Originally posted by Mindship
Gotta disagree. The lazy / stupid / fearful do. The honest ones, I think, don't believe blindly.
For example, my good friend Kyle once told me that he believed in God based on the beauty of a sunset he once observed, his belief forming process being that such beauty and the ability to apprehend that beauty could not develop without the existence/action of a higher power.
He's not blindly believing, he has formed this belief based on observation and antecedent beliefs...he's just horribly unjustified 😛
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I disagree. Lots of people believe in God because they believe they see evidence for it.
I'm not so sure. I imagine few of those people would claim that illusory motion seen in optical illusions is actual motion. They have a blind faith that God was responsible in situations where it confirms their beliefs, yet feel no need to use their own experience as evidence for reality when it would make them look objectively foolish.
That isn't a standard of evidence, it is a post hoc rationalization and special pleading.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'd point out that there's still a difference between believing based on an experience/observation and having an actually justified belief.For example, my good friend Kyle once told me that he believed in God based on the beauty of a sunset he once observed, his belief forming process being that such beauty and the ability to apprehend that beauty could not develop without the existence/action of a higher power.
He's not blindly believing, he has formed this belief based on observation and antecedent beliefs...he's just horribly unjustified 😛
the problem with that, imho, is more that the standard being used isn't consistent, unless he also assumes anything that he perceives as being ugly is evidence that God doesn't exist.
otherwise, it is special pleading again, ie: In situation A my subjective appraisal of beauty is a standard of evidence for the existence of the divine (largely because it confirms my prior held beliefs) but in situation B my subjective appraisal of beauty is not a sufficient standard of evidence (presumably because the outcome would be to assume God does not exist)
Originally posted by Mindship
Gotta disagree. The lazy / stupid / fearful do. The honest ones, I think, don't believe blindly.
I really disagree. People who assume they aren't believing blindly have almost, tautologically, adopted a standard of evidence based on a special pleading fallacy.
There is blind faith in that the person blindly believes that in some situations their subjective experience of reality can be taken as proof about some quality of the universe, though there are countless other comparable situations where they would not hold this.
Just a note: blind faith is not restricted to religion. Science also uses blind faith. For example: it is believed that there is a particle called an electron. However, none of the information we have to support the idea of an electron is direct. We have faith there is an electron because we have theories that make predictions that match observations, but no one really knows if what we think is an electron is real. We have blind faith. The difference is, the scientific method dictates that if there is information that proves an electron does not exist, then we must cast away that belief. While many religions do not want to change.
^That's not "blind faith", that's providing a theory that coheres with your system of beliefs and observations better than any current competing theory. Conversely it's no more rational or irrational to believe in Vishnu over Allah or vice versa. However it is more rational to believe in electrons over older models.
Originally posted by inimalistthe problem with that, imho, is more that the standard being used isn't consistent, unless he also assumes anything that he perceives as being ugly is evidence that God doesn't exist.
otherwise, it is special pleading again, ie: In situation A my subjective appraisal of beauty is a standard of evidence for the existence of the divine (largely because it confirms my prior held beliefs) but in situation B my subjective appraisal of beauty is not a sufficient standard of evidence (presumably because the outcome would be to assume God does not exist)
A belief need not be rational to be a belief. So far as I know there is no such thing as a completely unfounded belief, one that a person holds "just because".
And I'm willing to believe that shown enough horrors my friend could be brought to the opposite conclusion as many people who lose their faith due to severe hardship and traumatic experiences do.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
^That's not "blind faith", that's providing a theory that coheres with your system of beliefs and observations better than any current competing theory. Conversely it's no more rational or irrational to believe in Vishnu over Allah or vice versa. However it is more rational to believe in electrons over older models....
I like your blind faith.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I like your blind faith.
Did you even read what I wrote?
It ceases being "blind faith" when it becomes justified to believe something.
Unless you want to go the skeptic route and say that we can't have justified non-basic beliefs, in which case there's no point in continuing this conversation.
Edit: I made a mistake though on my last post by saying "your system of beliefs" which makes it sound like I'm talking from an individual standpoint. I'm actually talking from a social perspective.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
How is it "blind faith"?Did you even read what I wrote?
It ceases being "blind faith" when it becomes justified to believe something.
Unless you want to go the skeptic route and say that we can't have justified non-basic beliefs, in which case there's no point in continuing this conversation.
At the fundamental level of science is an uncertainty. To say anything about science involves a level of blind faith. However, it is not stagnate, and that is the difference. I'm just pointing out that we are talking about the wrong thing. The problem is not blind faith alone, but stubbornness.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
At the fundamental level of science is an uncertainty. To say anything about science involves a level of blind faith. However, it is not stagnate, and that is the difference. I'm just pointing out that we are talking about the wrong thing. The problem is not blind faith alone, but stubbornness.
at its core, the only real "faith" assumption in science comes from the idea that laws and patterns of effects in the universe are determinable. given things like technology, we can sort of assume this is more logical than the opposite. it is certainly not an absolute truth, but it isn't a blind faith.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I've read a few papers recently that propose that while individual scientists can be and often are irrational, science as a whole is a rational process and in fact benefits from the irrationality of its scientists.
Yes, I'm not talking about the scientific method, I have strong blind faith about that ( 😆 ). I am talking about people, and to a degree theories.
Originally posted by inimalist
at its core, the only real "faith" assumption in science comes from the idea that laws and patterns of effects in the universe are determinable. given things like technology, we can sort of assume this is more logical than the opposite. it is certainly not an absolute truth, but it isn't a blind faith.
Definition?
Definition: belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blind+faith
Quantum Mechanics is not a fundamental. To be honest, we don't know what the fundamental is. Many believe that String theory is the fundamental, but String theory cannot predict anything observable. We are then left with blind faith that a fundamental does exist.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I'm not talking about the scientific method, I have strong blind faith about that ( 😆 ). I am talking about people, and to a degree theories.
but in a theory, the only faith assumption is that creating a theory about the phenomenon in question is possible.
there is nothing blind about it. similarly, if you read arguments in the literature, the parties that turn out to be wrong are rarely simply blindly accepting some theory and defending it. such arguments are most common over how to interpret new results that challenge a previous theory. defending the previous theory may turn out to be incorrect, but that isn't the same as defending the position based on some faith based assumption it is correct.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Definition?Definition: belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blind+faith
Quantum Mechanics is not a fundamental. To be honest, we don't know what the fundamental is. Many believe that String theory is the fundamental, but String theory cannot predict anything observable. We are then left with blind faith that a fundamental does exist.
a fundamental what?
Originally posted by inimalist
but in a theory, the only faith assumption is that creating a theory about the phenomenon in question is possible.there is nothing blind about it. similarly, if you read arguments in the literature, the parties that turn out to be wrong are rarely simply blindly accepting some theory and defending it. such arguments are most common over how to interpret new results that challenge a previous theory. defending the previous theory may turn out to be incorrect, but that isn't the same as defending the position based on some faith based assumption it is correct.
I think a definition of faith is required.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonWork with me. 😐
...and you blindly believe this? 😛
Originally posted by Omega VisionI would say he is believing blindly, so perhaps I should add, the romantic. 😉 In any event, you make a good point, reminding us we're splitting a fine but vital hair here, between blind faith and justified faith. Your friend's faith is still "blind" (imo - hard to say because I don't know him) because he is making an untested assumption about what he is witnessing and its cause.
I'd point out that there's still a difference between believing based on an experience/observation and having an actually justified belief.For example, my good friend Kyle once told me that he believed in God based on the beauty of a sunset he once observed, his belief forming process being that such beauty and the ability to apprehend that beauty could not develop without the existence/action of a higher power.
He's not blindly believing, he has formed this belief based on observation and antecedent beliefs...he's just horribly unjustified 😛
Originally posted by inimalistThat sounds like the stupid (though I could see fearful or even lazy). I don't think an "honest theist" would put blind faith on par with empirical science because I don't think honesty is that blind.
There is blind faith in that the person blindly believes that in some situations their subjective experience of reality can be taken as proof about some quality of the universe