• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Faith as epistemology ?

cottage

Well-Known Member
Intellectual dishonesty, Intellectual deceit knows no bounds, and once a person has started down that track, there is pretty much no turning back, as you have shown clearly in your post above.

Attaching a fallacious argument and deliberate intellectual deceit to a religious position that it is an a priori position, has been used a million times. Your plagiarism stands out a country mile, and to plagiarise utter garbage and try and hold it as estabished truth, reeks of either intellectual ignorance, or just down right deceit as you try and distort the facts of reality to suit your own belief.

The above, like so many of the passages in your posts, is just a rant. Read it! It consists entirely of accusations and assertions with no instances given as examples, no arguments to flesh out your points, no quotes to prove the alleged plagiarism, but just unqualified statements and rash uninformed opinion. Nothing you’ve written here relates to, or answers in anyway the quoted passage.

If original thought didn't exist we would still be living in caves and knowledge and technology wouldn't go any further than it is today if original thought has all be used up. Your attempts at intellectual deceit to try and give your own belief credibility is laughable and a huge slap in the face for all people who are advancing the cause of knowledge and technology for and on behalf of mankind.

Oh don’t be so dramatic! Are people ‘who are advancing the cause of ‘knowledge and technology’ really distraught and discomforted because an anonymous person on a message forum said something they might or might not agree with?

The reason I say original thought is a dubious concept is because nobody produces complete ideas, we borrow, amend, extend, reconfigure and generally compound ideas from experience. An example, in the simplest possible terms, is the idea of Pegasus, which is derived from the figure of a horse and the wings of a bird. The possible associations are infinite, and although it is said that nobody can have my experience because it is entirely subjective, anybody can have my thoughts, and vice versa.



You are correct, I will never get the hang of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual deceit, and I certainly will never align with any belief, such as the one you are trying to project here, that tries to promote it.


I just can’t help but notice the rather spooky way you fixate on terms that I’ve used previously and then play them back to me!

And par for the course, the sentence you’ve written above says absolutely nothing in answer to my quoted passage. Not a single thing!



As an agnositic (which is my position of belief), I personally don't know if a deity exists or not, evidence is fairly balanced between the two extreme beliefs of a deity existing and a deity not existing. However I am certainly not going to change this position by adding intellectual dishonesty and intellectual deceit to it, to get to your position of belief.


After maybe a dozen or so posts, it has just dawned on me that you don’t actually know what my position is on the question of religious belief! And btw I’m not out to change anyone’s beliefs; I only challenge arguments.

Just like fossils, gravity et al, deities et al, are alledged to have existed before mankind so called "invented" them. That Adam and Eve are mythical characters, again shows your intellectual dishonesty, intellectual deceit, and intellectual ignorance. Adam and Eve could be any base character from any base root, ancient culture (hunter and gatherer) around the world, not only does the scenario align perfectly with other base root cultures and our own scientific knowledge to date, commonsense should tell most people that base root cultures had to start from somewhere. Personally I would suggest some reading pertaining to bioligical eve might do you intelligence the world of good.

Can you not see that it is the ‘alleged’ nature of those beliefs that is being legitimately challenged? And btw, fossils were not known or ‘alleged’ to exist before they were first discovered to exist. And Adam and Eve are exactly of a piece with the notion of God, in other words they are both components in a mystical belief, and the fact that they may correspond with the beliefs of ancient cultures isn’t an argument for their actual existence. And to say they had to ‘start from somewhere’ is committing not one but two fallacies. You are appealing to numbers (Argument from Other Believers or argument ad populum) and affirming the consequent: If God exists, people will believe in him. People believe in him, therefore God exists.

Does it not occur that the ‘starting from somewhere’ may just be a human need or disposition to believe there is more than just a finite existence, or that there is a kindly father figure who will ultimately take care of us?



As for your belief that Adam and Eve are mythical characters, such is your belief, many people hold a belief based on a lack of knowledge (or ignorance of knowledge) and a lack of evidence (or ignorance of evidence), you are not alone and in some very intelligent company. People will do most anything to hold on to a belief, such is faith for you, it has a strong conviction, and for very good reason.

Now then, are you not aware that it isn’t just people like me but folk with religious faith that view A&E as mythological, symbolic, or allegory? The story of Adam and Eve, or the Ark, may be requisite for BACs, fundamentalists, or certain others, but believers don’t universally accept it. My second point is that my argument that those characters are myths is not held as some form of faith, but is due to an evident contradiction, where two imperfect, contingent creatures are able to usurp and defy their omnipotent and benevolent creator. If the logical contradiction can be answered, then my objections no longer apply.

Sounds more like you are talking about yourself here, but just don't know it.

My LOL, is a genuine laughter, as is the smile on my face when I read some of the garbage you are trying to promote as some form of fact. It is an answer, you just don't know it. I already have the knowledge and education which gives me the answer, that it is impossible to talk commonsense and logic to a madman, I also have the experience to go with it. You have your own position of belief, irrespective of how unreasonable it is in the face of reality and known facts, it is a reasonable position to you, to your own logic and intelligence.

Why am I happy to leave you with your own knowledge and intelligence? Simple really, it is a matter of respect, your brain, your intelligence to do with as you please.

Your responses are becoming ever more irrational and over-the-top! You are not ‘talking to a madman’ but to someone on a forum who expresses ideas and arguments. If you disagree with me then give your counter arguments – if you have any. And I’m not ‘promoting’ anything as ‘fact’; my arguments stand or fall on their own merit. So if you think they are wrong, then please state why they are wrong, instead of just complaining all the time.


LOL, then let me blunt here. There is an old truism which you really should look into and it goes like this, "What we see in others, is only in ourselves."

Uh! What do those remarks about have to do with what I said above!
 

spursrule68

New Member
well faith does help comfort various people

it gives them hope that there is always someone by their side
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frubals for having the patience to wade though an ocean of platitudes. Your replies have fairly well paralleled my thoughts while reading that users posts. That is, back when I bothered to read them.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
The above, like so many of the passages in your posts, is just a rant. Read it! It consists entirely of accusations and assertions with no instances given as examples, no arguments to flesh out your points, no quotes to prove the alleged plagiarism, but just unqualified statements and rash uninformed opinion. Nothing you’ve written here relates to, or answers in anyway the quoted passage.



Oh don’t be so dramatic! Are people ‘who are advancing the cause of ‘knowledge and technology’ really distraught and discomforted because an anonymous person on a message forum said something they might or might not agree with?

The reason I say original thought is a dubious concept is because nobody produces complete ideas, we borrow, amend, extend, reconfigure and generally compound ideas from experience. An example, in the simplest possible terms, is the idea of Pegasus, which is derived from the figure of a horse and the wings of a bird. The possible associations are infinite, and although it is said that nobody can have my experience because it is entirely subjective, anybody can have my thoughts, and vice versa.






I just can’t help but notice the rather spooky way you fixate on terms that I’ve used previously and then play them back to me!

And par for the course, the sentence you’ve written above says absolutely nothing in answer to my quoted passage. Not a single thing!






After maybe a dozen or so posts, it has just dawned on me that you don’t actually know what my position is on the question of religious belief! And btw I’m not out to change anyone’s beliefs; I only challenge arguments.



Can you not see that it is the ‘alleged’ nature of those beliefs that is being legitimately challenged? And btw, fossils were not known or ‘alleged’ to exist before they were first discovered to exist. And Adam and Eve are exactly of a piece with the notion of God, in other words they are both components in a mystical belief, and the fact that they may correspond with the beliefs of ancient cultures isn’t an argument for their actual existence. And to say they had to ‘start from somewhere’ is committing not one but two fallacies. You are appealing to numbers (Argument from Other Believers or argument ad populum) and affirming the consequent: If God exists, people will believe in him. People believe in him, therefore God exists.

Does it not occur that the ‘starting from somewhere’ may just be a human need or disposition to believe there is more than just a finite existence, or that there is a kindly father figure who will ultimately take care of us?





Now then, are you not aware that it isn’t just people like me but folk with religious faith that view A&E as mythological, symbolic, or allegory? The story of Adam and Eve, or the Ark, may be requisite for BACs, fundamentalists, or certain others, but believers don’t universally accept it. My second point is that my argument that those characters are myths is not held as some form of faith, but is due to an evident contradiction, where two imperfect, contingent creatures are able to usurp and defy their omnipotent and benevolent creator. If the logical contradiction can be answered, then my objections no longer apply.



Your responses are becoming ever more irrational and over-the-top! You are not ‘talking to a madman’ but to someone on a forum who expresses ideas and arguments. If you disagree with me then give your counter arguments – if you have any. And I’m not ‘promoting’ anything as ‘fact’; my arguments stand or fall on their own merit. So if you think they are wrong, then please state why they are wrong, instead of just complaining all the time.




Uh! What do those remarks about have to do with what I said above!

LOL, Human perception. When you understand this, you will understand knowledge.
 
LOL, Human perception. When you understand this, you will understand knowledge.
If nothing else you are clearly demonstrating that not all have the capacity for reason or understanding. You are demonstrating that people will sometimes defend beliefs, no matter how incoherent, by any means necessary. I suppose that is your contribution.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
If nothing else you are clearly demonstrating that not all have the capacity for reason or understanding. You are demonstrating that people will sometimes defend beliefs, no matter how incoherent, by any means necessary. I suppose that is your contribution.

LOL. Human perception is a powerful thing.
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
Per the OP Here's a particularly relevant quote from a fellow Christian on the definition of Faith.
"Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia." - Arcanus

Hi.
To say ‘I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins’ (notitia) may be informational but it takes a position of faith. It isn’t beginning as an argument or a premise from which assensus and fiducia may logically follow. How is ‘being persuaded’ any different from ‘I am inclined to believe’? For isn’t it true that people don’t come to religious faith from logical or inferential reasoning but from a prior inclination or disposition? The spark of faith precedes any rational justification. And the ‘information’ requires faith, since it is not true in any self-evident sense.

Personally, I don’t like the term ‘blind faith’ as that seems more of derogatory term. But to believe as faith may not be against reason, but it does allow believers, who are entirely rational in their everyday lives, to suspend reason where it challenges or contradicts a particular doctrine, or to offer an apologetic that they don’t themselves find entirely compelling. A classic and perennial difficulty is the Problem of Evil where almost every possible approach has been attempted to unseat the contradiction but must always end in defeat. Faith alone is the absolute prerequisite for belief in God, in my view, though it may of course be bolstered by reasoned argument.
 

dtackett

Member
All knowledge takes on an initial position of faith or intellectual assumption. The apple will fall to the apple will fall down when thrown up to I am persuaded that the apple will fall down when thrown up. That logically follows but isn't necessarily true. I could throw the apple up and it could tuen into a dove, however based on evidentiary backing of my subjective perspective it does 99.999r% of the time. The notia of that statement is based off of the laws of nature being absolutely correct. The notia of the example premise of faith is based off the Bible being correct. You're assuming that believers suspend reason where evidence is contradictory, or dismiss valid and true evidence? Present valid and true evidence for a negative or against a positive claim of God and I'll happily accept, but by it's nature I don't think you can prove a negative claim validly.

I feel the initial "seed", as it's called must be planted in blind faith due to the nature of God as an absolute and outside our possible perspective. It can then be tested, defined, witnessed, and validated.
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
All knowledge takes on an initial position of faith or intellectual assumption. The apple will fall to the apple will fall down when thrown up to I am persuaded that the apple will fall down when thrown up. That logically follows but isn't necessarily true. I could throw the apple up and it could tuen into a dove, however based on evidentiary backing of my subjective perspective it does 99.999r% of the time. The notia of that statement is based off of the laws of nature being absolutely correct. The notia of the example premise of faith is based off the Bible being correct. You're assuming that believers suspend reason where evidence is contradictory, or dismiss valid and true evidence? Present valid and true evidence for a negative or against a positive claim of God and I'll happily accept, but by it's nature I don't think you can prove a negative claim validly.

I feel the initial "seed", as it's called must be planted in blind faith due to the nature of God as an absolute and outside our possible perspective. It can then be tested, defined, witnessed, and validated.

You describe a case of inductive reasoning (the apple), which accords with the contingent laws of nature and from which is reasonable to predict future instances, as an example of the notia in that respect. Yes of course. But then you say the notia of the example premise of faith is based on the Bible being correct is planted as a blind faith seed, in other words as an unreasoned opening premise. So the second example cannot be explained in terms of the first.

A negative proposition can only be proved in possible experience, but deities and supernatural entities are by definition other-worldly, and since the believers themselves cannot demonstrate the thing’s existence it is patently absurd to ask the sceptic to produce evidence for its non-being. But no contradiction is involved in denying the statement ‘God exists’.

The seed must be planted as blind faith because knowledge of God is outside possible experience, and we can demonstrate no necessity in the statement ‘God exists’. Therefore ‘There is no God’ stands as a logical demonstration and an empirical conclusion.
 

dtackett

Member
I agree that God can not be proven a priori, but I also see necessity in the statement 'God exists', and reason it a posteriori. I agree it is a valid null stance, but is rarely used in such a way. I never asked for any sceptic to produce evidence for non-being, it was rhetorical. The point I was making was that faith is not held in the presence of contradictory evidence unless it's obstinate or blind faith. This may be an initial requirement, but sustainable and true faith questions
 

dtackett

Member
You could also use hope without the negative connotation of wishful thinkking, but each has their own bias. To answer your question no. If you had said "there is no objective evidence" then I would say yes, but not alone.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Sorry I dropped this thread. IRL issues pressed. Not sure whether we should pick it up again or reboot. Regrettably, I won't be able to post much in the following weeks for those same IRL reasons, but when I can I will.
 

Peacewise

Active Member
Well that is the whole point of the thread. Epistemology deals with HOW we can know things. If faith is valid epistemology, how does it work?

The problem is that if there are no qualitative differences in how one can know through faith, how can one know WHAT to have faith in?

seems to me that there is a progression. First belief, then faith, then hope, then love as the Christians would state it, with love the greatest of these.
So having faith allows, or requires, a person to live a certain way, then they see the benefits of living that way and their faith is confirmed and hence becomes knowledge.

It truly is as much about observation as anything else, if the believers believe and then live according to their belief and faith and that works, then their life becomes the affirmation and they progress to knowing that their faith works.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
seems to me that there is a progression. First belief, then faith, then hope, then love as the Christians would state it, with love the greatest of these.

So having faith allows, or requires, a person to live a certain way, then they see the benefits of living that way and their faith is confirmed and hence becomes knowledge.

Except that there are some truths that aren't known by Christians in that way. I don't know that Jesus is the incarnate second person of the Trinity that way, for instance. Nor do I come to know eschatological beliefs that way (e.g., that one day I will be resurrected in a similar manner to Jesus). Perhaps this works for the overall conviction that Christianity is the right way writ large, but not for particular beliefs. For those particular beliefs, faith is how they arise. My argument has been that this is nothing against them. To the contrary, faith is a belief-producing mechanism which, under the right circumstances, is reliable.
 

Peacewise

Active Member
Dunemeister thanks for the post.
How do you know that Jesus is the incarnate second person of the Trinity? How do you come to know eschatological beliefs?
 
Top