ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:46 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: What is faith?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:33 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
1. Is faith merely a belief without proof?

2. What if a belief is supported by evidence but not positively proven, is it still considered faith?

3. What is the difference between faith and trust?

4. Is Weak Atheism faith?

5. Is Strong Atheism faith?

6. Is Agnostism faith?


I'll post my own opinions later because I'm a little buzzed right now from the delicious elixir called rum-and-coke.


I'm sorry if this topic has been brought up before, by the way.

_________________
SERENITY NOW!

DNI'dby Gazing Rabbit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:57 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
I feel that Faith is what you have when you believe something is true, regardless of whether the facts support it, go against it, or are neutral in the matter.

1 + 1 = 2.
I know this to be true. That is faith.

Creationism.
I know this to be false. That is faith.

======

So, by my definition of faith, everything that you know to be True is only believed to be true because of faith. This puts everything under the catagory of faith. Agnostics have faith in their belief that god is unknowable (he might not be -- he could also live next door and play ding-dong-ditch on you when he's bored. Who knows.).

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:44 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
To have faith in an idea is to believe that idea without any systematic or ideological framework to support it. In other words, fundamentalists can argue over various biblical passages, and reach particular conclusions as to their meaning. These conclusions are not statements of faith. Rather, the underlying, unquestioned assumptions that underly the ideology under whose framework this statement is made -- e.g. that the Bible is infallible -- those are examples of ideas that must be taken on faith. Science is founded upon certain assumptions that must be taken on faith as well (though the conclusions drawn from this ideological system - i.e. from the discourse generated by those who hold these tenets of faith - is rational, just as the discourse between fundamentalist theologians is rational). The difference between science and religious fundamentalism is that Science's assumptions are less arbitrary, and based upon precepts that any sane human being would agree upon. This is not because these assumptions are any more "logical" than those of any other ideological system; rather, they're more engrained into our psychology, whereas the assumptions of a southern Baptist are not, and thus seem totally ridiculous to those who are outside the social conditioning system created by Baptist churches and religion in general.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:17 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
The word "faith", like many English words, has many denotations, so we could visit a dictionary, copy them all into this forum, and go away. However, that wouldn't be very satisfying to anyone. For purposes of this discussion, I will take "faith" to be "belief in some statement unprovable by logic or science".

Thus, to take Hate's points in order ...

(1) Yes. If I believe some statement that I can't prove, and I don't trust anyone else's proof or disproof of that statement, then my belief is faith.

(2) No. All scientific statements are "supported by evidence but not positively proven". You might argue that I should classify my trust in science to explain the universe to me as faith, but I can reply that unlike all other methods of phenomenal explanation, science's explanations are both (a) falsifiable and (b) predictive. (By definition -- if an statement has those two qualities, it is a scientific explanation. Note that not all logical arguments are scientific explanations!)

(3) If I have faith in a statement then by definition I believe it even though I believe also that there can be no proof of that statement. If I have trust in a statement, I believe it though I do not know a proof of that statement.

(4) and (5) I'm not sure of the difference between these two. If I believe that there is no god, then I believe something that I acknowledge is unprovable by logic or science, thus I have faith in that statement.

(6) If I say, "I do not know if there is a god or not" then I am hardly making a statement at all. ;-) However, in that that is not a statement of belief, but a statement of knowledge, then it would be a category error to state that agnosticism is faith.

Herbal Enema's reply is interesting. Let me comment.

Herbal Enema wrote:
I feel that Faith is what you have when you believe something is true, regardless of whether the facts support it, go against it, or are neutral in the matter.


I think that his definition of faith and my own are inconsistent -- not to say that that is a bad thing! His definition will be found in a dictionary, as will mine. However, I am not sure that his definition is appropriate for answering Hate's queries. Herbal Enema illustrates this with his own examples:

Quote:
1 + 1 = 2.
I know this to be true. That is faith.

Creationism.
I know this to be false. That is faith.


Herbal Enema's first example is a mathematical statement, which he states he believes. Now, there are people who can prove that statement, and I hope that Herbal Enema acknowledges that there are, whether or not he himself is one of them. Thus, his definition of statements of faith includes those statements which are conclusively provable, whereas mine does not, and thus I think he will find answering Hate's challenges far more difficult.

Herbal Enema's second example is only half of a scientific statement. It is falsifiable; who knows -- we might someday find incontrovertible evidence that the universe was created over the period of six days! -- though, like Herbal Enema, I doubt that most strongly. Now, in that he doesn't give an alternative explanation, his statement has no predictive power. I don't blame him; I doubt an alternative explanation to the bundle of ideas which comprises "creationism" would fit on a large hard drive, let alone a smallish forum posting.

It does, however, suggest that his belief in the falsehood of creationism might indeed be faith by both our definitions. Hmmmm ....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:10 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Tamayo wrote:
For purposes of this discussion, I will take "faith" to be "belief in some statement unprovable by logic or science".


But then, to truly discern the meaning of that statement, one would have to figure out just what constitutes logical proof, and we already have a whole thread devoted to trying to figure out what the hell that is. If a definition of faith cannot be formulated without including the concept of proof, then essentially this debate boils down to the same debate that's occurring in the aforementioned thread. That's assuming, of course, that we all agree to Tamayo's definition, and I think it's a good one. (As a matter of fact, I was essentially saying the same thing in my previous post, though I was using my own particular understanding of "proof" as a basis for what I was saying)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:06 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
Tamayo wrote:
I will take "faith" to be "belief in some statement unprovable by logic or science".


I agree with that to some extent. To me faith is a belief in something unproven--i.e. not necessarily unprovable-- and lacking valid reason to support it. So my answer to the first question would be "No", because the "belief without proof" definition, though accepted by many, is incomplete and allows for cans of worms like "belief in evolution is faith."

Tamayo wrote:
(2) No. All scientific statements are "supported by evidence but not positively proven". You might argue that I should classify my trust in science to explain the universe to me as faith, but I can reply that unlike all other methods of phenomenal explanation, science's explanations are both (a) falsifiable and (b) predictive. (By definition -- if an statement has those two qualities, it is a scientific explanation. Note that not all logical arguments are scientific explanations!)


I would have said something similar but I couldn't have put it so eloquently. Cheers.

Quote:
3. What is the difference between faith and trust?


If I lend my car to a stranger, I would say that I have faith that that person will return it (on time and unscathed). Why? Because I have no prior experience to justify my belief in that person's honesty and reliability. That person may actually be reliable and honest and I may find reason to believe so in the future, but as of now I have diddly-squat.

If I lend my car to a friend, I would say that I trust my friend to return it. Since I have prior experience with that person and found reason to believe that that person is reliable and honest, my "faith" is justified so it becomes "trust" (I don't make friends with lying dipshits). Now, I'm not saying that trust is a certainty; my friend could very well return my car a week over due, full of scratches in the paint, missing a hubcap or two, and the seats smelling like cat urine and whiskey. Of course if that happens, my trust is broken just like how my friend's nose will soon be when I give him a sound beating.

Hopefully I made my examples clear enough to deduce how I differentiate trust and faith.

Tamayo wrote:
(4) and (5) I'm not sure of the difference between these two. If I believe that there is no god, then I believe something that I acknowledge is unprovable by logic or science, thus I have faith in that statement.


Ah, pardon me for not making it clear what Strong and Weak Atheism are. Weak atheists are simply people who lacks belief in god/s which is actually what atheism is, etymologically speaking. But since there are atheists who positively claim that there are no god/s, it created the Strong and Weak athiest categories. I believe that Weak Atheism is the logical default position in the god/s issue since the burden of proof, after all, lies on the one claiming the existence of a phenomenon. Agnostism is not the logical "middle ground" as some agnostics proudly proclaim it to be and it is definately not a disbelief in god/s, atleast not necessarily. Agnostism has more to do with a belief on human limitations as it does about wether or not god/s exist.

So here's my position on the questions I posed:

4. Weak Atheism is a disbelief. It is merely a lack of faith in god/s therefore it is not faith. ("I have found no compelling reason to believe in dieties." - James Randi, paraphrased heavily)

5. Strong Atheists claims that there are absolutely no god/s. They believe it to be an impossibility. If you subscribe to the "nobody can prove an unrestricted negative" maxim, then Strong Atheism could be considered a faith. But when it comes to a Three O God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent), strong athiest have compelling logical arguments so Strong Athiesm is possibly not faith if all gods or the god is not Three O. I'm still on the fence on this one.

6. Agnostics believe that man can never know the nature of god or simply man can never know one way or the other. I agree that nobody knows right now, but who knows what the future may bring. Some things considered to be fantasy a couple centuries ago is now reality (horseless carriages, personal computational machines, visiting the moon, ect.). So agnostism is faith. There are agnostics who believe in god/s and those who don't, but that's irrelevent.

EDIT: Here's the Wikipedia entry on Weak Atheism that explains it better than I can.

Wikipedia wrote:
Weak atheism or negative atheism is the lack of belief in any God or gods, without a positive denial of the existence of any god or gods. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which asserts that gods do not exist, and theism, which asserts that there is at least one god. The weak atheist generally gives a broad definition of atheism as "lack or absence of belief in god or gods", which defines atheism as a range of positions that entail non-belief, disbelief, doubt, or denial of theism. A narrower definition of atheism as "denial of the existence of gods" is also in common use. Those who favor this definition prefer to use other terms, such as agnosticism, for skepticism of or non-belief in theism.

Some weak atheists may simply hold no opinion on the existence or non-existence of God or gods. Others may find arguments on both sides of the question equally compelling. Yet others may doubt or disbelieve the existence of God or gods, being unconvinced by the evidence or proofs put forward by theists, but hold that it is not currently known whether or not gods exist.

The position that it is not known whether God or gods exists is called weak agnosticism. A stronger position is strong agnosticism, the view that it is not possible ever to know whether God or gods exist or not. Agnosticism, in both strong and weak forms, is not necessarily an atheist position; it is a position regarding what is known, and can be known, about the existence of God or gods. A theist can also take the position that he does not know (and if a strong agnostic, cannot know) whether God or gods exist, although he believes it, through faith.

Weak atheists often argue that their position is the default one; that it is not known whether or not gods exist (and if the strong agnostics are right, can never be known); that neither theists nor strong atheists fulfill their burden of proof; and that theists and strong atheists therefore rely on faith. For these weak atheists, beliefs which cannot be fully justified and which rest on faith, are untenable, making both theism and atheism untenable.


Herbal Enema wrote:
So, by my definition of faith, everything that you know to be True is only believed to be true because of faith. This puts everything under the catagory of faith.


Even though your definition of faith is acceptable and, as Tamayo already said, can be found in the dictionary, I think it's just plain weird (but not wrong). Let's assume the following statements are true:

I am thinking.
I named my dog "Roderick".
I was born.


By your definition of faith, it is also okay to say it this way:

I have faith that I am thinking.
I have faith that I named my dog "Roderick."
I have faith that I was born.


Doesn't it seem weird to use the word "faith" that way? Not talking about it being superfluous. It's just that it's weird to say faith when you already know something to be true. Of course if we substitute your definition of faith with mine, those sentences could still be valid but that's a little too solipsistic(?) for me. That particular philosophy frightens this poor utilitarian pragmatist. In fact, I'm already frightened. I have faith that I'm going to pet my dog Roderick for comfo...GAH! *runs away*

_________________
SERENITY NOW!

DNI'dby Gazing Rabbit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:55 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
Hate wrote:
I have faith that I am thinking.
I have faith that I named my dog "Roderick."
I have faith that I was born.


But do you know for 100% sure that you are thinkning? That you have a dog? That you were born? Are you 100% positive that there isn't some sort of overbeing tricking your senses into believing that those are true? Even if you are 100% positive that's not the case, how can you know? If such an overbeing exists and has the inclination to do it, you would never konw, it would make sure of that.

Are you sure you're not just insane and your non-thought delusions make it seem like you have a dog, and you that you were born, as opposed to spontanously existing (or a test-tube baby or something).

You have to take it on faith that you exist, must less that you are a being capable of thought.

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:51 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:38 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The other end of the phoneline
I think of faith as belief regardless of proof. Proof can cause one to have faith that one idea is more correct than another, but they might also have faith that one idea is more correct than another simply by wishful thinking.

_________________
I wish I had a signature rather than just a lame joke about not having a signature.

DNI'd = Kali_Ava and darksetyuna.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:24 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
Herbal Enema wrote:
Hate wrote:
I have faith that I am thinking.
I have faith that I named my dog "Roderick."
I have faith that I was born.


But do you know for 100% sure that you are thinkning? That you have a dog? That you were born? Are you 100% positive that there isn't some sort of overbeing tricking your senses into believing that those are true? Even if you are 100% positive that's not the case, how can you know? If such an overbeing exists and has the inclination to do it, you would never konw, it would make sure of that.

Are you sure you're not just insane and your non-thought delusions make it seem like you have a dog, and you that you were born, as opposed to spontanously existing (or a test-tube baby or something).

You have to take it on faith that you exist, must less that you are a being capable of thought.


*runs back* *points*

You just used faith similar to the way I use it! Does that mean we now somewhat agree that faith is not an all-inclusive belief type thing?

I was hoping your kind of argument will not be brought up but apparently it can't be helped so I'll reply anyway.

An overbeing is tricking my senses, right?

From this we can secure certain "truths". I exist because I am being tricked by the overbeing; I need to exist in order for me to be tricked by the overbeing. So right off the bat, the fact that I exist is established for your overbeing deal to work.

My senses also exist and if I am to be tricked by my senses, I must be capable of being tricked and those senses must be processed by me. So I am capable of thought. It doesn't matter wether or not my thoughts are mundane. It doesn't matter if my thoughts have been tricked, they are still thoughts. Delusions are thoughts. And just to be clear, tricking someone is different from giving orders or forcing someone to do something.

Since I exist and the overbeing exist, we must exist somewhere. So a universe must exist in order for us to have a place to exist.

So there are some some constants, some truths, things that are provable even if we were not lucky enough to offered the red pill. I pointed out only a few but if any of those things are false, your overbeing scenario can't work.

But enough of that free-your-mind stuff. I suck at it. I'm a blue-piller dog garn it.

Now, I don't think you actually believe in your over being scenario but I know what you are trying to say. It's possible. It's also possible there's an invisible, incorporeal Boogeyman living in my closet. Can I prove it? No. Can I disprove it? No. Should I believe in it? Absolutely not. Burden of Proof. It is irrational to believe in something that has no evidence to support it and it is a logical fallacy to argue that it exists because nobody can prove otherwise. Believing in the manipulative overbeing requires faith.

_________________
SERENITY NOW!

DNI'dby Gazing Rabbit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:13 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
So you have faith that there's no invisible bogeyman in the closet?

And you have faith that the universe (should such a thing exist) must work in such a way that you need to exist to be tricked by an all powerful overbeing (should he exist).

Er... It gets silly.

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:19 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
Herbal Enema wrote:
Er... It gets silly.


I blame overrated movies.

And it seems you have reverted to your original faith definition.

_________________
SERENITY NOW!

DNI'dby Gazing Rabbit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:25 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
Hate wrote:
Herbal Enema wrote:
Er... It gets silly.


I blame overrated movies.

And it seems you have reverted to your original faith definition.


Reverted? When did I change?

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:05 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
I try to not use the word faith at all.

I don't have a total knowledge on anything, so technically I should say I have faith, or that I believe. But I don't do that.
I define myself as rational, which means that I thinkeverything have a reason and aspire to achieve a state where all my actions are derived from reasons (the most basic/ultimate reason is my own happiness). So, if I am rational (an exiom), I should not do things without a reason, and faith has parts which cannot be reasoned. That's why I use the word 'think'.

I think that this reality is indeed real. [scrach that, I don't care if it's real]
I have no data regarding God, so I cannot choose weather to believe in him or not.
I think I was born. I could've been made in a lab but that's unlikely.
I think that I think, else my cognita iesn't worth shit.

(My logic teacher would've been proud of me.)

Edit after reading the second part of the thread: Hate, you're able of thought. If you want a DNI from me it's yours (put a 'DNI'd by Gazing Rabbit' in your sig).

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:52 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:38 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The other end of the phoneline
I for one don't think that the existence or nonexistence of this reality is relevant - it's the platform from which we are all arguing, therefore we must presuppose its existence for any of our arguments to have any common ground.

_________________
I wish I had a signature rather than just a lame joke about not having a signature.

DNI'd = Kali_Ava and darksetyuna.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:22 pm 
Offline
n00b

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:00 pm
Posts: 5
Well, for the existance, I think it's fairly relevent if you're going with a scientific or logical positivism proof of reality. Because in most cases those proofs require an external observation to establish bounds and a frame of reference. The best example I can give of this is when doctors check to see if something is cancerous, they biopsy a piece and test it outside the bounds of your body. Without the external perspective the whole concept of reality is a bit vauge. So I do think that reality is an article of faith.

I look at faith as something you have to believe in order to function. Though different people have different standards for what they need to function. I have faith that if I am speaking english to someone and they also speak english they will have the same definitions for words or at least similar ones. However just about anyone can point out that this is not true, the age old example of well is this blue, or green comes to mind when looking at a color.

As for faith vs trust, I think the only difference is trust is optional. Trust, at least in my opinion stems from a concious decision. Faith on the other hand is not, or it may be an unconcious decision based on I'm not really sure what. The only proof I can really give of the difference is when someone loses trust in something, the affects differe greatly then when faith is lost. A loss of faith tends to do a lot of damage at least mentally to someone. I'd even be inclined to say that faith may be something that's manditory to a person, ie one has to believe in something even if that is nothing. But it's late and nihilism is hard to argue coherently when you're tired.

*And yes, I realize I'm fresh meat so please be gentle*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:20 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
You speak clearly and to the subject. Rare as this is with n00bs, I don't think you need to worry. Even though I would advise you to visit the n00b thread at the unrelated forum.

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group