Freethought & Rationalism Archive

balisongsong · 11-09-2002, 08:14 PM

I placed this topic in the philosophy forum because ultimately its about reality in the ontic, noetic and ethical sense.
I have an atheist friend who claims that "faith is NEVER a legitimate way to knowledge."This claim confuses me because I utilized faith when I drove to work this morning,the faith that I would not be in a car accident with a semi,and faith I would arrive safely to work.
Would any atheist out there agree with the claim of my friend? If so will you support your claim with argument. Thank you and God Bless.

Bill Snedden · 11-09-2002, 08:28 PM

Hmmm...I understand your point, but did that "faith" actually give you any knowledge? Did you know that you wouldn't be involved in an accident? Did you know that you would arrive safely?

Well, no. Perhaps you "knew" that there was a high probability that you would arrive safely, but did faith actually provide you with any knowledge? Or did it provide you with a greater sense of "security" that your knowledge was correct?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

xeren · 11-09-2002, 10:13 PM

Bill put it better than i could have myself

This essay also puts it pretty well, if youre curious balisongsong:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/fish.html" target="_blank">A Fish Did Not Write This Essay</a>

It's a good essay, but if you're too busy to read the whole thing, at least read this:

Quote:

It is also often argued that we need faith just as much as we need reason. Usually, this claim is based on a very loose definition of "faith." Many have said that atheists have faith like everyone else, and that no one can do without having faith in something. However, this is misleading. If you mean by "faith" nothing more than "belief" then you can dispense with the word altogether. In reality, faith is usually employed to describe a particular justification for believing something, rather than to simply say you believe it. If I say I believe there are no talking fish, it isn't very productive to say that this proves I have "faith" that fish don't talk, because I don't believe it on faith. I believe it because of the evidence of my senses and the evidence presented by people employing a reasonable method of getting at the truth about things. However, to say you have "faith" that god exists means more than just saying you believe it. It means that you believe god exists because you have faith that he does. It is this meaning of faith that reason stands opposite to. I do not believe anything on faith. I only believe things because I have good evidence to support them. And that is what reason means: basing all beliefs on the evidence of the senses, and on nothing else.

-xeren

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: xeren ]

picklepuss · 11-10-2002, 02:12 AM

Hi;

I think this is an interesting question. I agree that 'faith', interpreted as blind, unquestioning acceptance of a notion or ideology, that is, inculcated belief, is of little noetic value to anyone over the mental age of seven. Simplistic beliefs do have great psychological value, however, in that they may delay burnout and prevent suicide.

"Faith" interpreted as 'trust' is absolutely indispensable to mental health. The trouble is finding reliable guidelines to the when and where of its placement. Which is one reason why today's society is so mentally unhealthy.

And then I believe there may be a third interpretation of "faith", that is, as a force or power that is literally capable of 'moving mountains'. That is, altering 'reality'. We hear of the 'power of prayer', even the 'a posteriori' power of prayer, in both US and Israeli studies. I wonder if this could be connected to the 'quantum universe'? I don't want to get all 'new age' about things I don't understand, but I'd like some feedback, if anyone has heard anything similar.

crocodile deathroll · 11-10-2002, 02:55 AM

A pragmatic faith is fine. Like a scientist may have faith in a theory or he/she would not bother with the research to corroborate it or some people may have faith in a political ideology like communism but they are prepared to change their minds in the light on new evidence

or political shortcomings. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />
But many religions fall into the trap of a dogmatic faith, and I have a big problem with that

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]

Oxymoron · 11-10-2002, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll:
A pragmatic faith is fine. Like a scientist may have faith in a theory or he/she would not bother with the research to corroborate it (snip)

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]

One scientist, possibly, maybe, perhaps. But the scientific community would eventually be the arbiter. Science has [b]no place[\b] for faith. Anyone who says "it's true because I say so" will either be laughed at long and loud or (more probably) ignored.

crocodile deathroll · 11-10-2002, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oxymoron:


One scientist, possibly, maybe, perhaps. But the scientific community would eventually be the arbiter. Science has [b]no place[\b] for faith. Anyone who says "it's true because I say so" will either be laughed at long and loud or (more probably) ignored.

Faith as a word is far too ambiguous for me which is why I seldom choose to use and never in a religious sense.
You may here people us it in secular simply say "I do not have much faith in this window cleaner" or these "fertilizer pellets" Or any faith in using lap top computers without a mouse

But I do not have such a problem with that
do you?

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]

Ms. Siv · 11-10-2002, 06:59 PM

I guess there's a big difference between faith and probability. One is based on evidence and logic, the other is not.

- S.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]

11-10-2002, 07:39 PM

Faith always exist in one form or another and humans always have faith in something. If just rely on logic alone, humans won't have made this far.

Starboy · 11-10-2002, 08:07 PM

I am confused. Is the purpose of a philosophical discussion to take a word and then come up with modifications to the definition so that it will fit a desired result?

If faith is the unquestioning belief in something even in the face of disconfirming evidence then faith not only has little utility but also under some circumstances can be dangerous. Only in those rare circumstances where the choice is to have faith or bite the dust does it make any sense. Even then, if one possessed the will to live then faith would not be necessary. Wild creatures survive by sheer will to live all the time. Or does someone here think that a fox has faith?

As far as I can tell, faith is a human invention for which the only purpose is to control the minds of people.

Starboy

11-09-2002, 08:14 PM	#1
balisongsong Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: phillipines Posts: 21	Faith I placed this topic in the philosophy forum because ultimately its about reality in the ontic, noetic and ethical sense. I have an atheist friend who claims that "faith is NEVER a legitimate way to knowledge."This claim confuses me because I utilized faith when I drove to work this morning,the faith that I would not be in a car accident with a semi,and faith I would arrive safely to work. Would any atheist out there agree with the claim of my friend? If so will you support your claim with argument. Thank you and God Bless.

11-10-2002, 02:55 AM	#5
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	A pragmatic faith is fine. Like a scientist may have faith in a theory or he/she would not bother with the research to corroborate it or some people may have faith in a political ideology like communism but they are prepared to change their minds in the light on new evidence or political shortcomings. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> But many religions fall into the trap of a dogmatic faith, and I have a big problem with that [ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>

11-10-2002, 06:59 PM	#8
Ms. Siv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: India Posts: 2,340	I guess there's a big difference between faith and probability. One is based on evidence and logic, the other is not. - S. [ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-09-2002, 08:28 PM	#2
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	Hmmm...I understand your point, but did that "faith" actually give you any knowledge? Did you know that you wouldn't be involved in an accident? Did you know that you would arrive safely? Well, no. Perhaps you "knew" that there was a high probability that you would arrive safely, but did faith actually provide you with any knowledge? Or did it provide you with a greater sense of "security" that your knowledge was correct? Regards, Bill Snedden

11-10-2002, 02:12 AM	#4
picklepuss Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Fall River, N.S. Posts: 142	Hi; I think this is an interesting question. I agree that 'faith', interpreted as blind, unquestioning acceptance of a notion or ideology, that is, inculcated belief, is of little noetic value to anyone over the mental age of seven. Simplistic beliefs do have great psychological value, however, in that they may delay burnout and prevent suicide. "Faith" interpreted as 'trust' is absolutely indispensable to mental health. The trouble is finding reliable guidelines to the when and where of its placement. Which is one reason why today's society is so mentally unhealthy. And then I believe there may be a third interpretation of "faith", that is, as a force or power that is literally capable of 'moving mountains'. That is, altering 'reality'. We hear of the 'power of prayer', even the 'a posteriori' power of prayer, in both US and Israeli studies. I wonder if this could be connected to the 'quantum universe'? I don't want to get all 'new age' about things I don't understand, but I'd like some feedback, if anyone has heard anything similar.

11-10-2002, 07:39 PM	#9
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	Faith always exist in one form or another and humans always have faith in something. If just rely on logic alone, humans won't have made this far.

11-10-2002, 08:07 PM	#10
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	I am confused. Is the purpose of a philosophical discussion to take a word and then come up with modifications to the definition so that it will fit a desired result? If faith is the unquestioning belief in something even in the face of disconfirming evidence then faith not only has little utility but also under some circumstances can be dangerous. Only in those rare circumstances where the choice is to have faith or bite the dust does it make any sense. Even then, if one possessed the will to live then faith would not be necessary. Wild creatures survive by sheer will to live all the time. Or does someone here think that a fox has faith? As far as I can tell, faith is a human invention for which the only purpose is to control the minds of people. Starboy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.