Clarification/Follow-up by rosends on 05/09/03 3:49 pm:
I think that faith is an over reaching term and that it includes a variety of different uses. To have faith "that" and to have faith "in" are different enough; throw in the idea of simply "having faith" and it becomes obvious that when discussing this word, one must define in what sen one takes issue with it.
We all have faith in some things or some people. We all trust that things will work the way they are supposed to or that certain things are true without being proven. I don't undertand much about electricty but I have faith that when I plug the lamp in, the electricity will somehow pour out of the wall and into a lightbulb. We put our faith in technology often. We put our faith in the power of logic to accomplish something.
In addition to those everyday "faiths", some people also have faith in the supernatural. Maybe one difference here is that this faith is in an object which defies proof whereas in the above situations, faith was placed in lieu of proof which COULD be realized were I to study that area. Your example of the Iraqi "having faith" that Saddam is a good leader (which, it seems, you are using to mean "believing") is a thing that can be quantified (define "good leader" and see if his qualities and actions fit that category). As you've said in other questions, it then becomes a matter of argumentation, weighing factors and "proving" -- faith (belief) is called in to question and it has to be validated. Is it possible to have faith in the face of contrary proof and despite evidence? Sure -- especially when the object of faith has, as a matter of faith, its own transcendence over reason and logic.
When there are contrary factual views, how does anyone decide what is "right"? Some poeple believe that the holocaust never happened. I believe that the evidence I have seen proves them wrong. I believe that they are foolish to continue to believe in the face of such evidence. They probably feel much that same about me and what they view as my blind belief, or acceptance of propagandized "facts".
I really feel that any and all hilosophical investigations which ask about faith and god are doomed form the outset. Eventually, someone who has faith in god and someone who not only doesn't have faith but doesn't understand faith will eventually assume irreconcilable positions -- each shaking his head and clucking his tonue at the obstinance of the other.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 05/09/03 6:33 pm:
Rosends:
Clarification/Follow-up by rosends on 05/09/03 3:49 pm:
I think that faith is an over reaching term and that it includes a variety of different uses. To have faith "that" and to have faith "in" are different enough; throw in the idea of simply "having faith" and it becomes obvious that when discussing this word, one must define in what sen one takes issue with it.
We all have faith in some things or some people. We all trust that things will work the way they are supposed to or that certain things are true without being proven. I don't undertand much about electricty but I have faith that when I plug the lamp in, the electricity will somehow pour out of the wall and into a lightbulb. We put our faith in technology often. We put our faith in the power of logic to accomplish something.
In addition to those everyday "faiths", some people also have faith in the supernatural. Maybe one difference here is that this faith is in an object which defies proof whereas in the above situations, faith was placed in lieu of proof which COULD be realized were I to study that area. Your example of the Iraqi "having faith" that Saddam is a good leader (which, it seems, you are using to mean "believing") is a thing that can be quantified (define "good leader" and see if his qualities and actions fit that category). As you've said in other questions, it then becomes a matter of argumentation, weighing factors and "proving" -- faith (belief) is called in to question and it has to be validated. Is it possible to have faith in the face of contrary proof and despite evidence? Sure -- especially when the object of faith has, as a matter of faith, its own transcendence over reason and logic.
When there are contrary factual views, how does anyone decide what is "right"? Some poeple believe that the holocaust never happened. I believe that the evidence I have seen proves them wrong. I believe that they are foolish to continue to believe in the face of such evidence. They probably feel much that same about me and what they view as my blind belief, or acceptance of propagandized "facts".
I really feel that any and all hilosophical investigations which ask about faith and god are doomed form the outset. Eventually, someone who has faith in god and someone who not only doesn't have faith but doesn't understand faith will eventually assume irreconcilable positions -- each shaking his head and clucking his tonue at the obstinance of the other.
_____________________________________
I agree with you about the various ways in which "faith" is used.
For instance, "I have faith in God" may mean either that you believe that God exists, or that you trust in God. Of course, the second presupposes the first, since you cannot trust in what does not exist.
But it does not seem to me that your electricity example is an example of having faith. If you believe that the lamp will turn on, that belief is well-founded on past experience, and, I hope, some backround knowledge about how the lamp works. If I asked whether you thought the lamp would light, and you said "I have faith it will," I would take that as a joke. Faith is a kind of belief, but not all beliefs are faith, are they?
With the Saadam thing we come to another issue about how we are using the word faith. St. Paul (if you will excuse the expression) said that faith was the belief in things unseen, which I take to mean something like, belief in the existence of something for which you have no evidence. The issue is not "proving" so much as it is having evidence for something. If faith is belief in the absence of any evidence, then that certainly flies in the face of Clifford's maxim that it is immoral to believe something for which you do not have sufficient evidence.
And, not only is it possible to believe something contrary to the evidence, but largely Protestantism largely has been founded on this view. (But not Catholicism). Tertullian, in the 11th century, famously wrote about the doctrine of the Incarnation, that "I believe because it is absurd." That is, not only does he believe and it is absurd, but he believes _because_ it is absurd, and Kierkegaard, in the 19th century held that religious belief is the "crucifixion of the intellect."
But don't you think it is somewhat circular to argue that faith transcends logic and evidence _because_ we have faith that it does when it is exactly faith that is in issue? Suppose I were to argue that it is only logical to believe that logic trumps faith. What would you say about that? I hope you would say that you can't use suppose the validity of logic to prove logic is valid, and I say, you cannot use the validity of faith to prove the validity of faith.
If "faith does not understand reason, and reason does not understand faith" as someone once put it, then we are indeed mired in skepticism.
As John Locke put it, no doubt faith will afford us the truth, for it comes from God. But how are we to tell whether what we hear, does, in fact, come from God. That it is truly something we should believe "on faith?" To what should we appeal but to reason to tell us whether something is truly a matter of faith? After all, might we not think it is a matter of faith and be mistaken? Jim Jones thought it was a matter of faith that all of his followers should commit suicide-and so did many of his followers. We have the history of many sects which have done terrible things as a matter of faith. It is still going on as the homicide bombers blow innocents up along with themselves. How are we to distinguish between them and (say) you, unless we appeal not to faith, but to reason?
Clarification/Follow-up by rosends on 05/09/03 8:21 pm:
Woody allen wrote an account of God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. When Sarah asked him how he knew it was God, Abraham said something to the effect that no one else could have such a deep and resonant voice in the middle of the desert.
You are right -- it seems circular to state faith requires belief and belief allows for faith (or anything of the sort) but applying the standard of "logical reasoning" or labeling it "circular" is expecting reason and logic to explain why reason and logic don't apply. You start creating additional layers of cirular thinking. We start with a faith (as opposed to the lightbulb situation where "faith" could be replaced with "I think it will based on past experience") because it is what we know. If someone starts without faith, it is difficult to "get" it because it requires a suspension of reason (that reason which is the backbone of our lives). Someone "gets" it because of a "revelation" (often an experience which defies logic and then justifies putting lgic on hold) and someone might lose it because of its failure to match up with logic.
As to whether we are mired in skepticism, I'm not sure; I think it is possible to say east is east and west, west and the twain never have to meet -- I can discuss philosophy and recognize that occasionally it hits the wall of faith and walk away. i can discuss faith and recognize that sometimes, philosophical argumentation helps clarify or even call into question elements of religion.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 05/09/03 9:49 pm:
I sound like a kind of variant on Coleridge's "That willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith." Only for you, it is religious faith. I suppose that one could make a case for the willing suspension of disbelief as the price for poetic faith. After all, in poetry the literal truth of what the poet writes is not an issue. When Wordworth wrote:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.
He was referring to daffodils, and it doesn't matter whether it was ten thousand or six thousand he saw.
But it is different with religion. Don't many things hang on the literal truth of the belief there? I suppose you think so.
Of course, if religion is a kind of poetry, as some have held, then the willing suspension of disbelief which you seek is not at all repugnant. But, is religion only a kind of poetry?
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 05/10/03 12:51 am:
I imagine, though, that a lot of people think that religion is true (or at least, their religion) and since poetry is not true, religion isn't poetry.
And if some of it is just poetry, it is lousy poetry. Doesn't even rhyme.
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 05/10/03 3:03 am:
Huh!
You really tripped and fell on this logic, Jon1667. I can't believe it.
C'est dommage. Tisk
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 05/10/03 3:17 am:
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 05/10/03 3:03 am:
Huh!
You really tripped and fell on this logic, Jon1667. I can't believe it.
C'est dommage. Tisk
____________________________
It is not only a matter of logic, but a matter of courtesy to back up your criticisms and objections. Hit and run is not acceptable even if you are not driving.
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 05/10/03 3:22 am:
I was so surprised, I was spontaneous. I couldn't believe what I was reading.
I apologize for the appearance of hit and run, but actually, I shouldn't talk that way to a professor. I will get back to you tomorrow with my logic. Too late here right now.
Clarification/Follow-up by ethical_reason on 05/10/03 4:21 pm:
I'm surprised by this whole discussion. Nothing is being concluded. It is possible to conclude something. Faith is on par with reason or not on par depending on what you are talking about.
On par: having the same amount of bad affects
On par: not having the same amount of bad affects
On par: having the same amount of good
Affects
On par: not having the same amount of good affects
On par: the sum of its parts equaling the sum of the second subject's parts.
It could mean a lot of things.
To be specific, (as Dark Crow mentioned) faith gives you an unreasoning uncertainty. And as most intuitive adults have learned through their life. Certainty leads to confidence and confidence is the primary route to success. Now this is I guess my opinion until I "prove" it. Which I will do if anyone actually disagrees with me.
Anyhow, logic has an entirely different affect in this realm. When you are able to conclude something logically (which is not always possible) you can have certainty AND be right. They both have their uses. Whether it is on par is dependant on the situation.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 05/10/03 5:31 pm:
ER
To be specific, (as Dark Crow mentioned) faith gives you an unreasoning uncertainty. And as most intuitive adults have learned through their life. Certainty leads to confidence and confidence is the primary route to success. Now this is I guess my opinion until I "prove" it. Which I will do if anyone actually disagrees with me.
____________________________________
Doubtless. I suppose that is what Saddam believed just before the war. He trusted his intuition too. In fact, history is littered with those who have trusted their intuitions and believed that they were certain,
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 05/10/03 5:35 pm:
Babthrower:
But if one later changed one's faith, then reasoning must come into it.
________________________________
That's not been my observation. People who suckle on one nipple often change to another as something else strikes their fancy. Sometimes it is a rock group (look at the Beatles) sometimes it is a movie. A lot in entertainment who make their livings by feeling and enthusiasm rather than thinking.
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 05/10/03 6:02 pm:
To Jon1667:
Givens: 1. Poetry does not have to rhyme. 2. one type of poetry describes the un-describe-able using imagery, extended metaphor, simile, meter, all manner such as these. The poet writes to communicate to another person, the reader takes away what s/he understands according to h/his life experience.
This poetry is not logical. This poetry is understandable on a non-logical(spiritual) plane.
Religion is not logical. It can be understood on an illogical(spiritual/emotional) plane.
Religion is poetry.
It is possible religion is poetry.
Clarification/Follow-up by ethical_reason on 05/10/03 6:12 pm:
I meant “unreasoning certainty” not “unreasoning uncertainty.”
But anyhow Jon, I respect you of course. You're the smartest OR maybe close to the smartest (not sure which) guy on here. But that retort was the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say.
It could be said about thousands of things. I'd love it if logic could guide every action. You have no idea how much I personally would love that. It's uncountable how much. But since there are unknowable things faith is an important aspect of humanity. It is a measure of our free will and the answer to why robot "AI" may never reach human "I" or maybe even get close. I agree, we can blame faith as the reason for Hitler, Pearl Harbor, 911, Saddam's stupidity, the Pol Pot killing fields shit, etc.... But it is not all that is to blame and to take away that bad would be to take away so much good.
So what could your point possibly be?
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 05/10/03 6:20 pm:
Jon:
Here is a Senryu I wrote(like a haiku)It makes no sense logically, but you understand it, no?
Black weathered knotholes
on a weathered stockade fence
child with a strong stick
cwrt@msb
Clarification/Follow-up by ethical_reason on 05/10/03 6:23 pm:
choux you should start a new thread for that.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 05/10/03 6:43 pm:
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 05/10/03 6:20 pm:
Jon:
Here is a Senryu I wrote(like a haiku)It makes no sense logically, but you understand it, no?
Black weathered knotholes
on a weathered stockade fence
child with a strong stick
cwrt@msb
____________________________
No.
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 05/10/03 6:48 pm:
LOLOLOLOLOLOL...My best laugh of the year...LOLOLOLOLOL Thanks, Jon1667
I'm going to start a new thread as er suggested.
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 05/10/03 7:33 pm:
Back to the question.
Faith is not "on par" with Reason. There is no comparison, and we(humans) only invented faith(religion) because we had fear.
Fear of disease, catastrophe, famine, insects and wild animals, being alone, being hated, .....
Reason gave us solutions to everything but death.
Clarification/Follow-up by babthrower on 05/10/03 7:49 pm:
Jon:
Religion as entertainment? Yes, there is that. I have heard it said that one of the reasons for the power of the R. Catholic church is that the mass is great theatre.
So I would have to agree that if religion is seen as theatre, then one could switch by a simple esthetic preference, rather than by reasoning.
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 05/10/03 7:56 pm:
To Babs,
Part entertainment, certainly, but who goes to the same movie week in and week out?
Not to overlook how ritual effects humans. The sameness is comforting in a changing world. Same church, same agenda, same congregation, same message, various interesting stories, music.....humans feel connected to each other under an umbrella, so to speak.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 05/11/03 1:51 am:
Clarification/Follow-up by babthrower on 05/10/03 7:49 pm:
Jon:
Religion as entertainment? Yes, there is that. I have heard it said that one of the reasons for the power of the R. Catholic church is that the mass is great theatre.
So I would have to agree that if religion is seen as theatre, then one could switch by a simple esthetic preference, rather than by reasoning.
____________________________________
You think I wrote that religion was entertainment? Where?
Clarification/Follow-up by babthrower on 05/11/03 3:26 am:
Breast-feeding, rock music, whatever analolgy you like to make it. I think of some religious ceremonies as theatre. I don't care what you think of them as.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 05/11/03 3:31 am:
Babthrower:
I did not make any of those analogies, or any that I know of. I think you might have in mind my statement that there are people who seem to jump from one (religious or political) enthusiasm to another as fancy strikes them perhaps because they have heard some rock band, or seen some movie or other. I think I also said that such people seem always to need some nipple to suckle on. Is that what you were thinking of? That's a far cry from analogizing religion with breast feeding or entertainment. I sometimes dispair of people reading what is there rather than reading what they would like to read through the filter of their preconceptions. I suppose people are just not as careful or as detailed anymore. It certainly shows.
Clarification/Follow-up by babthrower on 05/11/03 3:45 am:
Jon, I pity the agony you must go through dealing with those who do not understand your words. Too bad you don't empathize, then, with those whose words you do not bother to read carefully. You're a tiresome, petty little man. It is with a sense of relief that I consider that I don't have to deal with you any more.
In fact, I'm tiring of this site. It seems to have become a hotbed of American chauvinism, and you and Choux lack an international perspective. Choulx is a little cruder than you are, but you're both unbelievably ethnocentric.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 05/11/03 12:11 pm:
Bye. Try Mali.
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 05/11/03 9:17 pm:
To babs,
Shame on you for talking to Jon1667 like that. Who do you think you are? He is a published professor of Philosophy, and we are lucky to have his expertise here.
He writes clearly and beautifully and I think, an intellectual. Well read and thoughtful.
Chou
