The Strength of Faith

[Phi for All]

In terms of absolute truth neither science nor religion can demonstrate truth through reason which is the only way of comparing the two in a neutral fashion.

 

This is a False Dilemma. You're setting a condition neither can meet (absolute truth) and then claiming it's the only way to compare them without bias. It's actually very easy to compare them without bias, since science does its best to arrive at its explanations without bias, whereas each religion, indeed each sect in each religion, explains phenomena based solely on their individual biased perspectives.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

Perhaps faith in the teachings of Christ, or in the teachings of Mohammed is what you are addressing.

 

As in the 1976 definition of "the faithful" in my old American Heritage Dictionary 1. The practicing members of a religious faith, especially of Christianity or Islam.

 

Faith itself starts off with 1. A confident belief in the truth, value or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. and goes on to 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence: faith in miracles. (iNow's favorite take.) and 3. Loyalty to a person or thing: allegiance: "keeping faith with one's supporters." and 4. Belief and trust in God and in the doctrines expressed in the Scriptures or other sacred works; religious conviction. and 5. A system of religious beliefs: "the Moslem faith". and finally 6. Any set of principles or beliefs; "Realism had been his literary faith from his earliest days" (Alfred Kazin).

 

So faith itself is something you can have, without being an idiot, or an irrational liar of some sort. In this, faith in "the teachings" of Christ, or Mohammed, might be considered a separate kind of thing, than believing in unicorns, or Easter Bunnies, or horny leprechans.

 

As early in the thread, faith in ones wife, was brought up.

 

Where one's loyalty is, is not an easily measurable thing. And for the most part, we just have to take each other's word, for where our loyalities lie.

 

In this I am not so sure that the OP is on target. If I have, for instance, a kind of underlying "faith" in reality always being there for me, and a "feeling" that makes me think that even my death will not be the end of it, that IT will continue on, and still be "mine" in some fashion, I don't think that I am being sold a bill of goods. It is rather the way it is. People have been living and dying for quite a while now, and life goes on, the Earth keeps turning, and people keep right on loving each other, and taking care of the place, as if there truely is, a "spirit" that one can have faith in.

 

You know I am an atheist, so the big sky pixie is not what I am talking about...I am talking about having faith in what evidently is the case.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Villain]

This is a False Dilemma. You're setting a condition neither can meet (absolute truth) and then claiming it's the only way to compare them without bias. It's actually very easy to compare them without bias, since science does its best to arrive at its explanations without bias, whereas each religion, indeed each sect in each religion, explains phenomena based solely on their individual biased perspectives.

 

If you're still making that assertion then there seems little point in debating this any further.

[ydoaPs]

Phi for All,

 

Perhaps faith in the teachings of Christ, or in the teachings of Mohammed is what you are addressing.

 

As in the 1976 definition of "the faithful" in my old American Heritage Dictionary 1. The practicing members of a religious faith, especially of Christianity or Islam.

 

Faith itself starts off with 1. A confident belief in the truth, value or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. and goes on to 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence: faith in miracles. (iNow's favorite take.) and 3. Loyalty to a person or thing: allegiance: "keeping faith with one's supporters." and 4. Belief and trust in God and in the doctrines expressed in the Scriptures or other sacred works; religious conviction. and 5. A system of religious beliefs: "the Moslem faith". and finally 6. Any set of principles or beliefs; "Realism had been his literary faith from his earliest days" (Alfred Kazin).

 

So faith itself is something you can have, without being an idiot, or an irrational liar of some sort. In this, faith in "the teachings" of Christ, or Mohammed, might be considered a separate kind of thing, than believing in unicorns, or Easter Bunnies, or horny leprechans.

Your conclusion does not follow from even your definitions (well, the relevant ones-we don't want to be guilty of equivocation). Faith is, by definition, irrational. Do you know what the founder of protestantism said about the relation between faith and reason?

 

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

 

"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed."

 

"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."

 

But that is a long time ago. Let's ask prominent Christian apologist William Lane Craig: "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.".

 

How about we ask the Christian philosopher of religion Alvin Plantinga: "K, our background knowledge, historical and otherwise (excluding what we know by way of faith or revelation), isn't anywhere nearly sufficient to support serious belief in G"

 

"Faith" is now, and always has been, belief irrationally held regardless of any evidence. Even the Bible says as much when it describes religious faith as the "faith of a child" which is believing everyone unconditionally (read irrationally).

As early in the thread, faith in ones wife, was brought up.

And it shouldn't have, as that is what is called "equivocation".

If you're still making that assertion then there seems little point in debating this any further.

You seem to not understand the difference between an assertion and a demonstrated fact.

[Villain]

You seem to not understand the difference between an assertion and a demonstrated fact.

 

If only seeming was good enough then your demonstrated fact might mean something.

[Phi for All]

So faith itself is something you can have, without being an idiot, or an irrational liar of some sort. In this, faith in "the teachings" of Christ, or Mohammed, might be considered a separate kind of thing, than believing in unicorns, or Easter Bunnies, or horny leprechans.

 

There is plenty in the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed that have nothing to do with the supernatural, nothing I would have to take on "faith". Much of what they taught with regard to our treatment of each other can simply be considered ethically sound, something that dovetails with the way I want to live my life. I don't have believe in a god to know that treating others the way I want to be treated is a respectful position. Again, I can "hope" others feel the same, I can even "trust" that those I know well will reciprocate, but there is no "faith" involved in believing some of those teachings.

 

As early in the thread, faith in ones wife, was brought up.

 

Where one's loyalty is, is not an easily measurable thing. And for the most part, we just have to take each other's word, for where our loyalities lie.

 

But that word we're taking, that loyalty, is backed up normally by promises to begin with, based on and strengthened by a track record of "trust"-worthiness. "Trust" is the part of belief that gains strength, imo. The longer someone shows their loyalty and fidelity to be worthy of that "trust", the more confident we are in it and the stronger it gets.

 

"Faith", on the other hand, demands strength immediately, without anything concrete to back it up. And furthermore, when "faith" seems misplaced (e.g., prayers denied, or you followed what your religion told you to do and your life still sucks), vague excuses are given (e.g., "It's God's will", "God works in mysterious ways", "We can't know the mind of God"). When "faith" fails, we're told we don't understand it fully, or our "faith" wasn't strong enough.

 

In this I am not so sure that the OP is on target. If I have, for instance, a kind of underlying "faith" in reality always being there for me, and a "feeling" that makes me think that even my death will not be the end of it, that IT will continue on, and still be "mine" in some fashion, I don't think that I am being sold a bill of goods. It is rather the way it is. People have been living and dying for quite a while now, and life goes on, the Earth keeps turning, and people keep right on loving each other, and taking care of the place, as if there truely is, a "spirit" that one can have faith in.

 

To me, that's "hope". It bugs me that people use all those words (faith, belief, hope, trust) interchangeably when there seems to be obvious differences between them. I have nothing to back up my belief that some part of me will live on after I die, and I'm not willing to change my whole life based on my own wishful feelings alone, so I call it "hope" and hold it separately from the things I "trust".

 

If you're still making that assertion then there seems little point in debating this any further.

 

I'm willing to back off the assertion that each religion has it's own perspective on what it considers "faith" to be, if you wish to discuss that part further and clarify why you think this isn't so. You need to be willing to back off the assertion that science is also looking for absolute truth the way you claim religion is. This simply isn't so.

[CirclesAndDots]

Faith is a fine invention but it's old technology. (Platonic Idealism is the motor of modern and antique Christianity.)

 

Christian metaphysics posits that there is "something" essentially not understandable (An Ideal, call that God) yet "it" can be understood by not trying to understand "it". Faith is empowered only by its own presuppositions. It makes a positive claim that the sensory experience of reality is limited. It insists on an "otherness" to truth. Indeed, the very notion of truth with a capital T is necessitated by metaphysics. There "must" be an ideal form and by extension there must be an ideal representation of that form, it says. Man is the representation of that form and faith is the apparatus by which it is "understood" or made known. Representations exist then in a gradient. Man is the ideal representation of the Ideal, privileged over the animal. Faith, because it (somehow) is independent of the body and the senses, is more representative of the ideal than reason (and science by association). So science can thread electrons, grow organs, and map planetary orbits but cannot make authoritative commentary on reality, or the "reality" as defined by a metaphysics. This "reality" is privileged over the reality rational creatures inhabit and poke at to understand. Faith then is the solution to the problem it created.

 

The God concept that Nietzsche pronounced dead and modernity tried to bury has a tendency to re-animate; I think faith endures because it is perceived to grant full access to the universe and with little effort. Even fraudulent "knowledge" is power. While science can be said to "democratize" truth, religion stows it up so only their own can make use of it.

 

It's interesting to note that some users insist on an authoritative definition of "faith". If anything, this shows metaphysical thinking hard at work. That there is an ideal representation of faith, articulated by language, is just patently absurd. This highlights what I hope will develop into a discussion on God and language. God is advertised as some "transcendental signified" or concept; existing outside of reality. In what way is this concept appropriated by verbal signs? In what way is it meaningful through language and specifically how is it designated absolutely?

Edited March 6, 2013 by CirclesAndDots

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

ydoaPs thinks I am equivocating and that the definition of faith is the one he uses.

 

""Faith" is now, and always has been, belief irrationally held regardless of any evidence. Even the Bible says as much when it describes religious faith as the "faith of a child" which is believing everyone unconditionally (read irrationally)."

 

In 1976, one of the defintions of faith was:

"2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence: faith in miracles."

 

There is a difference between holding a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, and holding an irrational belief regardless of any evidence.

 

All evidence is not material. We can take people's word for stuff that is going on in their minds, with no logical proof, or material evidence to base our belief on.

 

Such a bending of the definition to suit the Dawkins's, and the iNows and the ydoaPs and all those who wish to frame religious people as irrational children, is an equivocation, and it takes something we all do naturally and reasonably, and makes it sound like to have faith, is to be doing something wrong.

 

I am not sure how to point this out, and argue this, and simultaneously agree with those that would point out the irrationality of the creationist, and with those who have noticed the totally transparent usurption of Allah's "power" and position made by Mohammed, and in general do not know how to point out this fallacy to fellow atheists, and persons like myself who have ruled out an anthropomorphic god.

 

To me, the argument against an anthropomorphic God, that writes names down in books, throws lightning bolts at non-believers and such, is already a solid one. i don't need any futher urging in the direction of holding a non-belief in such a character. Such a character is solidly in the realm of unicorns and tooth fairies.

 

But objective reality exists, and conscious beings, other than me exist in it. And if I believe that Phi for All is trustworthy, and that belief does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, but just on a "feeling" I have gotten from reading your words and understanding your arguments, and where you are "coming from", that does not make me an irrational child, just because I have faith in you.

 

Such is my argument in defense of the take on reality that Immortal holds, for instance. Not that I don't disagree with him totally, but he is not irrational, he is not a child, and he is attempting to "figure out" and comprehend the proper understanding that one should hold, concerning Brahman and Atman, the "ALL" and the "self". In this, he is no different than any one of us, atheist or theist, philosopher or fool, wiseman or child.

 

Should any one of us, put our faith in the God of our choice, or pledge our loyalty to any ideal, we have little chance of "proving" our position to somebody else, based on physical evidence. There is no objective truth that makes me more "right" to be a patriotic American, than there is making Bin Laden a servant of Allah. These are distinctions we just have to fight out among ourselves, in the bias way, we do.

 

And put our faith in those who think the way we do, with no proof or physical evidence of the validity of our beliefs.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

As folks have repeatedly tried to explain, when you say you have "faith" in Phi it is not the same as someone saying they have "faith" that an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent cloud surfer cares whether your marry a virgin or beat disobedient children or stone homosexuals to death.

 

Why are you trying to force those to be the same? They are not equivalent, yet you seem determined to conflate them.

[Ringer]

As folks have repeatedly tried to explain, when you say you have "faith" in Phi it is not the same as someone saying they have "faith" that an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent cloud surfer cares whether your marry a virgin or beat disobedient children or stone homosexuals to death.

Though you could probably rely on both faiths equally. . .

 

But seriously, how does one not get that saying faith in a person (trust) is not the same as faith a deity. If I were to say I beat someone while playing chess would you think I got out a club and assaulted them?

[iNow]

Well, my understanding is that Bobby Fisher did take a turn for the worse during his teenage years...

[Villain]

I'm willing to back off the assertion that each religion has it's own perspective on what it considers "faith" to be, if you wish to discuss that part further and clarify why you think this isn't so. You need to be willing to back off the assertion that science is also looking for absolute truth the way you claim religion is. This simply isn't so.

 

My point was that neither science nor faith are validated by pure reason so to attack faith as not having reason to validate it and then propose science as the answer is ridiculous. I'm not saying that science isn't a valid concept, but in order to accept it one has to be willing to give up pure reason as a bases of validation. How then can we classify science as better than religion? It certainly seems better suited for certain criteria but that intuitive assumption is the very fault that is given to faith.

 

Kierkegaard's concept of faith in Fear and Trembling which is taken from the Abraham/Isaac story in the Bible is not a faith that is in competition to science and I see little reason to think that science and faith are competing.

 

If I choose to wear a parachute when I jump out of a plane does that mean I've forsaken my faith?

[Ringer]

My point was that neither science nor faith are validated by pure reason so to attack faith as not having reason to validate it and then propose science as the answer is ridiculous. I'm not saying that science isn't a valid concept, but in order to accept it one has to be willing to give up pure reason as a bases of validation. How then can we classify science as better than religion? It certainly seems better suited for certain criteria but that intuitive assumption is the very fault that is given to faith.

But pure reason wasn't a criterion for validation to begin with. Hell, actual validation goes against the point of faith as it is used in the thread.

 

If you really want to get into how we can classify science as working better through objective validation, I'm having a conversation with other people at different times in different places through the use of science/religion (choose best answer).

Kierkegaard's concept of faith in Fear and Trembling which is taken from the Abraham/Isaac story in the Bible is not a faith that is in competition to science and I see little reason to think that science and faith are competing.

The topic doesn't seem to be a science vs. religion subject. Only if faith can be considered a strength or weakness in regards to religious ideals.

If I choose to wear a parachute when I jump out of a plane does that mean I've forsaken my faith?

If you had faith you could fly, then yes. If you didn't, then no.

[ydoaPs]

My point was that neither science nor faith are validated by pure reason

Science (the method, not the result) is 'validated' by pure reason. Science (the result) is validated by science (the method) and the empirical world.

 

Faith isn't validated by anything.

 

Again, it's a false analogy. Faith and science aren't anything alike at all.

[Phi for All]

My point was that neither science nor faith are validated by pure reason so to attack faith as not having reason to validate it and then propose science as the answer is ridiculous. I'm not saying that science isn't a valid concept, but in order to accept it one has to be willing to give up pure reason as a bases of validation. How then can we classify science as better than religion? It certainly seems better suited for certain criteria but that intuitive assumption is the very fault that is given to faith.

 

Ah, here's where the misunderstanding lies. I wasn't trying to validate anything with pure reason. I will try to simplify.

 

When I first heard someone say that two bullets, one fired from a gun and one dropped straight down at the same time and same height, will hit the ground at the same time, I didn't believe it. It was counter-intuitive for me and made no sense. I read up on the phenomenon, but still couldn't believe it. I worked out the math using the formulas I found and began to grudgingly accept it. I had it explained to me by a physicist I know and it made much more sense. I slowly began to trust the scientific explanation for this phenomenon, and have even explained it to others who shared my initial skepticism. Then I came across this experiment done by the Mythbusters and the strength of my trust increased tremendously:

 

 

I didn't have to accept the explanation by reason alone. There was plenty of math, but also empirical evidence and actual experimentation to eventually make the explanation worthy of my strongest form of belief, my TRUST.

 

When I compare that kind of belief with faith, which many religions ask me to have, I find nothing to support it but feelings. I'm supposed to have very strong feelings about beings that purposely avoid the kind of empirical evidence that evokes my strongest form of belief, my trust. I'm asked to have faith, abiding, unwavering faith in forces that followers can't explain. Indeed, some of those followers even seem proud that their God works in such mysterious ways, that His will is unfathomable. And try as I might, all I hear from those statements is, "You need to believe strongly in things you can't possibly know".

 

So why is faith considered stronger than trust by so many believers?

[ydoaPs]

ydoaPs thinks I am equivocating and that the definition of faith is the one he uses.

Because you are equivocating. And my definition is the one the philosophers of religion and the founders of religion(notice the quoted bits?) use as well as the one used by the Bible and your average 'off the street' Christian.

 

Things only change when one points out that such faith is by definition irrational.

""Faith" is now, and always has been, belief irrationally held regardless of any evidence. Even the Bible says as much when it describes religious faith as the "faith of a child" which is believing everyone unconditionally (read irrationally)."

 

In 1976, one of the defintions of faith was:

"2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence: faith in miracles."

 

There is a difference between holding a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, and holding an irrational belief regardless of any evidence.

Holding a belief without sufficient evidence is irrational. Insufficient evidence is mathematically equivalent to evidence to the contrary.

All evidence is not material.

Evidence is anything that makes P(h|e)>P(h) calculated on the epistemic situation k-e so long as e is true. And we know that P(h|e)>P(h) iff P(e|h)>P(e|~h).

We can take people's word for stuff that is going on in their minds

Good gods, no we can't. Humans are notorious for not having a clue what is going on in their own heads.

Such a bending of the definition to suit the Dawkins's, and the iNows and the ydoaPs

How is using the definition that is constant across the founding anthology of a religion, the founder of the largest group of sects of that religion, the most prominent 'defender' of that religion, and currently living philosophers of religion "bending" anything? Take note of the quotes. Yeah, the ones you didn't mention which help justify my position.

and all those who wish to frame religious people as irrational children

I'd just like to point out that his applies to the Bible.

is an equivocation

You're using that word so incorrectly, I'm not sure you even know what that word means.

and it takes something we all do naturally and reasonably

Newsflash: 'natural' and 'reasonable' aren't synonyms. Humans are naturally quite irrational. Aristotle was wrong; we're not the "rational animal".

[imatfaal]

It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which might support this.

[tar]

ydoaPs,

 

Faith is an ambiguous term. It cannot be used unambiguously, without equivocation.

 

Rational people have no use for faith, if it is not rational, which it is (not rational). It is not rational to use the term at all to apply to a rational mind.

 

I read your quotes. I did not read them, as you use them. They were made at a time and in a context where faith was a good thing. Something that trumped the rational mind. Back when faith was important, and valuable, and something to be strived for and attained. A feather in ones cap, not a mark against a man.

 

Even in a short a time ago, as my youth, to be godless was a deficit, a mark of a lost soul, a man without purpose or value, an evil, undesirable condition to be in.

 

Oh yea of little faith. Have some faith, man...and that sort of thing.

 

In bridge, a two of trump can take the Ace of any other suit. Science holds all the high cards, and wins most of the tricks, but science does not hold the trump card. Any card, you or I could possibly play, could be trumped.

 

Faith is the common knowledge that as rational as we can get, as smart as we can get, as knowledgeable as we can get, we can still be trumped. And we are out-trumped by the same "personality". No one can beat the Ace of trump, and none of us can possibly hold that card. Its in somebody else's hand, so to speak.

 

Regards, TAR2

Perhaps Immortal is the only person I know, who thinks he is holding the Ace of trump. Certainly you and iNow, and Phi for All, do not think science is capable of holding the Ace of trump. Certainly you cannot believe that rationality trumps faith in the true holder of the Ace of trumps.

The totality of the "rest of the universe" automatically trumps any particular piece of it, or individual entity within it.

Edited March 7, 2013 by tar

[tar]

And perhaps this is my issue with Dr. Krauss who thinks he is holding the high card, because he is the first to "know" how the universe will end.

I do not believe he is either correct, or even possibly correct.

He has no faith in the true holder of the Ace of trump. And it cannot possibly be him, or a team of scientists, or the human race.

 

My proof of this is that an equation that described the history and position of every quark and neutrino in the universe, and predicted the complete future configuration in all its detail, would have to be bigger than the universe itself, and it would take longer than the universe has, to write the equation, and STILL it would be only a model, a representation, a bunch of non-functioning symbols, that could not hold a candle to the "actual" universe. For instance, the equation for a peanut butter cup is not sweet and tasty. The thought of a thing, needs a thing to have a thought about. And the thing, therefore trumps the thought of it.

And as Kant has figured out, we cannot know the thing in itself. We can only make judgments about it.

And for my money, I would suggest that this means exactly that we can only take the existence of the thing in itself, on faith. The rational mind cannot know the thing in itself, in any other fashion.

Edited March 7, 2013 by tar

[Villain]

But pure reason wasn't a criterion for validation to begin with. Hell, actual validation goes against the point of faith as it is used in the thread.

 

If you really want to get into how we can classify science as working better through objective validation, I'm having a conversation with other people at different times in different places through the use of science/religion (choose best answer).

 

The topic doesn't seem to be a science vs. religion subject. Only if faith can be considered a strength or weakness in regards to religious ideals.

 

 

If reason isn't a criterion for validation then what is the problem with faith?

[Villain]

Science (the method, not the result) is 'validated' by pure reason. Science (the result) is validated by science (the method) and the empirical world.

 

Faith isn't validated by anything.

 

Again, it's a false analogy. Faith and science aren't anything alike at all.

 

That's like saying Faith, the method, is validated by pure reason.

 

The result is not validated by the empirical world beyond intuitive assumption.

 

Ah, here's where the misunderstanding lies. I wasn't trying to validate anything with pure reason. I will try to simplify.

 

When I first heard someone say that two bullets, one fired from a gun and one dropped straight down at the same time and same height, will hit the ground at the same time, I didn't believe it. It was counter-intuitive for me and made no sense. I read up on the phenomenon, but still couldn't believe it. I worked out the math using the formulas I found and began to grudgingly accept it. I had it explained to me by a physicist I know and it made much more sense. I slowly began to trust the scientific explanation for this phenomenon, and have even explained it to others who shared my initial skepticism. Then I came across this experiment done by the Mythbusters and the strength of my trust increased tremendously:

 

 

I didn't have to accept the explanation by reason alone. There was plenty of math, but also empirical evidence and actual experimentation to eventually make the explanation worthy of my strongest form of belief, my TRUST.

 

Ok, so you fire a bullet and you drop another bullet and they land at the same time. Will it happen again next time and why do you think it will or won't?

 

When I compare that kind of belief with faith, which many religions ask me to have, I find nothing to support it but feelings. I'm supposed to have very strong feelings about beings that purposely avoid the kind of empirical evidence that evokes my strongest form of belief, my trust. I'm asked to have faith, abiding, unwavering faith in forces that followers can't explain. Indeed, some of those followers even seem proud that their God works in such mysterious ways, that His will is unfathomable. And try as I might, all I hear from those statements is, "You need to believe strongly in things you can't possibly know".

 

So why is faith considered stronger than trust by so many believers?

 

 

I don't hold faith and 'trust' as opposing ideas so I can't answer why others do. It seems rather convenient that language and human sensory experience would be able to contain all existing things. If we can't know everything then to access things which we can't know would need faith. Faith in that sense is reliant on the ego and ownership of itself, which it could/should never lay claim to since we did not bring ourselves into being (something which is difficult to dispute regardless of religious view).

[ydoaPs]

That's like saying Faith, the method, is validated by pure reason.

If faith had a method, and if that method is backed by mathematical epistemology (the stuff I do), then you'd be correct. But faith has no such method, so, once again, you're comparing apples to oranges.

The result is not validated by the empirical world beyond intuitive assumption.

Bayesian Epistemology can be derived (quite easily, actually) from the Kolmogorov axioms which are derivable from Cox's axioms and basic sentential logic. This mathematical epistemology tells us exactly how evidence confirms/disconfirms things. You are completely wrong. Or, hey, let's see you argue that the Kolmogorov axioms are inconsistent.

Ok, so you fire a bullet and you drop another bullet and they land at the same time. Will it happen again next time and why do you think it will or won't?

Probably, yes. Math.

 

ydoaPs,

 

Faith is an ambiguous term. It cannot be used unambiguously, without equivocation.

Yes, you can. All you have to do is not switch back and forth between definitions and pretend they are the same thing.

Something that trumped the rational mind.

Nothing trumps the rational mind. That's the point of rationality.

 

But let's go with your thing. Martin Luther was a long time ago. And so was the Bible. Let's discard them. The other people are still alive.

[imatfaal]

O/t

Humphrey's Paradox which claims (probably wrongly) that propensities do not obey the usual Kolmogorov calculus of probabilities. Never really got my head round the whole concept - looked at it many years back when I got side tracked looking at probability when usenet rec.puzzles had a humongous discussion on probabilities credence etc all revolving around the sleeping beauty puzzle.

[Phi for All]

Ok, so you fire a bullet and you drop another bullet and they land at the same time. Will it happen again next time and why do you think it will or won't?

 

I don't know for sure that it will happen. I trust fairly strongly that it will because of everything I've learned about the phenomenon, and I know that at any time I can test it myself, changing parameters like height dropped, altitude, type of bullet, etc. There is a possibility I may discover an exception, and that keeps my certainty from being complete and unwavering.

 

I don't hold faith and 'trust' as opposing ideas so I can't answer why others do.

 

Who claimed they oppose each other? I'm asking why faith in things we can't know for certain is often claimed by believers to be stronger than trust in things we can explain based on empirical evidence we can test ourselves, tests that can even be reproduced by others?

 

It seems rather convenient that language and human sensory experience would be able to contain all existing things. If we can't know everything then to access things which we can't know would need faith. Faith in that sense is reliant on the ego and ownership of itself, which it could/should never lay claim to since we did not bring ourselves into being (something which is difficult to dispute regardless of religious view).

 

Again, to separate this type of belief from other types, I call this hope. I can hope that there are things we can't understand due to an inherent limitation, but so many religious people invest so much strength and infallibility in this hope that they call it faith, and claim it's strong enough to allow them special access to vague powers. Nothing they claim as evidence of this miraculous power is ever reproducible or explainable only by supernatural means, yet so many these days place far more strength in religious beliefs than they do in more trustworthy explanations.

 

At least this is what we hear a lot of in the USA, faith in God's will and distrust in science. It seems ass-backwards to me and not very well thought out.

[ydoaPs]

O/t

 

Humphrey's Paradox which claims (probably wrongly) that propensities do not obey the usual Kolmogorov calculus of probabilities. Never really got my head round the whole concept - looked at it many years back when I got side tracked looking at probability when usenet rec.puzzles had a humongous discussion on probabilities credence etc all revolving around the sleeping beauty puzzle.

Whether or not they naturally *do* is irrelevant as we know humans aren't rational without help. Whether or not they *ought to* is a different question which is solved by Cox's theorem. Yes, if your credences don't obey the Kolmogorv axioms, you're being irrational.