On Faith, Doubt, Certainty, and Uncertainty {poll added}

[crossfire]

I'm interested in hearing about what people think about the following, including any critiques to the logic employed. Thanks.

Truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Untruths are exposed by doubt and questioning. (Truth can stand on its own--lies need to be propped up.)
If both Truth and Untruth are revealed by doubt and questioning, then Uncertainty is the way of revealing, and Certainty is the way of not revealing.

Therefore, Faith and Doubt are both necessary to arrive at Truth. Shutting down questioning and Doubt weakens Faith in that it artificially props it up like a lie instead of allowing it to stand on its own and be further revealed.​

This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that Uncertainty is strengthening and Certainty is weakening.

Please feel free to punch holes is this--to expose any errors.

Thanks.

 

[Sunstone]

As a practical matter, it seems to me that skeptics tend to arrive at reliable truths with greater frequency than either believers or denialists.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I'm interested in hearing about what people think about the following, including any critiques to the logic employed. Thanks.

Truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Untruths are exposed by doubt and questioning. (Truth can stand on its own--lies need to be propped up.)
If both Truth and Untruth are revealed by doubt and questioning, then Uncertainty is the way of revealing, and Certainty is the way of not revealing.

Therefore, Faith and Doubt are both necessary to arrive at Truth. Shutting down questioning and Doubt weakens Faith in that it artificially props it up like a lie instead of allowing it to stand on its own and be further revealed.​

This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that Uncertainty is strengthening and Certainty is weakening.

Please feel free to punch holes is this--to expose any errors.

Thanks.

"Truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Untruths are exposed by doubt and questioning. (Truth can stand on its own--lies need to be propped up.)
If both Truth and Untruth are revealed by doubt and questioning, then Uncertainty is the way of revealing, and Certainty is the way of not revealing."

Yes that makes sense.

"Therefore, Faith and Doubt are both necessary to arrive at Truth."

Uh no.... your previous statement debunks this.

"Shutting down questioning and Doubt weakens Faith in that it artificially props it up like a lie instead of allowing it to stand on its own and be further revealed.

This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that Uncertainty is strengthening and Certainty is weakening."

The rest of this makes no sense until you bridge the logical leap you made.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm interested in hearing about what people think about the following, including any critiques to the logic employed. Thanks.

Truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Untruths are exposed by doubt and questioning. (Truth can stand on its own--lies need to be propped up.)
If both Truth and Untruth are revealed by doubt and questioning, then Uncertainty is the way of revealing, and Certainty is the way of not revealing.

Therefore, Faith and Doubt are both necessary to arrive at Truth. Shutting down questioning and Doubt weakens Faith in that it artificially props it up like a lie instead of allowing it to stand on its own and be further revealed.​

This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that Uncertainty is strengthening and Certainty is weakening.

Please feel free to punch holes is this--to expose any errors.

Thanks.

@crossfire You know I love everything you write, but this is pretty much what I have been saying in several discussion for some time now on RF. It's great to see it put so succinctly.

Certainly is ossification. Uncertainty will set you free.

 

[crossfire]

"Truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Untruths are exposed by doubt and questioning. (Truth can stand on its own--lies need to be propped up.)
If both Truth and Untruth are revealed by doubt and questioning, then Uncertainty is the way of revealing, and Certainty is the way of not revealing."

Yes that makes sense.

"Therefore, Faith and Doubt are both necessary to arrive at Truth."

Uh no.... your previous statement debunks this.

Thank you for pointing this out. Faith that Truth will stand up to questioning and Doubt, which keeps dialog open. If Faith cannot face Doubt, is it truly Faith? (Sorry, I should have made this point clearer.)

"Shutting down questioning and Doubt weakens Faith in that it artificially props it up like a lie instead of allowing it to stand on its own and be further revealed.

This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that Uncertainty is strengthening and Certainty is weakening."

The rest of this makes no sense until you bridge the logical leap you made.

Does the clarification I made bridge the gap?

 

[First Baseman]

I'm interested in hearing about what people think about the following, including any critiques to the logic employed. Thanks.

Truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Untruths are exposed by doubt and questioning. (Truth can stand on its own--lies need to be propped up.)
If both Truth and Untruth are revealed by doubt and questioning, then Uncertainty is the way of revealing, and Certainty is the way of not revealing.

Therefore, Faith and Doubt are both necessary to arrive at Truth. Shutting down questioning and Doubt weakens Faith in that it artificially props it up like a lie instead of allowing it to stand on its own and be further revealed.​

This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that Uncertainty is strengthening and Certainty is weakening.

Please feel free to punch holes is this--to expose any errors.

Thanks.

Truth begins with correct axioms or assumed truths. This is where most go wrong.

 

[crossfire]

Truth begins with correct axioms or assumed truths. This is where most go wrong.

How are you going to know if the axioms are correct if they don't stand up to questioning and examination?

 

[First Baseman]

How are you going to know if the axioms are correct if they don't stand up to questioning and examination?

Exactly. Axioms are assumed truths that stand up to scrutiny. I think you've got it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wouldn't it be far better to have tangible confirmation rather than a notion called faith that essentally equates guesswork and gambling as a means to an end?

 

[Thanda]

Wouldn't it be far better to have tangible confirmation rather than a notion called faith that essentally equates guesswork and gambling as a means to an end?

Can anyone lead a productive life without exercising some faith? Have you lived your whole life doing only those things that have been confirmed to be correct - indeed can you?

 

[crossfire]

Wouldn't it be far better to have tangible confirmation rather than a notion called faith that essentally equates guesswork and gambling as a means to an end?

Well, yes. A tangible confirmation requires questioning, no? What was the tangible confirmation before it was examined and questioned?

 

[McBell]

Can anyone lead a productive life without exercising some faith? Have you lived your whole life doing only those things that have been confirmed to be correct - indeed can you?

Seems to me the answer is dependent upon how you define faith.
If you define faith as "blind unquestioned/unchallenged belief" then yes, you can live a productive life with out it.

 

[crossfire]

Can anyone lead a productive life without exercising some faith? Have you lived your whole life doing only those things that have been confirmed to be correct - indeed can you?

I don't see how anyone could, but that's just me. I usually have faith that the light will turn on when I flip the light switch, for instance. I can't prove that faith correct until I flip the switch. That faith usually proves correct. However, it's not a major reason for freaking out if the light doesn't turn on when I flip the switch. I'll check to see if the bulb has burned out, or failing that, if there is power reaching it.

 

[Thanda]

Seems to me the answer is dependent upon how you define faith.
If you define faith as "blind unquestioned/unchallenged belief" then yes, you can live a productive life with out it.

I would say you can't. It is folly to expect that you can really challenge, question and test every single thing in life before you engage in it. We all started attending school on the basis that our parents said it was good for us even before we understood why and how it would be good for us. We all believed the weather reports even before we understood how they arrived at their conclusion (even in a general sense).

There are only so many things we can test in life, for the rest we simply have to rely on faith.

 

[McBell]

Truth begins with correct axioms or assumed truths. This is where most go wrong.

I disagree.
Most go wrong when they throw logic and reason out the window in order to support their assumed truth as being true.

 

[McBell]

I would say you can't. It is folly to expect that you can really challenge, question and test every single thing in life before you engage in it. We all started attending school on the basis that our parents said it was good for us even before we understood why and how it would be good for us. We all believed the weather reports even before we understood how they arrived at their conclusion (even in a general sense).

There are only so many things we can test in life, for the rest we simply have to rely on faith.

What beleif(s) do you hold that you have never challenged or questioned?

 

[Thanda]

What beleif(s) do you hold that you have never challenged or questioned?

3 meals a day. I have never really asked how anyone ever arrived at this number as the right number of meals to have in a day. But sure as bob is I have any less than three meals in a day I feel I assume I have missed a meal and if I have had more than I have over-eaten.

 

[McBell]

3 meals a day. I have never really asked how anyone ever arrived at this number as the right number of meals to have in a day. But sure as bob is I have any less than three meals in a day I feel I assume I have missed a meal and if I have had more than I have over-eaten.

So you have confirmed that less than three meals a day....

 

[Thanda]

So you have confirmed that less than three meals a day....

I've confirmed nothing. I am merely telling you what mental effect my faith in three meals a day has on me.

 

[crossfire]

I've confirmed nothing. I am merely telling you what mental effect my faith in three meals a day has on me.

You bring up a good point about the psychological effects involved. For instance, too much doubt could result in a nasty case of paranoia. Too much faith could result in delusion.