What is Faith?

[lunamoth]

... IOW, if I didn't have full posession of the relevant facts?

No, because you do not have (and could not have) full possession of the gestalt of lunamoth.

 

[Willamena]

As an example that hopefully works a bit better... if a person says that he loves someone because she's generous and kind to animals, but in reality she lives off money she steals from charities and she kicks any animal that comes with boot-range of her, we can say there's something wrong in the explanation: his love is either not based on what he says it is, or he's used false facts as the basis of his love.

Okay; but what is "wrong" with the explanation "because she's generous" may just be superfluous. There's no evidence present in the example that allows us to say it's false.

Edit: That's, of course, apart from the tonnes of evidence (in this picture) that allows us to have the opinion that it's false.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Ah... you mean, like that layman's definition of "faith" that has it without evidence.

:clap

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Many, many, many theists use that definition and equivocate it with other more reasonable contexts of faith. It's a very relevant context to combat when discussing the matter.

That just means that many, many, many theists are laypersons.

 

[Magic Man]

That just means that many, many, many theists are laypersons.

Yes, and it also means those theists equivocate the different meanings of faith, as is being done in this very thread.

 

[Meow Mix]

I had a good laugh when I re-read "Through the Looking Glass" this weekend, especially the part with Humpty Dumpty and changing words' meanings:

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?'

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

`Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, `for to get their wages, you know.'
(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't tell you.)

Do you pay your words extra, strikeviper?

 

[Willamena]

I had a good laugh when I re-read "Through the Looking Glass" this weekend, especially the part with Humpty Dumpty and changing words' meanings:


Do you pay your words extra, strikeviper?

Lewis Carroll paints a fine picture of the "master", Humpty Dumpty, striking up against authoritarianism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because you do not have (and could not have) full possession of the gestalt of lunamoth.

But if a conclusion is based solely on evidence and rational logic, then I don't need your "gestalt". And any question of fact is a conclusion based solely on evidence and rational logic. The whole point of rational decision-making is that given the same set of premises and initial facts, anyone can arrive at the same conclusion.

Rationality is repeatable. When have all the same facts and we arrive at different conclusions, this is an indication that at least one of us based at least part of our reasoning on something other than rational logic. Maybe this is valid when we're considering a matter of aesthetics or personal preference, but it's not valid when we're considering a matter of fact.

As I said before, love or faith might not be reducible to empirical facts, but any conclusions of love or faith that are contradicted by empirical facts can be dismissed as invalid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay; but what is "wrong" with the explanation "because she's generous" may just be superfluous. There's no evidence present in the example that allows us to say it's false.

Edit: That's, of course, apart from the tonnes of evidence (in this picture) that allows us to have the opinion that it's false.

So... your issue is with my (admittedly) rather poorly-thought-out example and not with the idea that facts can speak to the truth of claims about things like faith and love?

For a third try at a better analogy: the claim "I love my wife" is dependent on, among other things, the fact that I have a wife. If the evidence was to indicate that I'm actually single, then my claim can be dismissed as invalid: maybe I love somebody or something, but whatever it is isn't my wife since I don't have one (in the hypothetical example, anyhow).

 

[Willamena]

The whole point of rational decision-making is that given the same set of premises and initial facts, anyone can arrive at the same conclusion.

Right. And the "same conclusion" they arrive at will be their own.

 

[Magic Man]

Lewis Carroll paints a fine picture of the "master", Humpty Dumpty, striking up against authoritarianism.

Or more accurately, striking up against meaningful conversation, since that had nothing to do with authoritarianism.

 

[Willamena]

So... your issue is with my (admittedly) rather poorly-thought-out example and not with the idea that facts can speak to the truth of claims about things like faith and love?

Facts always speak to the truth --that is their nature --for each of us.

For a third try at a better analogy: the claim "I love my wife" is dependent on, among other things, the fact that I have a wife. If the evidence was to indicate that I'm actually single, then my claim can be dismissed as invalid: maybe I love somebody or something, but whatever it is isn't my wife since I don't have one (in the hypothetical example, anyhow).

Sure. But the definitional claim that a person has a wife and the aesthetic claim that a person is ugly are different things. There's no common definition of "ugly" that doesn't stress a preference (is arbitrary).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Facts always speak to the truth --that is their nature --for each of us.

I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be an answer to my question.

Sure. But the definitional claim that a person has a wife and the aesthetic claim that a person is ugly are different things. There's no common definition of "ugly" that doesn't stress a preference (is arbitrary).

Do you really think that preferences are arbitrary?

I'm a human being talking to other human beings. Whether because of innate instinct, upbringing or cultural conditioning, to a certain extent, aesthetic determinations are based on factors that are common to our society, if not all humanity.

There's a certain degree of nuance from person to person, but there's also a high degree of commonality at the "big picture" level. We may have different ideas about whether the Marx Brothers are funnier than the Three Stooges (or whether either of them are funny at all), but in general, we can all agree that Shindler's List isn't a comedy.

Maybe a wallaby, squid or paramecium wouldn't share this point of view, but none of them are in my intended audience.

But getting back to the analogies I used: my whole point was to illustrate that factual matters do inform our judgements of things like love and faith, even if they don't define these things fully. If you don't think that exceptional ugliness or nastiness is a matter of fact, then set them aside and go with my last analogy.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be an answer to my question.

We each know facts. When we share the facts we know it is in the form of claims that speak to the truth. Even claims of truth and love. I'm not disagreeing with you in that regard.

Do you really think that preferences are arbitrary?

No, but its arbitrariness is by definition preferential. "Ugly's" definition incorporates a personal preference (and I quote: "displeasing to the eye").

I'm a human being talking to other human beings. Whether because of innate instinct, upbringing or cultural conditioning, to a certain extent, aesthetic determinations are based on factors that are common to our society, if not all humanity.

There's a certain degree of nuance from person to person, but there's also a high degree of commonality at the "big picture" level. We may have different ideas about whether the Marx Brothers are funnier than the Three Stooges (or whether either of them are funny at all), but in general, we can all agree that Shindler's List isn't a comedy.

Maybe a wallaby, squid or paramecium wouldn't share this point of view, but none of them are in my intended audience.

But getting back to the analogies I used: my whole point was to illustrate that factual matters do inform our judgements of things like love and faith, even if they don't define these things fully. If you don't think that exceptional ugliness or nastiness is a matter of fact, then set them aside and go with my last analogy.

No argument, there, but aesthetic determinations are also unique case (the nuances are not insignificant). Every individual who puts the pieces of the world together does so in a unique way (from their unique database of vocabulary), and what is "pleasing to the eye" of one need not be pleasing in the same way, to the same degree, or for the same reasons, to anyone else.

Ugliness can be a matter of fact --for the individual.

 

[Willamena]

‘I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without love
For love would be love of the wrong thing; there is yet faith
But the faith and the love and the hope are all in the waiting.
Wait without thought, for you are not ready for thought:
So the darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.'

~T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

 

[lunamoth]

But if a conclusion is based solely on evidence and rational logic, then I don't need your "gestalt". And any question of fact is a conclusion based solely on evidence and rational logic. The whole point of rational decision-making is that given the same set of premises and initial facts, anyone can arrive at the same conclusion.

Rationality is repeatable. When have all the same facts and we arrive at different conclusions, this is an indication that at least one of us based at least part of our reasoning on something other than rational logic. Maybe this is valid when we're considering a matter of aesthetics or personal preference, but it's not valid when we're considering a matter of fact.

As I said before, love or faith might not be reducible to empirical facts, but any conclusions of love or faith that are contradicted by empirical facts can be dismissed as invalid.

Not all thought needs to be logical to be reasonable.

You can't invalidate love or faith by presenting facts.

We are not meat robots.

These statements totally need an emoticon. : hamster :

 

[lunamoth]

‘I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without love
For love would be love of the wrong thing; there is yet faith
But the faith and the love and the hope are all in the waiting.
Wait without thought, for you are not ready for thought:
So the darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.'

~T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

Nice!

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Right. And the "same conclusion" they arrive at will be their own.

Effectively making it a unique conclusion.

 

[Magic Man]

Not all thought needs to be logical to be reasonable.

Can you give an example of something you believe in that's both illogical and reasonable?

You can't invalidate love or faith by presenting facts.

That's not his point.

We are not meat robots.

You're right, but no one here is saying we are. We're saying when you believe something exists, you're supposed to have evidence for it. Something illogical can't exist. That's the entire point of logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not all thought needs to be logical to be reasonable.

It doesn't need to be derived exclusively from logic, but if it's going to be considered reasonable, it can't be refuted by logic.

You can't invalidate love or faith by presenting facts.

Any claim of truth is subject to the facts. What you say is correct only so far as love or faith hold no claims of truth. I suppose that this might work for love, but you wouldn't be able to swing a metaphorical cat in a church on Sunday morning without hitting at least a dozen faith-based truth claims.

We are not meat robots.

How do you know?