which would indicate an emotionally laden immature inability to speak. For example, we may speak of the ineffable beauty of a sunset, but that would simply mean I cannot truly convey the experience to you. That ineffability, if you allow for it, and I'm not sure Witty places any significance on the unspeakable, might begin to come close to feelings of faith.
  • Hanover
    149
    The point here is that he knows about it in detail in the form of knowledge, although it is false knowledge. It is no longer beliefs.Corvus

    Assuming Knowledge = a Justified True Belief (K=JTB), the reason that a belief in the effectiveness of a placebo is not knowledge is because it's not True. The person had a justification (he was told by a scientist the pill would work) and he believed the person, but it wasn't true.
  • Corvus
    7
    Assuming Knowledge = a Justified True Belief (K=JTB), the reason that a belief in the effectiveness of a placebo is not knowledge is because it's not True. The person had a justification (he was told by a scientist the pill would work) and he believed the person, but it wasn't true.Hanover

    From the placebo taker's point of view, it was a true knowledge? From the doctors (the giver)'s point of view, it was false knowledge. But until the placebo taker is told that it was false, to him it is true.
  • Hanover
    149
    From the placebo taker's point of view, it was a true knowledge? From the doctors (the giver)'s point of view, it was false knowledge. But until the placebo taker is told that it was false, to him it is true.Corvus

    True is considered an objective fact, not the subjective feeling of the believer.
  • Corvus
    7
    True is considered an objective fact, not the subjective feeling of the believer.Hanover
    :fire: :up:
    OK. I will go with that.
  • Cuthbert
    2
    If you cannot accept, for the purpose of discussion, God, it ceases to be a debate, or a nice discussion about God.Jan Ardena

    I think there are some insightful and committed atheists right here in this thread and also some theists and we seem to be getting along ok. It's possible to acknowledge the gulf in perception without trying to drag everyone over to one side or the other.

    2. The beliefs that have no definite rational or inductive knowledge or ground. The beliefs that come from a private psychological state, which does not require evidence, justification or proof. Religious beliefs are in this category, and only in this case, the concept of faith should be applied to the beliefs.Corvus

    I think that distinction is useful. But does it apply to religious beliefs? If there is a God, then religious beliefs may not come from a private psychological state. They may come from the insight that there is a God - an insight that some people happen not to have. Which gets us back where we started.
  • frank
    10
    No idea what you're talking about, franks, as it relates to my posts about "faith".180 Proof

    Just that every belief system is supported by faith.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment