And this is why terms like "blind faith" are such a problem. Everybody has their own definition and those definitions are so loaded that is disrupts any attempt to communicate meaningfully. Come on people, being able to use words with clear meanings is the best thing we got out of political correctness.
But if we're going into Philo101 I'll jujst toss the Evil Demon out there. Now we can't rely on rationalism either.
Originally posted by Digi
We take it for granted that the Earth is round, but how many of us have seen it from space or done the calculations to prove it ourselves? No, we have a certain amount of faith. But it is not unfounded faith, it is not without reason. There's the difference.
I don't see the difference. It would be incorrect to say there is no reason to believe there is a god, as if it were so random and arbitrary an idea. One of the reasons is that God is an explanation to the creation of the universe/everything. Now, clearly this is still a leap of faith, but there is a reason, whether you believe it is "valid" or not - its not a completely random idea that people arbitrarily come up with.
Something that I would consider as blind faith would be something like an Invisible Pink Unicorn. As you say, it is "without reason", that someone would believe in something so arbitrary and random. Also, in a philosophical/religious context, it explains nothing, causes nothing, there is no reason to discuss it at all.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Your argument is the traditional argument against empiricism.
Or more specific to what you said: If it is blind faith to accept indirect evidence than it is blind faith to believe that anything exists at all because all evidence is indirect at some level. That's the kind of hardcore rationalism that makes me think of philosophy majors.I'm not sure how your second sentence relates to what I said. Certainly you can believe something through faith and have it turn out to be true but I'd argue that doesn't really mean you knew it.
There's a thought experiment that goes like this: A woman is sleeping. In her dream she says to herself "It is raining outside." She awakens and sees through he bedroom window that it is raining. When did she know the state of the weather?
If we accept faith/belief as a form of knowledge she knew in the dream.
If we accept empiricism as a form of knowledge she did not know until she looked out the window.
If we accept hardcore rationalism she still does not know.What I've never heard an answer to is what faith/belief arguments say if it isn't raining outside.
Science has left the biggest questions unanswered. The reason for that is because we simply don't know. We get around that by looking at what we do know. However, there is one assumption that we cannot prove. That assumption is that we can know. This belief is an act of blind faith. In no way am I saying that science is wrong for doing this: I thing in this case, it is a good call.
Do you believe that faith = wong?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But if we're going into Philo101 I'll jujst toss the Evil Demon out there. Now we can't rely on rationalism either.
OHHHH SHIIIT! 😆
But...that has been argued thoroughly, as well: by our perceptions, we would not be able to distinguish such an entity from an omnipotent being (this is my opinion and such an opinion is still debated today).
Originally posted by inimalistI think more the honest theist would say, for such-and-such reason I choose to believe in the divine. And as for the scientific method vs blind faith...this is not even a contest (in favor of SM, of course).I'm not even trying to say science is better than blind faith (I would argue that, different thread though), just that any form of theism has to break down at some point into saying, "yes, for no good reason, I believe this situation confirms the divine" (of course, with my own cynical interpretation).
Originally posted by Placidity
I don't see the difference. It would be incorrect to say there is no reason to believe there is a god, as if it were so random and arbitrary an idea. One of the reasons is that God is an explanation to the creation of the universe/everything. Now, clearly this is still a leap of faith, but there is a reason, whether you believe it is "valid" or not - its not a completely random idea that people arbitrarily come up with.Something that I would consider as blind faith would be something like an Invisible Pink Unicorn. As you say, it is "without reason", that someone would believe in something so arbitrary and random. Also, in a philosophical/religious context, it explains nothing, causes nothing, there is no reason to discuss it at all.
But there's no evidence for either your God or a pink unicorn. I could say the pink unicorn is reason for the universe, and it would be as valid as your "reason" for God. I should've been more clear though, I meant Reason in a classical sense. Of course, saying "aliens are responsible for my flash drive not working" is a reason, but it's not using Reason to reach that conclusion.
It's the difference between possible and plausible. It's possible God is the reason for existence. It's also possible the pink unicorn is. Given what we know based on any sort of evidence, they're equally as likely.
It's also possible the earth is round (or rather, spheroid). But in that case, it's also plausible based on numerous factors. And on a practical level, which of the three are you likeliest to believe?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Perhaps not.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blind+faith
"belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination"
True understanding and perception, at the most basic of basic level, would necessitate an objective knowledge which is impossible as far as we know: that would imply omniscience.
Ugh. Dude, you should know me by now. I'm dealing with actual usages of faith in the world, not a textbook definition. Religious faith is blind faith by my definition: there is zero evidence. If a dictionary says blind faith is something else and it rankles your knickers, we can come up with a new term that pleases you. Bottom line: zero evidence.
The God/Pink Universe/Earth example I used above applies here as well.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect. Putting science on a pedestal that is beyond reproach is quite intellectually dishonest and runs directly counter to what we know "science" to be defined: as fact, science MUST be able to be criticized, torn down, broken down, debated, destroyed, etc. because that is the system by which we have improved our knowledge (perfect science is objective science which, like I said before, is pretty much impossible). If you're going to use philosophical inspection on sets of thought, you must also apply the same method on another system of thought (to be able to point the gun or finger at yourself, basically).
I'm not putting science on a pedestal or saying it's beyond reproach. I'm saying this particular line of reasoning to discredit it is unjustifiable. You can get off the soapbox now, I'm not uncritical of my own methods of reaching conclusions.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Exactly. You're getting it. You're closer to what I mean. Still, that's a simplistic approach but pretty much all of us take the earth as round on blind faith. Even if you have seen the earth and know it is round, there's a giant set of assumptions you must make, even still, to conclude that.
Trying to say that "the Earth is round" and "God is real" are on equal footing in terms of faith is laughable. I don't want to respond to it at length because this should really just be common sense. Can you really not see how the two are different?
Originally posted by Digi
But there's no evidence for either your God or a pink unicorn. I could say the pink unicorn is reason for the universe, and it would be as valid as your "reason" for God.
I don't see how "evidence" plays a role in this. We were distinguishing between faith and blind faith both of which excludes evidence.
Secondly, if someone believes the Pink Unicorn is reason for the universe, then essentially, they are saying the Pink Unicorn is god. So theres no problem in the sense that they do believe in something for a reason/explanation. However it is far from being as valid as a reason as God in general. The problem is WHY they come to give God the attributes of being Pink and a Unicorn. In fact it is self-contradictory. God, by definition, and according to many philosophical views, is omnipotent, immaterial and transcendent. For these reasons, God would not have properties of being pink, or a unicorn. Therefore for someone to assert that the Pink Unicorn is the explanation of the universe, the term blind faith would apply.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I believe that faith should not be counted as knowledge even if it turns out to be accurate.
Then you are restricted. Faith helps us bridge the gap. Please keep in mind that I am not talking about faith as in religion, I am talking about faith in it's most basic form. Don't you think it took faith for Einstein to believe in his ideas after years of the math not working?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you are restricted. Faith helps us bridge the gap. Please keep in mind that I am not talking about faith as in religion, I am talking about faith in it's most basic form. Don't you think it took faith for Einstein to believe in his ideas after years of the math not working?
That's a completely different use of the word faith.
What I'm saying was that Einstein did not truly know he was correct until his theory was tested.
Originally posted by Placidity
I don't see how "evidence" plays a role in this. We were distinguishing between faith and blind faith both of which excludes evidence.
Not true. I have faith that I'm going to wake up tomorrow. It's based on my age, average mortality rates, and past experience. It's still faith, but it doesn't lack evidence to support it. Your unicorn lacks evidence. So does God. I can't know that I will wake up tomorrow for sure, but it is not without evidence-based justification.
Dudemon quotes me a link saying that even blind faith isn't without evidence. You tell me that no kind of faith can include evidence. Can't we just use some common sense to see that there are different levels of faith, and that not all beliefs are equal in terms of the type of faith needed?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a completely different meaning of faith.What I'm saying was that Einstein did not truly know he was correct until his theory was tested.
That is the only meaning for the word faith that I have ever used. That is why I said we need to define the word faith. If Einstein didn't have faith in his ideas, he would not have spent all those years working on them.
Look at Kepler, he spend most of his life having faith in an idea that did not work. Fortunately, he did not have blind faith or he would have never found the laws of planetary motion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is the only meaning for the word faith that I have ever used. That is why I said we need to define the word faith. If Einstein didn't have faith in his ideas, he would not have spent all those years working on them.
And its the only definition I have used (so at least I've been consistent enough to be understood from sentence to sentence). I never said people shouldn't have faith, I said that faith is not knowledge. In fact I've been pretty explicit about that so I can't imagine how you're having difficulty following me.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And its the only definition I have used (so at least I've been consistent enough to be understood from sentence to sentence). I never said people shouldn't have faith, I said that faith is not knowledge. In fact I've been pretty explicit about that so I can't imagine how you're having difficulty following me.
OK, faith is not knowledge, but that was not the point. I said that even science uses faith; we would not know anything if we didn't.
Sorry, if we have been talking past each other. I'm sure if we were actually talking, we wouldn't have that problem. Or at least I wouldn't have that problem.
Originally posted by dadudemon
OHHHH SHIIIT! 😆But...that has been argued thoroughly, as well: by our perceptions, we would not be able to distinguish such an entity from an omnipotent being (this is my opinion and such an opinion is still debated today).
Actually I was thinking of an evil demon able to place thoughts in your mind. Such a creature makes it impossible to know things by reasoning as even if reason can be known to be reliable a priori we have no way of knowing if we're actually applying reason.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually I was thinking of an evil demon able to place thoughts in your mind. Such a creature makes it impossible to know things by reasoning as even if reason can be known to be reliable a priori we have no way of knowing if we're actually applying reason.
If anyone uses this type of argument with me - and there are many beliefs that fall into this category - it's usually when I try to exit the conversation. As a thought experiment, it's interesting enough to think about. As a basis for discussion, it's grade-school, and the person isn't worth dealing with seriously.
Made me lol at work though, so thanks.
Originally posted by Digi
Not true. I have faith that I'm going to wake up tomorrow. It's based on my age, average mortality rates, and past experience. It's still faith, but it doesn't lack evidence to support it. Your unicorn lacks evidence. So does God. I can't know that I will wake up tomorrow for sure, but it is not without evidence-based justification.
That is hardly the type of situation we are talking about. There is plenty of evidence that you will be waking up as you have said. The chances of you NOT waking up are relatively low. It does not take a lot of "faith" to do this. If you can argue this, then you can argue anything takes faith. Now to arbitrary suggest this example (evidence) is somehow definitive of having faith and to hijack the term exclusively is your opinion to be frank. Religious beliefs has always been described as faith. Philosophically, the term faith has always been inclusive of belief of God/gods, so when someone asserts their own definition, I don't see any grounds for it.
Originally posted by Digi
You tell me that no kind of faith can include evidence.
Actually, I was just going with what I thought the direction of this thread was going. Although I did say that, it really doesn't matter to me, its not the main point to me. The point was, as you say - there are different levels.
Originally posted by Digi
Can't we just use some common sense to see that there are different levels of faith, and that not all beliefs are equal in terms of the type of faith needed?
You say this... yet I see no common sense or reason when you still pretend that having a faith in a God as a general idea as the explanation of the Universe is exactly the same as believing in a Pink Unicorn even after I showed you one is philosophically and logically viable while the other is not.
Lets just agree to disagree.