The Difference Between Believing Something To Be True And Faith
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2014, 06:38 AM
RE: The Difference Between Believing Something To Be True And Faith
Quote:That is untrue. Swinburne is widely considered to be one of the best Christian philosphers and he uses Bayes' Theorem in his books (refer The Existence of God and The Resurrection of God Incarnate). Swinburne doesn't assign a probability of 1 to any of his arguments
.

Chippy - I am very familiar with Swinburne and you are quite right - he uses Bayes' Theorem - fantastic.
I seriously don't think most fundamentalists have even heard of Bayes' Theorem.
Swinburne is an academic philosopher, I agree the way I or Peter Boghossian used the term faith may not apply to the Bayes' Theorem analysis. In Swinbornes account faith definitely takes into account probability evaluations regardless of what you think about the likelihood of the inputs he puts into the Bayes equation.

I don't think many people really use Bayes' Theorem as a guide their religious convictions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 06:45 AM
RE: The Difference Between Believing Something To Be True And Faith
(05-01-2014 06:20 AM)Baruch Wrote:  When someone uses the word faith they often claim a type of intuition or holy ghost speaking to them or special access to KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS. Just read the posts here on this blog by those inspired by holy ghosts eg Alla.

Yes because in the LDS things are authrnticated by experiencing a "burning of the bosom" and amongst charismatic churches with gifts from the Holy Ghost i.e. charisma. But that isn't the entire Christian world.

Quote:In Judaism "Faith" does generally translate better as "trust" - there is evidence for this is scripture (the word Emunah). The concept of "blind faith" - faith without evidence comes about much later and was glorified and made into a virtue mainly through Christianity (and made much worse by concepts such as the leap of faith by kierkegaard )

The distinction between faith and blind faith supports my position. Kierkegard was a fideist--not all Christians are fideists. That fideism exists as a distinct theological position again supports my position. If fideism were an essential part of Christianity it would not be distinguished as it is.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 06:45 AM
RE: The Difference Between Believing Something To Be True And Faith
Quote:Chippy:
You are generalising badly about Christianity. Not all Christians claim that they know because of the Holy Ghost. Certainly some do--e.g. charismatic congregations--but by no means all of them. And those that do claim gifts from the Holy Spirit do say that they know because of some first-hand experience of charisma. The onlookers say they have faith that they are witnessing charisma because they are not themselves experiencing the Holy Ghost.

I didn't claim ALL Christians claim to know via holy Ghost - just the born again fundy's Angel
I agree with you there is a spectrum of faith claims. Yes the average Liberal church of England person may visit church, enjoy singing carols, have a general belief in Christ but if pressed in an interrogation admit that there is plenty of uncertainly and if given a maths book start articulating Baye's theorem.
[Image: bayes-theorem.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 06:54 AM
RE: The Difference Between Believing Something To Be True And Faith
Quote:The distinction between faith and blind faith supports my position. Kierkegard was a fideist--not all Christians are fideists. That fideism exists as a distinct theological position again supports my position. If fideism were an essential part of Christianity it would not be distinguished as it is.
[/quote]

Chippy:
That's precisely why I think its good to make the distinction to avoid the confusions
- use faith as a term for no justified evidence (i.e blind) NOT a Bayesian probability (contrary to Swinburne)
The general usage of the term faith DOES NOT give the impression of a Bayesian probability assessment - but like previously stated a sense of certainty about knowledge.

Again we are unlikely to agree because these terms have been used interchangeably over centuries and the meanings have changed across time & languages eg faith vs confidence vs trust vs hope. Even in the same scripture "faith" in Hebrew (emunah) has not a single definition but relates to surrounding context in the story.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 07:04 AM
RE: The Difference Between Believing Something To Be True And Faith
Faith is moral certainty. It is entangled with man's ability to simulate future. You can whine and snivel and throw things all day, but faith ain't going nowhere. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 07:10 AM
RE: The Difference Between Believing Something To Be True And Faith
(05-01-2014 06:45 AM)Baruch Wrote:  I didn't claim ALL Christians claim to know via holy Ghost - just the born again fundy's Angel

Any Christian that provides reasons for their belief--other than illumination from the Holy Ghost--is expressing something more than blind faith. The exemplar of blind faith is Alla. She is unable to provide any sort of reason for any of her claims and she admits that she has no arguments. That is a type of fideism and it is unusual. Wlilliam Lane Craig is an Evangelical Christian and he presents arguments--he is not a fideist. Fideists do not have apologetics nor do they debate--they just believe. In a debate with Krauss WLC stated that he lacks certainty and I presume that his faith enters where his uncertainty commences. That would be consistent with faith not being a positive epistemic position but rather an emotional disposition in response to uncertainty just like trust and confidence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 07:20 AM
RE: The Difference Between Believing Something To Be True And Faith
(05-01-2014 03:10 AM)Chippy Wrote:  When we go to a resturant for the first time we don't know that we won't get food poisoning; we believe that we won't get food poisoning.
Nope. Inductive logic again. The restaurant is still open. Restaurants that give their customers food poisoning (frequently) don't stay open. Therefore you're unlikely to get food poisoning. The exception is if the restaurant is a new one. And there you can use some, too. Starting a restaurant is expensive. A beginning restaurant that gives its customers food poisoning will fail basically immediately, wasting all that money. No one wants to waste money, certainly not that amount of it, so you're unlikely to get food poisoning.

(05-01-2014 03:10 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Krauss doesn't know that the building he is debating in will not collapse and kill him; he believes this will not happen (and that is a reasonable belief).
Unless it's a new building, the building has been standing for X period of time, used repeatedly, therefore it's reasonable to believe it will continue to stand. As for a new building, see the new restaurant idea.

(05-01-2014 03:10 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Similarly, he doesn't know that his cup of water hasn't been poisoned by his debate opponent; he believes this has not happened (and that is a reasonable belief) and he sips his water.

Having now sipped many cups of water at debates and not been poisoned.

It really is, seriously, hard to find something we literally take on faith. But then... I suppose you could include religion since (one supposes) everyone around the faithful believes it, too, so the evidence suggests if all of them believe it, it... nope. No, just doesn't work. You have to ignore all the other evidence to keep believing. Oh well, I tried!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 07:27 AM
RE: The Difference Between Believing Something To Be True And Faith
Quote:
Quote:DLJ:
Let's face it, it's a term ripe for equivocation.

I hope I won't be poisoned and I hope the building will not collapse.
I base my unconscious decision (my unspoken risk avoidance strategy) to eat or dwell, on my knowledge of health and safety standards or when younger, on my trust in my parents who eat and dwell there too.

I'm OK with evolution because I trust the scientific method and the evidence of my own eyes.

Hope and trust.

Call it belief if you like but faith - belief without evidence? Nah.
[/quote]

I think we should clean up our usage of language and avoid the equivocation of faith = hope or trust but use faith as a term denoting belief without evidence.(an epistemological usage)
Back to my discussion with Chippy - few people seriously use the term faith when calculating the outcome of a Bayesian algorithm. True there have been other uses of the term faith in the past eg in the original Hebrew "Emunah" is more like trust. However it is precisely this confusion which clutters and confuses people who end up justifying woo woo and belief is ghosts and deities to themselves without reasonable justification.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
05-01-2014, 07:57 AM
RE: The Difference Between Believing Something To Be True And Faith
They should remove faith and replace it with hope.

Faith is the actual problem, in my opinion.

The "god of the gaps" argument is the believer's appeal to god as an explanation for whatever phenomenon we cannot explain scientifically. For example, if the scientific understanding of the day cannot explain lightning bolts, the believer will say "god did it".Once we can scientifically explain the mechanism behind lightning, the believer will move on to another phenomenon and attribute god as the cause of that phenomenon.

Faith IS the delusion, belief without evidence. Faith is pretending to know things that you dont know. To say "I have faith in god" really means "I pretend to know things I don't know about god"....THINK about it, you dont know, you HOPE. Faith is an epistemology. It's a method and process people use to understand reality. Faith-based claims are knowledge claims. For example, "I have faith that jesus christ will heal my sickness because it says so in Luke" is a knowledge claim. The utterer of this statement is asserting jesus will heal her. Those who make faith claims are professing to know something about the external world. For example, when someone says "jesus walked on water" (matthew 14:22-33), that person is claiming TO KNOW there was an historical figure names jesus and that he, unaided by technology, literally walked across the surface of the water. This is a knowledge claim...an objective statement of fact.

Your religious beliefs typically depend on the community in which you were raised or lived. The spiritual experiences of people in ancient greece, medieval japan or 21st century saudia arabia do not lead to belief in christianity. It seems, therefore, that religious belief very likely tracks not truth but social conditioning.

Faith is a failed epistemology. Showing why faith fails has been done before and done well. (Bering 2011, Harris 2004, Loftus 2010, 2013, McCormick 2012, Schick & Vaughn 2008, Shermer 1997, 2011, Smith 1979, STenger & Barker 2012, Torres 2012, Wade 2009 etc)

If a belief is based on insufficient evidence, than any further conclusion drawn from the belief will at best be of questionable value. This can not point one to the path of truth. Here are five points believers/non believers should be able to agree upon.

1) There are different faith traditions.

2) Different faith traditions make different truth claims.

3) The truth claims of some faith traditions contradict the truth claims of other faith traditions. For example, Muslims believe muhammad (570-632) was the last prophet (Sura 33:40). Mormons believe Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who lived after muhammad was a prophet.

4) It cannot both be the case that muhammad was the last prophet, and someone who lived after him was also a prophet.

5) Therefore: At LEAST one of these claims must be false....perhaps both....

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
05-01-2014, 10:27 AM
RE: The Difference Between Believing Something To Be True And Faith
(05-01-2014 07:57 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Faith is a failed epistemology. Showing why faith fails has been done before and done well. (Bering 2011, Harris 2004, Loftus 2010, 2013, McCormick 2012, Schick & Vaughn 2008, Shermer 1997, 2011, Smith 1979, STenger & Barker 2012, Torres 2012, Wade 2009 etc)

They're dumb and you're dumb and that's all there is to it. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: