Brian63

Thanks Helen...I followed your advice and changed my post to say what I meant.

Here I think you are using a different definition of faith than the one I gave in the OP. I have reason/evidence to believe that my car won't explode, because I see that I take good care of it, it never has been a problem for me before, etc. I think you are defining faith more as belief in a proposition being true, despite a lack of certainty. In my OP, I was defining it as a belief in a proposition being true, despite a lack of evidence. Which definition is the "right" one? Beats the non-existent hell out of me.

If we have evidence, then we don't have belief based upon faith though. That's true for at least the definition of faith that I've been goin with thus far.



Except that as you stated it, I don't believe it's even possible to believe on faith. If you see evidence that suggests that your belief is wrong, then you will either change your belief or you will not change your belief. If you change it, it is because you just went where the evidence took you. If you don't change it, that's where the disagreement lies in this thread, I believe. I believe it is because the person will either consciously or subconsciously ignore the contrary evidence, and I think others are saying that they just take the belief "on faith," while still being aware of the contrary evidence. I may be mischaracterizing their position though.

The reason the second option doesn't seem sensible to me is probably based on personal experience. For every belief that I have about the world around me, I can (or at least I think I can) identify some rationale for believing it.
Why do I believe the earth is round? I believe it is round because of reasons "X." Why do I believe that eating meat is morally wrong? I believe it is wrong because of reasons "Y." I just can't fathom believing in something on faith. That is, to believe in something "just because," and not provide any underlying reason why I believe it.

The reasons I have for believing the earth is round and eating meat is wrong may in fact be faulty reasons based on faulty evidence, and I would realize this if I took a closer critical analysis of my reasons, but as long as I neglect to do that, I consider my reasons valid. I can't imagine that the minds of other people operate in such a drastically different manner than my own, that they can believe things without having ANY underlying reasons why they believe, and instead they just believe it "on faith."

What seems more sensible to me, is that they have underlying reasons to believe, and those reasons may or may not be faulty. But as long as they have a reason (that they consider justified), then they don't have faith, as I defined faith in the OP.

Brian

Ron Garrett

I think religious faith is a response to the psychological discomfort of insecurity, whether from fear of death, fear of the unknown, the niggling doubt about destiny and purpose, the desire for self-actualization, the inability to detach from parents. We call our clerics and sometimes our gods, "father", "mother", "sister", "brother", "pastor. " We say "Our Father in Heaven." We call Gaia "Earth Mother", Odin is "The All Father." We want the security of extended family. We fear our aloneness, but membership in these religions requires an assent to their beliefs. The security benefits they offer, such as immortality, the answers of life, what gods expect of us, all require us to assent and fervently commit in order to receive the benefits. That is why it is so hard to pry someone loose fom their religious superstition. They are dependent on their belief for security. Mostly they choose a faith that is culturally conditioned, and depending on their own tendency toward extremism they may pick a revivalist or seperatist movement for its even more close knit and directive culture.

"Tell me what to do and I'll do it. Tell me what to believe and I'll believe it." As a pastor I was never comfortable taking on the parental role of a cleric. I wanted these people to be autonomous adults in command of their own destinies as I wanted for myself. but in the end people come to religion to abdicate their life's decision in exchange for a false certitude that they are doing the right thing and that all will eventually be well if they just have "faith." they long for something that cannot be had except as a will-driven self-delusion. What we call that will to deceive oneself, to convince oneself that good is bad, and bad is good, to brain-wash oneself into affirming the unbelievable, all for the false comfort and security it promises..we call it faith.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>

-DM-

I think that we have all (including me) strayed off the subject of "faith" in the sense that it was originally meant, or at least with regard to its meaning in a religious context.

An assumption that the car will not explode while you are in it, especially such an assumption based on evidence from past experience of yourself and others, is not really "faith" -- rather it is a conclusion or an assumption about a probable outcome based on evidence.

In the context of religion, "faith" has more to do with the kind of thing that the author of Hebrews allegedly had in mind in 11.1:
---------
HE 11:1-3 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
---------

... or what Jesus allegedly said as given in MT 17.20:
---------
If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
---------

In other words, faith in this sense involves believing in what is IMPROBABLE based on the evidence, not was IS probable. It involves believing in life after death, going to heaven -- that sort of thing.

--Don--

[Edited typo. --Don--]

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]</p>

Rich Brown

Brian63 (OP definition):
"Faith-belief that a proposition is true despite a lack of evidence that it is true and/or evidence that it is false."

I believe the problem may lie in your definition of "evidence" (i.e. this is an exercise in semantics).

Brian63: "The evidence that they do have in mind may in fact be piss-poor-pathetic upon closer critical examination, but they haven't taken on this closer critical examination."

This doesn't really fit the definition of "evidence". Evidence is something that tends to show the truth or falsity of a proposition per se. In your definition above, the term "faith" requires a lack of evidence. Yet, you seem to define faith as evidence (i.e. faith=assuming a conclusion without evidence="evidence" qualifies even if it is not "evidence" and is purely in one's own mind). The argument, therefore, is circular.

Rich

Brian63

I believe that problem could be eliminated by just adding the word "alleged" in front of "evidence," every time I used the word in this thread. This is something that I had considered, but didn't bother writing "alleged" every time out of sheer laziness and brevity.

After all, I don't really know for sure that what I consider to be evidence for any of my beliefs actually is valid evidence. I only perceive it to be so (based on my limited knowledge), and so it rightfully should be called "alleged evidence."

Does that work?

Brian

Brian63

I've been enjoying the views expressed on this thread.
Perhaps I can clarify and see if this smooths things out.

I will define evidence as such:

Evidence-indisputable information that is suggestive that a given proposition is either true or false.

In reality, we cannot really say that any given "alleged evidence" is really indisputable, so the given definition of "evidence" is really an unattainable goal.

Even though we can never reach the goal of having "indisputable evidence," the "alleged evidence" that we do possess can be increasingly verified through critical examination. If it persists to withstand critical examination, it graduates to become closer to that "indisputable evidence," and thus warrants our greater confidence.

I don't think this would necessitate changing my definition of faith significantly though. I am positing that every person believes in a proposition on what they consider to be valid evidence (to the extent that they have critically examined it, which may be very little or quite thoroughly).
A person who believes in a proposition on "faith," then can be said to believe in it despite the awareness of the invalidity of their "alleged evidence," or a lack of what they consider to be "valid evidence."

I hope this doesn't obfuscate the issue, but as far as I can discern my point is still legitimate. I don't see how it's possible for any person to believe something on faith (a.k.a. without what they consider to be valid evidence).

I don't know if this still employs circular definitions, as my brain easily gets fried when dealing with semantic arguments.

Brian

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>