xeren

Please provide some evidence for this.

-xeren

Ms. Siv

Logic alone could provide nothing, I agree.
We need logic, assumptions, evidence and probability. Which of these are you labelling as "faith" ?

- S.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]</p>

danielsosa

I have heard faith referred to as an operational first principle, in that we accept the accuracy of sensory information on faith. Therefore faith is an integral part of the human organism's survival. (which was then used to open the door to faith being a means to attain certain kinds of knowledge, like that of God, for example).

My argument against this was that without the capacity to doubt the concept of faith is vacuous. Therefore reason is a first operational principle.

Opinions on this?

Hubble head

All said and done, I would say that faith is one pathway to knowledge. Faith, or belief without knowledge is a part of many hypotheses and other scientific guesswork. Without faith in a new or different result many scientific experiments would have never been carried out.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: science ]</p>

xeren

It seems that, depite the efforts at the beginning of the thread, people have again muddled the definition of "faith"

The first two definitions of faith I found in the dictionary were:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Religious Faith seems to fall into the second category: belief without proof or evidence.

But faith in our senses easily falls into the first category: Yes, people believe that their senses will accurately guide them through this world, but only based on the evidence that their senses have been successful in the past at allowing them to interact with their environment.

Let's recap shall we?

Fatih in God: Belief withOUT evidence
Faith in senses: Belief on the basis of evidence

Two VERY different kinds of faith


-xeren

Oxymoron

Commonly known as induction, but it doesn't exist without knowledge, it exists because of the assumption that the future will be like the past. The more the future does indeed behave like the past, the better that assumption becomes.

Religious faith - to paraphrase, "it's true because I want it to be" - is utterly useless to science or anyone wanting to stay in touch with reality.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

If faith is 'belief without evidence' (and it )is, then 'faith based on the evidence of the senses' makes no sense. That isn't 'faith' at all.

Faith: Precisely what I don't have, don't want, and don't need.

Keith.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

crocodile deathroll

Most German Shepherd owners if you have ever been to their dog clubs claim their dogs have faith in them. "they are such a faithful breed" they claim

I have never taken them literally.

ELECTROGOD

I have a Belgian Shepard (or Belgian Malinois) and he has no "faith" that I am coming home. When I am gone he chews up the door frame to try and follow me. Great dog though.
Dog experts will tell you that the smartest dogs often have problems with seperation anxiety when left alone. Not all dogs are like this but "faith" in a dog would be like referring to a particular crime as "evil" (tells me nothing).

Faith is a religious word (just like evil). There is no need to use it but since religion is so popular it is ingrained in the language. I like to keep those kind of words phased out of my everyday communication unless specifically refering to those concepts.

crocodile deathroll

I like the sound of an evil German Shepherd

Evil has even stronger religious overtones the faith. At least if some is about to risk a bunge jump, he can refuse at the last minute and say "I do not have any faith in that bunge cord" and he could be right, as the cord may be a bit suspect at closer examination. However it would be a bit ridiculous to refer to it as an evil bunge cord
But G W Bush using such language as the "axis of evil" do not have any relevance in this day and age. Global threats or dangerous dictatorships would be a lot more appropriate for the likes of Saddam Hussein

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>