Soul Invictus

There are certain ideas that I think would be interesting to define and discuss. They are:


-belief
-truth
-fact
-faith

Looking at dictionary.com, 'truth' or 'true' is categorized as being in consistent with fact or reality. I guess we should add reality on this list as well.I'm not sure that I fully agree with this definition unless we agree on what reality is. In this religious realm, reality is highly regarding as an experience...something subjective in nature. Fact is or isn't (e.g. a land mass that is verifiable and observable), however one's interpretation of the facts (how one describes the land terrain) is subjective.

Someone asked me about my beliefs and I told them that they were an extension of what I knew....to be specific, they are formed based on the information that I have at my disposal or can choose to have at my disposal.

I'm wondering if anyone cares to speak on the items I have listed and any that I may have missed. According to dictionary.com faith is 'belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.'

Is this definition problematic for anyone? Do you view a distinction between beliefs and faith, or that faith is a particular subset of beliefs? Are your beliefs predicated on the information you have? Also, I'm looking for dialogue with the subjectivity of truth and objectivity of fact and why you are inclined to think the way you do...

Xeno

The problem with defining those words (faith, belief, fact, truth, reality, etc.), is that when you commit to a definition of one, you are invoking one of them, thus the definition of at least one becomes a tautology.

Soul Invictus

Very good point. Never quite thought about it like that. My only issue is that in any discussion (well debate rather) definitions are important. You can't really begin to discuss claims and whatnot until you come to some sort of agreement as to parameters to define certain ideas, otherwise and sort of discussion is going to be fruitless, right? I notice in a lot of debates, presuppositions and definitions take a lot of time before your actual discussion because once you've committed you have to be prepared for the line of reasoning your opponent is going to expect you to follow. Isn't this how the Scopes Monkey Trial went? I think that setting fundamental rules and definitions on these terms is important..how do-able it will prove is another matter. What are your comments on this?

Secular Pinoy

I think this topic should've been posted at the Philosophy forum. But that's just my subjective belief.

Soul Invictus

With that being the case, do any mods carry to ship this thread to its rightful destination?

Xeno

It is very true that in formal debates it is important to get definitions appropriately defined before continuing any course of reason. It is also true that since Socrates' time people have been using words authoritatively without even being able to give a meaningful definition to them.

The words you specify are particularly hard to nail down though.

If you look at the definitions provided by dictionary.com, it has belief defined in terms of truth, faith as a synonym for belief, truth defined in terms of facts, facts defined in terms of reality, and reality defined in terms of truth.

Clearly there is a problem with that.

Soul Invictus

I know...How do parties come to an agreement on such terms though? It's hard to make a case otherwise. Maybe this should have been the topic instead. What is your view on these terms?


If you look at the definitions provided by dictionary.com, it has belief defined in terms of truth, faith as a synonym for belief, truth defined in terms of facts, facts defined in terms of reality, and reality defined in terms of truth.[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is a huge problem...care to offer an example?

Ideally, I would want my categories as such:

factual - e.g. a rock is evident. you can dispute it all you want, however it doesn't refute it's existence in any way. nor is your belief or disbelief in said item of any material value. it is not for debate (objective)

truth- close to belief; an interpretation of circumstances or evidence. (subjective) to follow my example - the rock is hard

belief - can be developed with or without the use of rationale or evidence. i'd say this would be a minor step below truth because it will allow for an opinion not necessarily based on any factual backing

reality - i've run out of ideas to make a case to distinguish this from the previous two!

i dunno..maybe some of the philo masters here can spice this thread up and add to this.