Faith as Justification
Offline For the sake of argument, let's run with faith for a minute.
Faith, i.e. belief in a thing based on strong personal conviction despite logical or scientific evidence to the contrary, is necessary to be a Christian, right? I don't like quoting the bible, so can we just take it as read that Paul did, in fact, mention something about faith from time to time, and that Jesus famous reference to the smallest seed on the planet did have something to do with faith? Did not Jesus reward those who had faith in him? So faith is truly important.
So... belief in god is dependent on faith when big bad atheists like us come out with our science and logic. Right?
Ok. Let's run with that for a second. You're right, we're wrong.
Are the Muslims wrong?
They have faith that Allah demands faith. Their holy book says so. In fact, to an outside observer, their faith is very, very similar to Christianity. They have their prophet, and you have yours. Theirs preaches a slightly more violent approach to unbelievers than yours, at least some of the time. You've got heaven, they've got heaven.
So, what is it that makes you right and them wrong? Faith?
You are certain that you are correct, right? Because you feel it in your heart when you pray? Or because when you read the bible, you notice all the stuff about loving your neighbor, and you're sure that god is that way because you have faith, right?
Guess what. If faith is the justification, then they're correct. When's the last time you flew a plane into a building? Clearly, they have enough faith to follow through with their beliefs. Their belief is strong! They are certain enough to kill themselves for god! How much more faith can you get?
How do you know that god is a merciful, just, loving creator? You feel it in your heart? The Muslim extremists feel that god is a vengeful, angry god who wants you to die. They feel it in their heart. What makes you more right than them? Because you feel certain? So do they.
Now, remember that we're conceding the point that faith is valid for choosing religions. Here's the question:
I'm not a believer in any deity, but I'm granting that faith is valid, and I'm going to choose a religion. I've got Christianity and Islam in front of me. Both promise really bad shit if I don't choose the correct one. Both promise eternal reward if I choose correctly. Both demand faith. I've got you Christians on one side telling me to believe you because if I do, I'll know in my heart that it's right. The Muslims on the other side are telling me the EXACT SAME THING.
How do I know who to believe?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
How do I prove design and purpose? That is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one.
I think that faith can potentially be a virtue.
A justification would start by pointing out that truth has a purpose to our lives, that we don't search for truth in a vacuum.
What's more, truth can have a variety of meanings rather than just the empirical meaning. For instance, "there is a laptop in front of me" is an empirical truth, but we will also use the word truth to conversations of value and the like. Truth can sometimes mean 'relevent', like empirical truth is relevent to our picture of the empirical world.
This means that accurate scientific meaning also has it's uses, and these are quite obvious. For instance, we usually expect new products to follow new technology and new technology to follow breakthroughs in science. Science gives us a clear and accurate picture of the world that has many uses. However, there is no such thing as a one tool fits all so sometimes scientific reasoning is not really relevent to the task at hand.
An obvious example is joking.
So where does faith come into this?
Faith involves believing propositions that science does not validate. As a scientist knows, this is bad if you are looking for accuracy, like we do when we make buildings and the like (else they'd fall down on us) but are we always looking for this technical accuracy?
So what purpose does a persons faith have?
A good clue is to how theists tend to justify their faith.
They will point to how it transformed their life and how life has been so much better for them since. They also tie their belief closely with morality. If you believe that a chair is on the floor then there's no question of whether morally you ought to believe it. So the way it seems to me is that faith is an approach to life, a part of living it to the fullest. Part of this is recognising that science isn't always relevent to the purpose at hand, and to demand scientific accuracy on some questions/propositions is to miss the point.
Bear in mind that I'm idealising faith here.
Faith, as seen in the real world, often isn't ideal.
Often the word 'faith' can be used as an excuse not to think, or to ignore facts, when it shouldn't be used like that. This is where Goulds separation came from, and many moderates think the same way. However, even if 99% of theists got it wrong, but 1% got faith right and lived it as the virtue it could be, that would be enough to show that faith can be a virtue if done right, and the rest would be how to devellop the ideal 'faith'.
(It's a bit like Harris with his 'rational mysticism'.)
Another note is that theists can't really use my argument that defends them. Why? Because this outlook on faith being a virtue implies atheism. Oh well.
Strafio,
Two problems I have with your use of faith:
a) It suggests there is a right way to use faith, and a wrong way. Theistic faith however is simply belief independent of evidence/argument. How this is ‘applied’ is irrelevant, so applying theistic faith to scientific matters or to spiritual matter doesn’t matter, it is still a belief accepted without evidence. I don’t see how this definition can be a virtue in any sense.
b) This comment: “A justification would start by pointing out that truth has a purpose to our lives, that we don't search for truth in a vacuum” implies that you think we all start with faith, which is debunked here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/doesnt_everyone_take_things_on_faith
c) I think you underestimate just how many people use your “idealised faith.” In one sense most do use it, but they don’t use it exclusively, and I get the impression that you hold a dichotomy that they either use faith for spiritual purposes or use it as ‘evidence.’ I think it is far more intertwined. Also, many theists would take a ‘spiritual truth’ (what ever that means) that they personally have and use that as evidence for the wider claims, for example, a personal 'feeling' of a 'relationship' with Jesus as proof of Jesus' divinity.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
This speaks only to the value of holding to the belief, not it's veracity.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Ofcourse. My defense of faith requires that veracity isn't its purpose. Ironically, my defense of faith can only be held by an atheist.
The bit in bold begs the question against me as I've given a different definition of faith. Faith when applied to scientific matters results in how you say - belief independent of evidence. However, faith in it's proper context is different. There is argument and evidence of a different sort. In the community of faith, the 'rightness' of your faith would be evidenced by what sort of person you are.
Nope. That's not what I'm arguing at all.
You're thinking of the old "either you have an infinite regress or you have unquestionable foundations, which must therefore be on faith."
My argument here is completey different.
I am saying that truth has a purpose, just like faith has a purpose.
To treat articles of faith like scientific truths is to miss the point as they have a different purpose.
Ofcourse. Like you say, there isn't a strict dichotomy and I think that the blurring of the line is a necessary part of faith. Nonetheless, there is a trend of the 'fundamentalist' to get caught up in literalistic issues while the more 'spiritualistic' ones tend to try and concentrate on the 'spirit' of the practice rather than getting muddled with words.
And such steps would be fallicious.
If you hold that only the atheist who can hold this view of faith, that veracity is not intended to be part of faith, then you concede that veracity is part of the faith held by theists.
This is simply the definition of faith as provided by theists themselves and it correctly defines how theists actually use faith… they hold beliefs, of all types (i.e. both spiritual and empirical), without evidence.
The point being made is that theists do in fact hold empirical claims on faith. Believing in the resurrection and miracles of Jesus IS an empirical scientific claim, yet theists hold this on faith and faith alone.
The point being made is that they do it (and more that I think you realise or accept.)
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
Close. I hold that theists explicitly speak of veracity (i.e. what they say and consciously believe) but implicitly treat faith differently. (even if it's subconscious)
The explicit
That's an extreme definition that only very few will hold.
Most will merely hold that faith doesn't require the same scrutiny that scientific facts hold. What's more, even if they explicitly hold that faith is as you say, that still allows their implicit practice to be as I describe.
It's an empirical claim in one sense, but what is their purpose for holding this claim? Why are they so determined to cling to it and why do they treat it as a moral question more than a factual one?
As you can see, their purpose in 'believing' in it is very different to normal facts. So although it is grammatically similar to an empirical claim, when you see the purpose of the statement, it actually plays a different role in their lives to normal facts and is hence part of a different language game.
I think you over-estimate how much they do it.
There are people who conflate articles of faith with empirical truth (literalists) and as a result, they are more likely to strike disagreement with secular thinking and argue with you. So they are more likely to get noticed. The silent majority are those who 'live' their faith without making the literalistic errors that put them at odds against non-believers. These are the majority who recognise that religious 'truth' is personal, and that two seemingly opposing views can be equally valid.
What's more, I'm only trying to argue that an ideal faith is a virtue, so counter examples of people who have 'gotten it wrong' won't beat my argument.
Whether they agree to the definition is beside the point. Faith IS without evidence/reason.
The purpose is salvation, another empirical claim!
And since it is about salvation, morality is inherently part of it, but this doesn’t make it any less of an empirical, factual claim. In short, they treat is has a factual claim that has moral significance. In fact, many will likely state that without the factual basis of the claim, it looses the moral significance, in other words, the moral basis depends on it being factual.
Clearly it is a factual historical claim. Ask any theists and they will tell you their belief in Jesus is a factual historical claim. And the moral purpose of it is rooted in the historical fact of it. What’s more, they are often more sure of the factual basis of Jesus claims than most other claims that are factually verifiable, such as evolution.
You’re simply trying to squeeze into your pre-existing notion or desire of what you would like it to be, rather than what is actually is.
Ask anyone on this forum. Do you honestly think they will agree with me, or you?
Present this question to theists: “Do spiritual ‘feelings’ or experiences verify/prove/evidence alleged historical religious claims made, such as those in the bible like Jesus’ divinity and miracles.”
I am not asking whether they vocalise their beliefs, I am asking about the beliefs themselves. Many moderates, while remaining quite about their beliefs, will likely accept such ‘feelings’ and ‘experience’ as evidence. It’s not just fundamentalists who visit holy sites, and it is not just fundamentalists who accept literal miracles.
Well this “ideal faith” simply doesn’t exist (or at best it’s extremely uncommon) so it is pointless trying to base your argument on something that doesn’t exist. My argument rather is based on how people actually use faith.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
You oughtn't say such things.
So you don't believe that what the bible says of Jesus is historically factual? That he actually existed in history... was divine... was bodily resurrected... performed miracles...?
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
For starters he's not even a Christian.
Before we go on, I should point a couple of things out.
As the definition of faith is on dispute here, categorical statements such as:
Secondly, stop trying to use what some Christians would say as counter examples. You are trying to make claims about faith in general rather than just some cases. I, on the other hand, am only trying to make a case for what faith can be.
Not all Christians believe in a literalistic salvation so this point is moot. Besides, how do you think they justify this belief in a literal salvation? I think that even literalistic Christians have elements of 'real faith' even though they abuse it for certain claims.
You mean they're not treating it like a purely factual claim anymore?
I wonder whose argument that supports?
Ofcourse they will. They have to verbally agree, but when you see how they treat these beliefs, they don't treat them the same way as historical facts. They might agree with you but you'd both be wrong.
Are you trying to win this argument by vote now?
Might be that the majority of this forum agree with you.
Then I'd say that the majority have it wrong.
But see your arguments.
They all depend on the assumption that theistic belief is how it is vocalised.
Two problems with your argument here.
First you assume that just because a persons faith isn't absolutely ideal then it's something completely different. As it happens, I claim that all faith is kind of rooted as ideal faith, but certain people stray from it with fallicious reasoning. As we're all human, most do, but to varying degrees. My mother says the odd thing that make me cringe, but other than that her faith is generally a virtue.
Second, you're still assuming that you understand Christianity.
It'd bet that your experience of Christianity is pretty limited.
Even if you'd grown up in a church-going family your experience would be limited. I'd wager that the majority of your experience of Christianity comes from debate, and consequently you're familiar with the explicit arguments rather than the faith itself.
Yeah, that pretty much covers all the bases. I do wish that people around here would get out of the bad habit of using the term "theist" as meaning "one who is a Christian", or more accurately meaning "one who is a bible-believing, born again, sin hating, sinner loving, gay-bashing, Jerry-Falwell-worshipping, bigoted Christian."
It's just bad linguistics.
Sure they are. Definitions are categories.
Theistic faith is belief without justification.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
yes, my bad. Given that Christianity is the dominant religion in the world I think we all sometimes generically refer to Christianity when discussing religion. I see your point though.
(Although I disagree with your idea that reference to a Christian is automatically a reference to a fundamentalist Christian)
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
Yeah, and maybe Ray Comfort can be intellectually honest!
We’re talking about what faith is, and how is if used. And faith is belief without justification, and is used by theists as a justification for claims which they regard as factual/historical (i.e. they hold X purely on faith, but they also hold X is factual.)
But a majority do, so the point is relevant. Even if they don’t believe in a future rapture/return of Jesus, most will believe that believing in Jesus will take them into heaven.
I mean exactly what I said: they treat is as a factual claim that has moral significance. Christians believe in a historical divine Jesus who performed miracles and rose from the dead. To them this is factual history. But underlining this is a moral significance: to accept this Jesus and repent in order to be saved. However this has no bearing what they regard as the factual basis of the story.
Really? I think you’ll find many will hold them to be as historical as World War II! Anyway, whether they act in accordance to the beliefs does not mean they don’t claim they are historical. Most Christians will believe the bible is divine in some way, yet most Christians don’t really act in accordance to the theology of the bible. For example, they place sin in a hierarchy while the bible make no distinction between sin. All this tells us is that they haven’t read or understood their bible, NOT that they don’t claim it to be historical/factual.
So if they disagree with you, they must be wrong? This seems to be what you’re saying.
No. I’m trying show you how theists use faith. And they don’t use it how you would like them to use it, or think they use it. They DO make historical faith-based claims.
Again, this seem like you’re saying anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong! Have you thought that you might be wrong? Remember, what matters is how faith IS used, not how you would like it to be used. I agree that your use of faith would be nicer, but this is far from reality.
No, they don’t. What are you even saying? Whether a belief is vocalised is really moot to my argument.
My point is this: Fundamentalists tend to vocalise their beliefs, moderates tend not do, but this does not mean they both don’t have overlapping beliefs. This is not a strict dichotomy (as you seem to be suggesting) whereby only the fundamentalist claims his beliefs are historical, while the moderate never holds his beliefs are historical. This is a false dichotomy. Both are intertwined. Both the moderate and the fundamentalist hold beliefs/claims which they think are historical. That is my point.
Well you claims faith is ideal because that is how you would like it to be. And I agree, it would be a nicer use of faith, but this is simply avoiding reality here. While I don’t disagree that theists ‘reasoning’ is fallacious, just because they don’t have your ideal faith doesn’t mean they are not using faith correctly. Faith is simply a belief without justification. That’s it. It’s nothing more than this. So whether a belief is held on an alleged historical basis or a purely spiritual basis is really immaterial here. If it has no justification then it IS faith.
None of my family is religious. However my point is not how Christians behave (I agree most are nice normal people), but rather what they believe. I’m simply saying Christians make historical claims that can only be held on faith. This applies to any type of Christian.
Look:
Faith is belief without justification
Belief in Jesus’ resurrection can only be held on faith
Most Christians believe Jesus’ resurrection is historically true
Therefore, Christians hold a historical claim on faith
This counters your claim that faith is purely for spiritual matters. Even if it would be ideal for this to be the case, clearly, it isn’t the case.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
Are you trying to say that definitions aren't disputable?
If I held a definition you didn't agree with, wouldn't you want me to give a justification for using the word in this way rather than just repeatly assert my position?
Fine. But first I'll establish this ideal faith.
Once it's been established what it is, and that it is a virtue, then we can take a look on whether it interacts with 'real life' faith. You'll find that I hold that all faith contains elements of the ideal faith, but there are often equivocations with literalism involved.
Sometimes these equivocations have a purpose - i.e. a psychological effect that is essential to the practice of faith.
Sometimes these equivocations go too far and end up in nutcase territory.
There isn't a strict line between fundamentalists and moderates, more of a gradient where moderates keep equivocations to a sensible level wheras we call someone a fundamentalist if their equivocations are leading them to ridiculous conclusions.
Even fundamentalists will be rooted in this 'ideal faith', but diverge from it more often with equivocations.
Well, if I didn't think they were wrong then I'd hardly be believing my position now, would I?
Beisdes, this was a direct response to your ad-populum argument. Within that context it makes perfect sense.
Okay. Bearing in mind the current objectives of this conversation:
Does this mean that you agree that 'ideal faith' is a virtue?
(Once we've settled on the ideal version, then we'll talk about how it works in real life. We can't go on without the groundwork.)
Not really. Your entire argument depends on it as you sort of admit to later:
You see, you're judging them purely on the words they use and assuming that they use the words in the same way and for the same purpose that you do. When you include their behaviour, how these so called 'beliefs' influence their everyday actions, you see that they are not treated the same way as normal beliefs. There are similarities but there are also differences. If you try and judge them without taking account for the differences, your judgement will clearly be inaccurate.
But anyway, this was a tangent - what's really important in this thread is what you make of the idealised faith.
Yes, that's what I came here to say. Precisely. My post is meant to address that very issue: that definitions are never disputable, ever, no matter what.
Thanks for encapsulating my point.
No, wait. That's not it at all.
My point is that theologically, theists require that faith be defined precisely as Ssaul of Tsuarus defined it:
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1.
i.e., it is belief without justification.
Furthermore:
Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (NKJV)
If a person has evidence, why even bring up the word faith in the first place?
I've given my justification in this thread several times, even garnering agreement from theists. You can redefine faith all you like, but soon as you do, you render it theologically useless.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Please stop.
Perhaps you are right. But it seems to me that the preferred method of debate around here is to force the opponent into the biblical literalism corner, pummel the crap out of him/her with biblical errors, and then hope they have the sense to drop religion entirely.
Strafio,
In the universe, there exists belief without evidence. Also, belief despite evidence to the contrary exists.
In describing religious justification, I, and most other people in the world, use the word "faith" to refer to these two forms of belief.
If you decide to use faith to mean something else, the two kinds of belief that I was using "faith" to refer to will still exist, and will still funcion in the same way.
We can call it "chocolate milk" and it will still be "belief without evidence."
If you come up with another method by which theists can justify their faith in god, you may call it whatever you wish. If you wish to use the word "faith," you will have added yet another definition which theists could conflate, so I recommend against it.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Well we seem to be at a cross roads here.
Faith is a belief without justification.
You seem to be talking about a) the behaviour of theists and b) the pragmatic value of holding a belief. (Correct me if I’ve got that wrong).
These are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they are completely different things. Me and todangst are talking about the veracity of a belief, not the value of hold such a belief.
So, a theist can be the nicest person in the world, and get a lot from their faith-based beliefs (thus fulfilling your idealised version of ‘faith’), but the veracity of the belief has still not been established, the belief is still without justification (which is what the term really means). So the fact they are holding beliefs without justification does not mean they are not using faith, it means they are!
So my problem with faith (and I would assume that others around here would agree) is solely on the grounds that it is not justified. The pragmatic value the belief is else entirely.
Moving on… I do not consider theistic faith to be a virtue at all. I think that it is far better to just say “I don’t know” than to pretend to know. As for pragmatic values in faith-based beliefs, well this is clearly more complex and is far more subjective. I still think people should say “I don’t know” when they don’t know, as I think this sets the ground for wanting to learn and discover more (whereas pretending to know, for any reason, can prevent discovery, among other problems). The fact that something seems to ‘work’ is itself not a justification. Even if there was some pragmatic value to a faith-belief I still wouldn’t see it as a virtue, and certainly wouldn’t think it was right to universally call this “pragmatic-faith” a virtue.
No you’ve misunderstood what I meant here. I should have been clearer.
I was referring to indirect historical claims/belief. Not necessarily them stating “X is historical” (which moderates also do), but rather them simply believing X is true. Virtually all Christians believe Jesus was a real person, so if they believe that Jesus was resurrected and performed miracles, they are in fact holding a belief about history, a belief which can only be held on faith. A moderate may vocalise this as a claim, however this is moot to the fact that they believe it, which was my point.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
The truth too painful?
You can't have rational or empirical knowledge of something supernatural. This point was not made by me, it was not made by atheists. It was made by theists, little known theists, such as St. Paul, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and so on.
If you obliterate the actual meaning of theistic faith, and redefine it as it's antithesis: some form of knowledge, then theists are left with NO means of holding to their beliefs.
Theistic faith is unjustified belief.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Not at all. I will give you this warning, though: you're never going to convert everyone if you're so much of a smart ass that people simply decide to ignore you.
I'm a materialist.
I'm not a Christian, and I'll be hanged if I let one of them tell me how my faith has to be. How do the Muslims define faith? What about the Hindus? Zoroastrians? You'd do well to expand your horizons. Christianity is by no means the be all and end all of theism. Grow the hell up.
Correction: if you obliterate Paul's, Luther's, your meaning of theistic faith, and redefine it as its (there's not supposed to be an apostrophe there, by the way) antithesis: some form of knowledge, then Christians, and those who define faith the same way Christians do are left with no means of holding their beliefs. Again, you'd do well to expand your horizons in this matter.
My faith is it's own justification.
What hypocrisy... my comments went right along with yours.
That's a non sequitur.
My point is that supernatural claims must be taken on faith.
My point addresses faith as used by anyone who holds to a belief in the supernatural!
I'll repeat my actual point: to hold to a belief in something 'beyond nature' you cannot rely on natural means.
Please actually deal with the point and stop your narcissistic ramblings about yourself.
There's no correction from you. Just one from me: Theistic faith is non contingent. It's not a form of justified knowledge at all.
You're inserting your own non-christian sense of what 'faith is'. but it has no bearing on anything I've written here. You'd do well to not make even more of an ass of yourself by assuming that by addressing how christians use faith on a board dominated by christian theological discussions somehow implies that I've never addressed other forms of theology or religion.
You need to grow up, and stop making so many college freshman styled assumptions. The problem is that you can't stop assuming that everything I write is somehow a direct reference to YOU. That continual blunder in your posts points to your own need to grow up.
The entire world doesn't write posts with YOU and YOUR individual, ideosyncratic views in mind. I am discussing faith as used by monotheism, particuarly christianity. Please grow up and rein in your narcissism.
Let me get right to the point with you: if you have knowledge, why use the word 'faith' at all?
That's what the muslim terrorists said as the planes hit NYC. Faith is self justifying in the same sense schizophrenia is.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Um... you've been reading my posts long enough to know I don't do biblical errancy.
Would you care to look up the last time I posted "biblical errors"? I'll tell you when it was. It was over two months ago, when I linked to a page full of them for a hit and run poster. Before that was at least another month or two.
I deal with logic, philosophy, and critical thinking, which, as my signature will attest, you have sworn off.
You have never provided a single justification for your theism, other than "because I like it." If you want to be taken seriously outside of your own mind (and I'm beginning to think you don't particularly care about anything other than your own mind) you have to deal with the universe around you, which is natural, and which follows laws. Thought is logic, and if you insist on invalid logic, that makes you irrational, no matter how cool you think your little religious ideas are.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm familiar with your arguments for the definition of faith.
I disagreed with them on intuitive grounds but never had an explicit argument before. Now I have an alternative theory on what faith is.
I'm happy to disagree with these theologians on the definition of faith the same as I'm happy to disagree with them on the existence of God. As it happens, my definition of faith is one that you'd have to be an atheist to accept. Read on, you might find it intruiging.
Fair enough. But bear in mind that I agreed several posts back that faith wasn't about veracity so we probably should've been where I'm at.
Not really. Justification is justification. How you justify something depends on what you are trying to justify. I've agreed that faith doesn't yield empirical truth.
What I'm arguing for is that faith can be a virtue.
For faith to be a virtue it merely needs to be justified pragmatically.
Just thought I should make a point here - beliefs with absolutely no justification whatsoever are called 'blind random guesses' - faith is something different.
What I've been trying to argue is that the justifications for ideal faith suit it's purpose. People recognise what faith has done for their life, like it's effect on their lifestyle, so are justified in pursuing it further. Obviously they don't settle for there, and they often try to go further and 'justify' other things using 'faith', but those are the anomalies to their practice in general.
The thing is, when we talk about virtues and vices, pragmatics is the be all and end all of the argument.
Remember we're talking about my idealised idea of faith now, so it's got absolutely nothing to do with pretending to know empirical truths. The ideal faith holder might sometimes have beliefs that sound like they are claiming empirical truth, but their purpose is the psychological effect on that person's life and that is what articles of faith are to be judged by. So long as they admit that it's faith and understand what faith is, there can be no harm in it.
So your "pretending to know" arguments have no relevence to idealised faith. Even non-ideal faith isn't about pretending to know, but we'll get onto that later.
So you say.
But how do you know that they really believe this in the same way you believe historical facts? Isn't your source their vocal claims? If you only have vocal claims to go on, aren't you relying on the assumption that they are using 'historical language' the same way that you are? Not that it's an unreasonable assumption, but if shown to be false it would undermime all your claims about what Christians believe.
Strafio, if I understand you, the nutshell version of what you're saying is:
"Faith (belief in something with justification other than veracity) can have positive effects on a person's life, and therefore, has value when it does so."
This is something like the fallacy fallacy, but in reverse.
A thing is not necessarily false when it is based on fallacious logic.
BUT
A thing that is true despite being based on fallacious logic is still based on fallacious logic, and the process by which the conclusion was reached is still invalid. Despite the positive result, the process is still invalid.
Faith, then, can sometimes yield positive results, and you can talk about the good things that people feel and do as a result of it, but you're talking about results, not processes.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
This is how theists define faith. That part is not argument. My only argument is that theists have no choice but to define faith this way, seeing as turning to other uses of the term 'faith' are equivocation fallacies. Of course, numerous positive theologically minded people (i.e., fucking idiots) love to conflate theist faith with colloquial usages.. they play a shell game with their own minds, compartmentalizing their contradictory usage, switching theistic faith for colloquial faith.
But, in the end, it's really this simple: why is the theist even using the word 'faith' in the first place? Most theists refuse to even answer the question. Because they know that answering it involves conceding that one has faith where one does not have knowledge.
And then cops arrive and the shell game has to end....
I'll read the rest of what you have to say, I guess my comments are only incidentally connected to your main points.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
This is actually a point St. Paul makes.
But what Paul fails to consider is that this only shows the value of holding to the belief.
If two people are thrown from a plane, and one of them mistakenly believes he has a parachute, he'll be the only one smiling...
It will make for a nicer fall.
But he goes splat just like the other guy.
That's religious faith in a nutshell.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
This statement, however, will leave me smiling for at least the rest of the day, and there's a good reason for it.
Hell, I may decide that it's time to move Losingstreak off of my sig line. That's a really good quote, Todangst.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
This paragraph summed it up nicely, but the rest of your post seemed to miss the point a little. The justification is practical, so there's valid logic involved but from a practical perspective. "This is good for me so I do it."
Practical reason is more fundamental that theoretical reason.
A good argument for this is asking why someone values the truth.
Either their value for truth is an arbitrary fetish or it is based in practical reason. As Todangst has often pointed out, the problem with pragmatists is that they might over-estimate the value of a false belief and under-estimate the important of truth. Sometimes it can come off as an excuse to ignore theoretical reason in favour of what they'd rather believe.
That doesn't mean that it can't be argued for though.
The rules of logic are all rooted in the purpose of our practice of describing the world, so we can ultimately judge these practices by their ultimate purpose. You have to agree that while scientific accuracy has it's place (e.g. technology and problem solving like that) there are many situations where it doesn't have a place. e.g. jokes.
So maybe articles faith, despite not being scientific correct, have a place in our lives, just like jokes and fantasy stories do. That's why faith is fine in moderation, and it's only when people go too far and start trying to apply their practice of faith where it doesn't belong that things start going wrong.
So my argument against Topher was to show that there was a practice of faith that could be a virtue to someone's life, and that this 'idealised' version of faith is actually similar to the one that is practiced, just in real life it is abused a bit. (just like most things in life are good when used right but bad when abused)
You have a good point here: outside of pragmatism, most philosophical definitions of truth have no real value outside a philosophy classroom.
I would say that utility does not equate with truth, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for determing truth.
Nice points.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I think I understand it, but we'll see.
Right. I understand this.
The practicality of faith is a perceived benefit. While this perception may lead to a happier person, in reality, the person's happiness is due to either luck (somebody has to win the lottery, no matter how bad an idea it is to buy a ticket) or something more complex. It is not due to the validity of their belief in something that isn't true.
Another example: Placebo pills don't work. They don't do anything. The patients often get well because their mind tricks them into believing that it is medicine. The belief causes the body to make real physical changes which result in self-healing, quite unknown to the person who took the pill.
It would be mistaken to say that placebo pills work. They don't. The mind works. Despite the benefit of using placebo pills, it's not correct to say that placebos are beneficial. The effect is caused quite apart from any influence of the pill itself.
In the same way, faith that makes people happy is invalid. It isn't the faith directly that's making them happy. It's the perceived benefits, which are not really due to their faith at all. So, the faith is not beneficial directly.
I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's a very important distinction. I've never denied that some people find faith to be helpful or good in their lives. I just don't want to give it credit by saying that it's the faith that is making them feel better.
Of course. I'm not trying to say that science and technology are actually the way people make decisions about their own life. There are tons of gut decisions, and many are based on something that you could correctly call faith, regardless of whether it involves the supernatural.
I maintain that it's incorrect to assign positive status to the neutral, ubiquitous practice of this definition of faith. Sometimes its results are good, sometimes they're bad. I further maintain that this entire discussion is about the results of the faith, not the faith itself, and that is where it's gone astray.
If I haven't made my point clearly enough, or you disagree, we may just have an impasse on our hands. Humans make decisions on little or no evidence because we have to make decisions when the choices occur. This is neither good nor bad. It just is. Belief in things despite contrary evidence sometimes yields positive results. This simply is, and cannot be called good, either.
It's why I brought up the fallacy fallacy. A thing is not necessarily false because the argument is fallacious, and just because the result actually is true, it doesn't give the argument any merit.
Maybe I'm being dense. I just don't see this as being any different from noticing that a blind pig finds a root from time to time.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
No that is exactly what faith is not. If faith is justfied it simply ceases to be faith. (well it ceases to be "faith" in the sense we are talking about here)
I'm quite glad that you brought up placebos as they make a nice parallel with what I'm saying.
If a person said "placebo pills work" and were saying that they had a biological effect on our bodies like normal medicine then they'd be wrong.
However, most people would mean it to simply say that taking the pills would make them better - acheive what they were aiming for. In this sense, placebo pills do work but with a psychological effect rather than a biological one.
There are clear examples how the right frame of mind can make our lives better, e.g. a good view of yourself, even if it is false, might make you more confident and therefore perform better at whatever it is you're trying to do. Faith commonly puts people in a frame of mind that makes their life better in some way.
Perhaps evidence I could give is how they get converts - at Nottingham university, smart kids (and adults) with a secular education would be attracted to the fundamentalist Christian Union. I myself was equally attracted to and repulsed by them at the same time.
While I found some of their claims to be sickening (like how everyone deserves torture for eternity and that is 'righteous' and 'true love') I was also really attracted to them as people. When they weren't talking about religion they were just great people and you could tell that their faith was having this effect on them.
One of my projects in life is to find a way to get the best of both worlds, a 'spirituality' that doesn't require such a horrific theology to accompany it. (I think Harris is looking for something similar.)
That would only be true if they were going to get better regardless of taking the pill. As it happens, the pill did have an effect, an effect that the person would not have had without it. So that must show that the placebos were beneficial because they had that effect on that person.
There's more to it than that.
There are some types of questions that 'rational pondering' can actually hinder while pure intuition gives a superior competence. Scientific reasoning has it's place in science, but I think that many people have seen the benefits of science and consequently try and use scientific language/reasoning in other situations too, situations that it isn't suited to.
I actually have empirical evidence for this in this book - it uses experiments to show situations where the intuition was better suited to handling the task at hand compared to linguistic reasoning. (Todangst, as it is a psychology book I'd be particularly interested in any critique you had on this book.)
Fair enough, but this doesn't reflect what I'm arguing.
I'm not arguing for 'blind luck' here.
I'm pointing out the science has a purpose - it's a tool for solving a particular type of problem. There are problems in life that it has no relevence to. In these areas, we have other 'tools' and 'practices' to deal with the problem. Faith would come under one of these.
So I'm not saying "someone lucky might accidently find a truth that the scientists missed". It's more that I'm saying that different tasks in life require different approaches.
I think that theists are correct in noticing that faith has benefits, but as they don't realise why, they can do the opposite of 'scientism' and start trying to apply faith where it doesn't belong.
The difference between moderates and fundamentalists tends to be how much they stretch faith outside of its useful domain.
Moderates tend to use the words of 'belief', but when you see how they practice in real life, how their treat their beliefs, I think that they often get it right. Francis Collins didn't become a sucessful biologist by trying to use faith in his science, nor a Chrisitan by applying science to his everyday life and spiritual beliefs. He seems to have intuitively grasped the right application of each practice for the right situation. I think that's what Gould's NOMA was all about.
I've not read Collin's book, and it wouldn't surprise me if the philosophy in it is terrible, but even so, didn't he admit at the end that religion is about faith?
A belief or claim is either true or false (law of non-contradiction). It either conforms to reality, or it does not.
The point I’m making is that theists tend to hold faith-based beliefs which they think conform to reality. If they say “X has no proof but I choose to believe it because it makes me happy,” fine, but unfortunately many think X is true, because it makes them happy.
Well you already know I disagree with postmodernist thinking.
First and foremost what is important is the truth of a claim. Pragmatic values to holding a belief are a secondary matter. If we don’t know whether something is true, we should try to find out whether it is, in the meantime (while also being aware of our ignorance) pragmatic values could be a basis in deciding whether something is of use.
I hold this view as a matter of principle that we should always question, seek evidence, and refrain from accepting beliefs or claims when there is no evidence. This applies to all aspects of life hence I place such importance on it. Most people would not buy a car without inspecting it, or approve of a politician’s claims who refused to cite evidence. We should instil this type of approach into people. On the contrary however, we can further faith-based thinking. While you say it only applies to certain contexts, once people get that frame of mind – believing what they would like to believe – it tends to bleed over into other areas of life where it certainly shouldn’t be. I think it is extremely hard if not almost impossible to draw a strict line between the two. I think it is far to intertwined, and given this, I think we should choose and encourage one other the other, and I don’t think this should be faith.
This is the type of postmodernist thinking I dislike. That it is okay to believe anything is true, that reality is purely subjective.
I agree that a theist will likely pursue faith based on personal experience, but that is not a grounds to hold their beliefs/claims as true. And the point I keep making is this is precisely what many theists do… they extrapolate personal experience and personal belief as truth.
This is all well and good, but it is extremely rare.
The situation here is not a dichotomy whereby you have some who recognise faith for what it is, and others who are simply crazy fucking morons. Sometimes you find the fundamentalists resort to “it just faith” on some matters (especially when they’ve been cornered on an issue), while the more mature theists will often take a subtle recourse to truth claims. So it’s far more intertwined. It isn’t as simple as saying “if only they do this instead.”
I find your view of faith to be more inline with that of the negative theologian, but even negative theologians also resort to positive theology.
I’m just talking about very basic Christian theology. Even the most liberal of churches maintain the historical and physical resurrection of Jesus is paramount.
In any case, in my experience, theists hold all sorts of claims to be historically and factually true. If they hold something to be historical and factual, then they hold it to be historical and factual. I’ve no reason see it otherwise. You see to be disagreeing purely based on your non-existent idealised faith.
Seeing as you also brought up Gould, I will add that I disagree with the notion that faith and reason occupy different boundaries. In my view, you can either approach things with reason and evidence, or faith. Each one entails the rejection of the other so I do not see how one can compartmentalise them, even in different contexts. As I said above, once you get into the frame of mind of a certain approach this will tend to overlap into all areas of life, since life is not a nice grid of strictly defined separate areas and contexts. Furthermore, while science has a specific arena, I think that even outside that arena, principles which are part of science such as reason, scepticism and the scientific method could be applied and often should be applied. I think this is a healthy way to approach things. However I don’t think faith outside of its niche that you talk of is a good thing. Since I think they will like bleed outside of their respected arenas, I would much refer this to be scientific and reasoned-based thought rather than faith-based thought since we all know the trouble faith can causes, whereas I’ve yet to see scientific-based thinking cause similar problems.
In the end, regardless of your view, we must all agree that we should be able to question beliefs and claims, which is ultimately what I call for.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
You seem to forget that these rules are based on the purpose of empirical discourse. While the 'claims' of faith might look similar on paper, when you put them in the context of their practice and purpose, these rules aren't quite so important.
Woah there cowboy!
Are you trying to tell me that whether something is a virtue is an empirical/scientific question?
When we are talking about whether something is a virtue, pragmatic value is all that matters. You would justify the virtue of being rational and knowing the truth pragmatically.
The rest of your argument ranted on about how great knowing the truth was, implicitly hinting that it fulfilled a purpose. Yet when I try to point out that we have other issues in life that need a different practice to meet a different purpose, you tell me that pragmatism is secondary. Your argument can only be circular here.
Ignoring that little strawman of "faith = believe" what you want, this argument is the classic slippery slope. It stands next to the "If you try pot, next think you know you'll be hooked on crack and smack" and the "if you let kids play violent computer games then they'll be violent in real life".
Most people in real life have an implicit mastery of different practices and naturally distinguish between them nicely. It's those who get attached to a particular one and start trying to use it to suit all purposes that end up losing balance. Moderates tend to keep their faith in good perspective and it is rarely abused. It tends to be fundamentalists who go to far.
It's only scientific thinking that requires a strict line between the two.
Most of us walk the line out of natural competence.
This is a blatant strawman.
I never once said "believe what you like".
I never said that there were no rules, I just pointed out that they don't have to follow the same rules as scientific thought as they are for a different purpose.
It wouldn't be a problem if people didn't keep equivocating over what 'true' means. This isn't such a problem for those with a more modern outlook as they don't feel the need to stick to a single definition of 'true' as they implicitly recognise the context through practice.
So you atleast agree that the idealisation of faith is a virtue?
Obviously. Who said that it was?
I've told you a several times that it's a general observation rather than a strict line of difference.
Yes, and how do you know that they hold this?
By hearing their words?
By assuming that they are using the words to the same purpose that you do?
Historical fact has a purpose in our way of life.
Religious belief has a different purpose.
The only way you can understand this is to see how these people use faith in the way of their everyday lives. Otherwise you're just completely misunderstanding them.
Not really. So far I'm merely showing your that your position is based on unjustified assumptions. I don't consider myself to have proved you wrong in any account.
The rules of reason are based on the rules of discourse.
Theology has rules and therefore has reason - there are just different rules to abide by. Incidently, perhaps you'd like to put this claim into practice and give me the practical justification, or is your value for truth 'beyond' reason?
It's not that I disagree with truth having a value, it's just that you seem to be taking it for granted at best, and asserting it dogmatically at the worst. I think that once you question it, are forced to defend and consequently recognise it's purpose I am hoping that you will realise that it is not the only valuable discourse in life.
No it's not. My view allows for articles of faith to be questioned, just that they are questioned by different standards to empirical facts. Why? The standards of empirical fact are determined by the purpose of empirical fact, while the standards of faith are determined by the purpose of faith. You, on the other hand, want all forms of discourse to follow the same rules of science, and in doing so you seem to miss the point in why the rules of science are there, what makes them good at what they do and where they shouldn't be applied.
So, it is simply a matter of imprecise descriptions. Placebos do not work in medical terms. There are no chemicals which interact with other chemicals, causing beneficial effects within the body. Medically, placebos do nothing.
Placebos have a practical use despite their lack of medical efficacy. This usefulness is described by empirical studies demonstrating the benefit of the belief that they are medically effective.
Again, with precision: Placebos do not work. The human brain thinks they work, and so heals the body. Yet, placebos do not work. It is a false statement to say that placebos are medicine. They are not.
While it is correct to say that placebos have a useful place in the practice of medicine, you would cry foul if someone decided to send cancer patients a batch of placebos instead of their normal chemotherapy. This would be misuse of them precisely because they don't work. The correct use of pacebos doesn't involve faith. The patient does not have faith, they have reasonable belief based on empirical evidence (even though the empirical evidence happens to be misleading!)
This is fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether faith is valid.
The pill did nothing. The person's beliefs about the pill did something. It's a big, big difference.
I'm in the middle of three books right now. Could you give me an example here?
I think you're missing my point.
Science is a process. Logic is a process. Each is intrinsically linked. Without science, logic has no purpose, for we would never have true statements to propose. Without logic, science could not exist, for we could never have established the validity of the scientific method.
While many events are less than perfectly logical or scientific, logic and science are at the root of every decision we make. When we examine a canteloupe at the store, we are using science and logic. When we decide whether to break up with our girlfriend, same thing.
Where I think you're confusing my point is this: Science and logic allow us to deduce and observe what is empirically true. Within our own minds, we form values that sometimes do not line up exactly with what science and logic would "dictate." For instance, I might decide that I want to stay with my girlfriend despite the fact that all my friends think she's a bitch, and she treats me horribly. Scientifically and logically, you could say this is indefensible, but in truth, there is valid logic and science behind my decision. My values are simply different than those of the outside observers. Perhaps loneliness is overwhelmingly bad for me, and it is worth being treated poorly in exchange for not being lonely. This makes my decision logical in a very real way. (It is also scientific, as I have empirical evidence of the way she treats me!)
The thing is, outside observers have different criteria, and will come to different conclusions. They are also using science and logic.
Where faith throws a monkey wrench into the equation is that it creates invalidity within the logical systems I mentioned. If my girlfriend treats me like shit, but I believe that she treats me well, despite all the empirical evidence, I am deluded. My delusion will lead me to make a choice which will not only be illogical to those observing, but to me as well, since my own formula will have false data.
Ok. Long way around to get to this point. I don't deny that there are people who have faith in god and are happy because of it. The question isn't whether there are "false positives." There are. This isn't even remotely relevant to the question of whether faith is valid. It is not. By definition, a conclusion derived by faith must be invalid logically or false scientifically. Otherwise, it would be scientific or logical. Anytime you plug false or invalid data into a process, the conclusion becomes invalid, though not necessarily false.
The bottom line, then is that faith is not useful in any way when truth and validity are the goal.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
No. It's a matter that the purpose of the statement is such that precision, in this case, was absolutely irrelevent.
You mean that Placebos do not work in the terms of biological medicine. As a psychological medicine they're clearly effective. Medicine, as we commonly use the word, means that it heals people. Taking the pill was part of the healing process.
"But it was the belief in the pill that cured them!"
Yes, and it was taking this pill that triggered the belief.
Once again, I put the question to you:
Would they have gotten better the same way without the pill?
If so, the pill was partly responsible for their health and it did work to cure them. It was the psychological effect rather than the chemical properties of the pill, but the practice of taking the pill was medically justified.
Really. Would the person have had those beliefs without the pill?
If so then the pill wasn't really a placebo.
If not then that proves my point - the pill did do something which was to give the psychological effect that gave healing.
This isn't a matter of precision.
You have chosen a narrow definition of what it means for the pill to 'work' - i.e. chemically heal the body without having to induce the psychological effects. This isn't how the word is used in common language. When someone uses the word in 'common language', to say that they were being imprecise is to imply that their aims would've been more suited by using your favoured definition.
What grounds could you have for such a claim?
Arguments against faith tend to work the same way.
They assume that the subject of faith is aiming for a scientific truth. Since faith isn't supposed to yeild scientific truths it will invariably fail, but all this shows is that faith has a different purpose to science. It might still be that faith has a purpose that science cannot fulfill.
It has everything to do with whether faith is valid.
If I'd claimed that faith is supposed to yeild scientific truths then you'd be right. But I'm not - you just seem to be assuming that by default.
I am claiming that faith is a virtue and surely virtues are justified by their practical benefits
Finding and presenting a good one will take me a little time.
I'll get onto it tomorrow.
While I agree with the "science needs logic", I don't agree with the "logic needs science".
Logic can come in any discourse with rules.
Logic is always based on the language game being played.
Here you've used a narrow definition of logic that is commonly used but is technically incorrect.
I agree. All decision making can be subject to logic.
However, as different decision making is done in different discourses, depending on the situation in hand, there will be variations on the logical rules for each one. Science uses the language of describing empirical facts. I personally hold that concepts like 'values' aren't even defined within the scientific language.
Faith, in that respect, has a logic of its own.
So when someone rejects a scientific argument in favour of one from faith, they are not rejecting logic as such, but using a different logic based on a different 'approach'. The question is which approach is suited to the job at hand.
Questions of the molecular structure of chemicals is clearly a scientific one.
Questions on practical approaches to life are not.
The question is whether faith as a whole is a beneficial practice to one's life. When you see a person happy as a result of their practice of faith, that shows that the practice of faith has a valid use. It's not done perfectly in real life, but is any practice restricted to perfect application?
I'm also going to accuse you of an equivocation too.
You use science and logic in a narrow sense (i.e. a specific sense) when discussing whether theology is scientific. However, you were willing to use it in a broader sense (that is, any kind of empiricism/reasoning) when advocating it.
I don't expect you to agree with me as this is a complex argument and controversial to the common way of thinking on this board, but I'm hoping that you're starting to see where I'm coming from.
Strafio,
I'm having a really hard time explaining myself. Every time I read your posts, I'm thinking, "Yeah, exactly... You get it, but you're saying it wrong."
I'm going to mull on this topic for a while, because I can't think of how to say what I'm thinking.
Oh, and it would help a LOT if you could post a few examples of logic not being good for decision making. Maybe that's the catalyst to help me understand why we're not communicating effectively.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
This still doesn’t exempt them from the law of non-contradiction. They either correspond with reality, or they do not.
Virtue is a subjective matter. I don’t regard faith as a virtue or a subject matter.
Faith is belief without evidence.
Any other definition of faith is theologically useless.
This is not what I am saying.
I’m simply saying if we encourage faith-based thinking, it will likely be applied in places it should not be.
Right. This tends to be the case. However I think there are far more fundamentalists out there than I think you realise. For instance, half of the US could be described as fundamentalists!
But this generally follows from pragmatism. If something subjectively works, then it’s valid. So if something works for you then you can believe it. The problem is this is often applied against evidence to the contrary.
I disagree with the postmodernist idea that that is true is subjective which you seem to be implying. This idea allows for anything to be ‘true’.
I agree it is better, but certainly not a virtue.
How is saying “X is historical” any different from the common and accepted definition of historical. What other definitions of historical can there be?
I’ve already explain this to you dozens of time! Or have you forgotten?
Truth is always applied in everyday matters and I think we should encourage people to have this frame of mind. While pragmatism can be useful it shouldn’t replace the need to seek truth.
This is all well and good under your non-existent faith, however this denies that theists do in fact hold empirical beliefs and claims on faith.
I am asking for empirical claims to be question and examined as they very well should be. You however deny that theists many such claims. And when shown some of these theists claims you contently try to redefined them away from the empirical claims that they are.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
Fair enough Hamby.
I'll post the examples later.
I just want to make one last clarification before I do.
I consider logic to be any thinking that uses explicit methods that are based on linguistic rules. Mathematics, scientific, psychological, and I also believe that faith has it's own set of rules so it's own logic.
The 'argument against logic' is a slightly separate issue and that's more an argument for letting yourself go on certain issues, and letting ideas come naturally rather than force them. There are some practical tasks where thinking things out linguistically will take your attention away from the job at hand. I'll give some examples later.
Ofcourse. I've said multiple times that I'm arguing for the validation of faith practice, not the truth of articles of faith. Anymore arguments that involve empirical truth will now be ignored as they are completely off topic.
I wouldn't call virtue objective or subjective, but in practice it's closer to objective than subjective. As to the bit in bold, obviously you don't else we probably wouldn't need to debate it!
Theists will indeed find that my definition of supports atheism rather than theism, but it will justify them on a secular level and that's what I'm aiming for here.
Well, the argument only has a bite if the mis-applications are extreme, in which case you're sliding down that whacky slippery slope again. Otherwise your point is that faith will sometimes be abused, and since everything is abused from time to time, this point does nothing for your argument.
Maybe so. I'm not going to argue numbers with you.
Even if you're right though, the fact is that this fundamentalism is a feature of American culture rather than simply faith. Just like gangsta rap. European culture proves that faith can work fine when modernised and 'done right'. (Bringing up Islam in Europe would just be pedantic btw!!
What do you mean by 'evidence to the contrary'?
If you're talking about evidence of empirical truth, then they've simply made up their mind that empirical truth isn't important to them in that subject.
If you mean 'evidence to the contrary' that it's working for them then they're not using practical reason - they are clinging to beliefs to be comfortable. Just because some people use pragmatism as an excuse to be lazy doesn't mean that pragmatism is a problem. That's as silly as blaming science for scientists who put ambition and curiousity beyond morality at the expense of others.
It's just recognising that we use the word 'true' in a variety of ways.
Are you trying to claim that there is only one 'real' definition of truth?
How would you defend such a claim?
I know that multiple variations on the word truth can leave the scene mixed and blurry, and can lead to equivocations, but once you recognise this you find you can spot such mix-ups quite intuitively. You seem to shy away from any practice that cannot be systemised, yet the systemising practice itself had to be grounded on intuition and natural competence in the linguistic practice.
It's like you found a favourite style of discourse, got comfortable in it and are now afraid to leave it.
I don't know. I'm not sure that they can be systematically defined.
Yet you recognise the differences if you become familiar.
It's like getting know different types of wine - at first they all taste more or less the same but as you get more familiar your tastes become more refined.
I've already given reasoning for why their 'historical' is different.
Not so much in the way that they use the word grammatically but more for the purpose that those beliefs have in their life. Their 'beliefs' have different purpose to our 'beliefs' so consequently there are different rules to their use.
How does one recognise the different purposes?
By spending time with the people and observing for yourself on how they act on 'belief'.
I saw it and addressed it. Like I said, you've pointed to a couple of examples where truth is useful and then gone on to conclude that we should always aim for truth.
You are yet to provide a valid justification.
Ofcourse not. Pragmatism done right will vindicate truth to a large degree. Ofcourse I value truth else I wouldn't be partaking in these long winded arguments on the internet. I just recognise that there's a time and a place. There's no such thing as one practice to suit every purpose. You will always find things in our life that truth is essential to - obviously! The thing is, you work with the proposition that we should always be going for truth and that is clearly wrong.
Or it might be that you've misunderstood them and that my explanation is right. Personally, I think I'm more familiar with real life theists then you and I suspect that most of your experience of them comes through the mindset of debate where you see them as opponents. Nonetheless, I would still not declare victory on this point as I don't have conclusive evidence either. Neither of us have a conclusive case on how theists really act. So our argument can only be settled by other lines of reason.
My reasoning is to show an idealised version of faith, and show how a realistic application could give results common to everyday theism. Show how it can lead people to get mixed up and equivocate. Show how it can be corrupted.