Is agnosticism neutral?

[Topher]

I’ll get straight to the point… Many people are agnostic so they can take the “neutral” stance but they are in fact supporting a biasd argument.

Let me explain:

Non-existing things do not leave behind any evidence of their non-existence, since they don’t exist. Only existing things leave behind evidence for their existence. Thus, by assuming you don't know whether God exists from start can never lead you to conclude that "God does not exist" because if God doesn’t exist, there will be no evidence of that non-existence and therefore no evidence for that conclusion.
If God does in fact exist and you find evidence for that, you will eventually reach the correct conclusion that "God exist." The problem however is that if in fact God does not exist, you are then barred from ever reaching the correct conclusion of his non-existence since there will be no evidence of the non-existence of something, and as such the agnostic stance is actually biased and NOT neutral. You have a bias in the sense that you can only conclude that God exist if God does in fact exist. If God does not exist you can never reach that conclusion.

This is why the agnostic position is fundamentally flawed/wrong.

So you have two possibilities:

a) We assume the existence of God, unless and until we have evidence of its non-existence:
This position like agnosticism will never allow you to conclude that God doesn’t exist for the same reasons as above. You also do not want to start by assuming existence as you will then start making unnecessary additional assumptions to support the initial assumption, in addition to associating stuff to something which your not sure even exists. It’s always best to start with a “clean sheet” so to not start making unnecessary assumptions. This position also commits the “fallacy of special pleading,” you apply this position to God, but rarely to anything else.

b) We assume the non-existence of God, unless and until we have evidence of its existence:
This is the only unbiased position. True, there is the initial bias in the assumption of non-existence; however it’s the only position which allows you to conclude either possibility, hence it isn’t biased. If God does not exist, you were correct in the initial assumption. If God does in fact exist, hopefully you will eventually see evidence of it and therefore correct your conclusion to be that God does exist.

This is atheist stance and it is a principle everyone, even theists, apply to almost anything else in life.

Conclusion: Weak atheist is the best default position.

[Gary]

I still happily hold the position of agnostic, since I am not looking for a resolution or conclusion, the basis of your arguement.

[BendzR]

I'd argue. But I don't disagree. ;)

[holyheadjch]

That sounds perfectly logical, and I'm still agnostic.

[CosmicFish]

Personally, my agnosticism is an admission of ignorance, rather than a direct statement of a belief that I hold.

It seems you're saying that agnosticism is biased because it's only possible to arrive at one definite belief from it? Whereas I'd agree with that, I'd like to point out that IMO, the vast majority of agnostics live an essentially atheist lifestyle anyway. As you've already pointed out, assuming the existence of some kind of deity bring all kinds of complications. So for most agnostics (again, IMO) adopting an essentially atheistic lifestyle seems the most sensible option.

Apologies if this doesn't make total sense. I'm at work and the office is a little "loud" at the moment. :rolleyes: :)

[Ikken Hisatsu]

you seem to be missing the point really homer.

[Moony]

Depends if some agnostics would be better calling themselves Deists or not, i don't think Deists would suit me though as i don't have a teleological view on things. I think agnostic suits me because although i don't out right believe in a divine presence of any sort i've not discounted it as a possibility and that trying to prove it either way would be a nightmqare.

Moony

[tekkengod]

now that i think about it, Agnosticism seems more natural than Atheisim for most.

[Mike71]

Based on what I've read about perception psychology and experienced myself, I suspect that our brains take the sensory input we receive from the world around us and make guesses of greater or lesser accuracy about what's really going on and what's really there. For this reason I don't think it's possible to prove anything absolutely, only to predict statistical likelihood, thus I categorize myself as an agnostic. I wouldn't say that I know or believe there isn't a Christian god, I would say that I think it is very unlikely, based on my current experience, that there is a Christian god or any other god for that matter. This is good enough for me because I don't feel the need for certainty (or the "correct conclusion" as you've phrased it). I also think that once someone has come to what they believe is a "correct conclusion" they cease to give it any more thought and may outright ignore information that contradicts their beliefs, accurate or not.

--Mike71

[Socrastein]

Agnosticism, as I understand it, is the position that we cannot know whether any Gods, or metaphysical beings in any sense, exist or not. Many people are agnostic because they would say that metaphysical realities are unknowable to purely physical beings. We live in a physical world, and all input from this world is derived physically. There could be infinite beings just outside our "realm" so to speak, and not only do we not know it, but we could not know it. That is the position of agnosticism. To be without (a) knowledge (gnosis).

Atheism is a lot simpler. It is the lack of belief in any gods. Without (a) god(s) (theos).

When looked at this way, all agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostics. Anyone who thinks we can't know whether God exists or not obviously doesn't believe He does. So he is without belief in God: an atheist. However, any given atheist could very well believe that God could be proven or disproven (some think he's already been disproven, they're known as strong atheists) and thus not be agnostic.

These are the words as their etymology defines them, and this is the use of the word agnostic as Thomas Huxley originally defined, which seems the most fitting since he's the one who coined the term.

You can of course define the words differently and arrive at different conclusions as to the relationship between agnosticism and atheism, but I find using words as they were originally intended to often be a very pragmatic approach.

[Strafio]

Hmmm...

Perhaps Agnosticism doesn't accept the application of occam's razor in the "Does God exist?" case.
Occam's Razor is a pragmatic rule of thumb and isn't logically necessary.
If it's pragmatical then it favours which ever theory is more "useful".
So if someone's picture of the world is better explained by theism than atheim then it would be a correct use of Occam's Razor for them to deny the atheistic theory.

Christianity, for example, uses historical evidence to back its faith.
I think that historians generally agree that the new testament is written by genuine eye witnesses of the time, and even if they think that the Bible is wrong, they have different reasons for it. So Christianity claims strong historical evidence.
Purely on historical evidence, it's said that we can be a lot more sure about Jesus and his life than all the other historical figures we take for granted, like Julius Caeser. (although I'm not a historian and the sources I've taken the word for are likely biased...)

Anyway, the reason why people find the New Testament harder to accept as evidence is because it describes supernatural events that people don't believe possible. The reason that they don't believe supernatural events (e.g. God) possible is by supposing that all the evidence suggests that he isn't necessary.
Isn't this kind of circular?
It does depend on whether the New Testament is as historically strong as Christians make out.

However, Christians will also be applying Occam's Razor to "natural explanations" of how the Bible came to be written without the events actually happening, or atleast without God being involved. (I've been told that these explanations are completely implausable but it was again from biased sources.) Perhaps one theory they dismiss is that Jesus was an alien who used amazing technology to impress people into believing he was the Son of God. This theory is so supernatural (with the aliens) that it's very prone to Occam's Razor but isn't theism just as supernatural? So maybe double standards to support their theism?

Agnostics would then point out that both positions are justifiable with their evidence but not conclusive? I made this argument on the spot so it's probably very poor! :)
Although strong Agnosticism would probably claim that neither position is justifiable which is probably going a bit too far...

I agree that strong Agnosticism isn't neutral, but I think a weak agnosticism would be.
It would find any position acceptable so long as it was "weak".
I think that's where I stand.
So I don't tend to argue with people unless their position is "strong" enough to tell me that I'm wrong. It might be that my position is influenced a lot by practicality rather than being pure reason, but I think I have good reasons too...

Meh! I've no shame in being a pragmatist! :)

(By the by, wb Socky! :))

[Socrastein]

I think that historians generally agree that the new testament is written by genuine eye witnesses of the time

Eyewitnesses of Jesus? No, historians do not agree on that. In fact, I don't know if I've read any present-day articles that suggest such a thing. The most generous provision you'll see is that whoever wrote the gospels probably knew one of Jesus apostles and simply wrote down what they heard from them. There is no evidence that I know of that says the gospels are written as first-hand accounts.

Purely on historical evidence, it's said that we can be a lot more sure about Jesus and his life than all the other historical figures we take for granted, like Julius Caeser.

By most Christians that don't know a lot about history, yes. But those same Christians, that don't know a lot about science, say that evolution takes as much faith as creation ;)

Regardless, even if we had 100% proof that the authors of the new testament were all right there with front row seats, that doesn't prove anything. You can get eye-witness accounts of people with front row seats to UFO abductions. These accounts aren't even 2000 years old, and any rational person will still discount them. Same with people who see ghosts in haunted houses. There are books written by such people, who were right there and claim to have seen their dead relatives - this proves nothing.

Why should 2000 year old books about equally ridiculous things, that aren't even first-hand accounts, hold any weight in the matter of metaphysical beings and miracles whatsoever?

[Strafio]

Eyewitnesses of Jesus? No, historians do not agree on that. In fact, I don't know if I've read any present-day articles that suggest such a thing. The most generous provision you'll see is that whoever wrote the gospels probably knew one of Jesus apostles and simply wrote down what they heard from them. There is no evidence that I know of that says the gospels are written as first-hand accounts.
I miss-worded that a little...
I think there's evidence that two of them are first hand accounts, one was written by someone who investigated first-hand accounts. Once again, my sources are all biased. :)

By most Christians that don't know a lot about history, yes. But those same Christians, that don't know a lot about science, say that evolution takes as much faith as creation ;)
Awww come on... Creationists are in the minority of Christians, I think, let alone theists in general! :)

Regardless, even if we had 100% proof that the authors of the new testament were all right there with front row seats, that doesn't prove anything. You can get eye-witness accounts of people with front row seats to UFO abductions. These accounts aren't even 2000 years old, and any rational person will still discount them. Same with people who see ghosts in haunted houses. There are books written by such people, who were right there and claim to have seen their dead relatives - this proves nothing.
Personally, I often find these stories have enough "substance" to not necessarily believe them, but not write them off either. Sometimes it seems like there's just too many "coincidences" to be a genuine coincidence. Although I think I get a point you're making - a lot of Christians will happily write these experiences off as irrational which is probably showing some kind of double standards.

Why should 2000 year old books about equally ridiculous things, that aren't even first-hand accounts, hold any weight in the matter of metaphysical beings and miracles whatsoever?
Remember, you only find them ridiculous because you already disbelieve in supernatural. We're talking about reasons for justifying belief in supernatural. I think that your disbelief is justified but I think that people can be justified in believing too.

It might be that I think it's justifiable to believe something your intuition or gut instinct says sometimes, that pure reason over simplifies things and can ignore things that aren't absolutely clear but might still be true. I know that pure intuition is erratic and can't be relied upon so I try to balance it out, make use of both. Often my intuition has told me things that I couldn't reason at the time but genuine reasons revealed themselves in time.

Perhaps what you're really arguing against is a strong theism that claims that these 2000 year old accounts are conclusive evidence for everyone and people are irrational to deny it, in which case I agree with you. The evidence definately isn't that strong. But it might be strong enough to support weaker, humbler, more personal beliefs.

[Socrastein]

I'll try to simply rather than fire little quips at quoted sections. In science, anecdotal evidence is just about useless. You simply cannot base conclusions about reality on what people think, or feel, or say. People are irrational, emotional, easily confused, and completely unreliable. If there isn't strong evidence associated with what someone is claiming, then their claim means nothing. If we found a weird alien tool in someones *cough* that claimed to have been abducted, then the claim is worth investigating further and could very well be taken seriously. But, every claim of abduction I've ever heard has no physical, testable evidence to back it up whatsoever. Which reduces it to some guy yapping his mouth.

It's no different with metaphysical claims, except that the stakes are higher (The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needed to back it). We have books, with people talking about things they weren't even there to see. And that's all we have. We have no physical, testable evidence that any of the miracles and fantastic events actually happened. Essentially, we have some guys writing "Someone once told me". You have to really, really want to believe what those books say to actually accept them as evidence in any way.

Remember, you only find them ridiculous because you already disbelieve in supernatural.

No, I find them ridiculous because they are without any supporting evidence whatsoever, which happens to be the same reason I don't accept any other supernatural claims. It's not circular at all. It's a reasonable application of parsimony, and a scientific demand for evidence.

[Topher]

So if someone's picture of the world is better explained by theism than atheim then it would be a correct use of Occam's Razor for them to deny the atheistic theory.
Is Occam’s Razor relative? I would say no.

[Topher]

you seem to be missing the point really homer.
Please elaborate.

[Strafio]

I'm not going to argue for the accuracy of the Bible as I'm not really convinced of it myself. :)
I still reckon that people can be justified for their belief in God.
It might be that I'm irrational in that belief.
(I have noticed that I am happy to believe in lots of things that aren't perfectly rational, but I'm not sure whether it's irrational for me to do so)

It's no different with metaphysical claims, except that the stakes are higher (The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needed to back it).
So there are some types of knowledge, like the sort that comes from science, that is objectively justified and fairly indisputable. (the only disputes tend to be how good the science is)

But is that where justified belief begins and finishes?
Perhaps the question is whether it's rational to have faith in something.
It goes back to what I said last post about intuition, how it can be irrational but it can also tell you things that rationalising's over-simplification of matters over-looked, or things that are rational but you don't fully understand the reasons for it yet.

So when people have strange experiences, perhaps the atheist applies Occam's Razor to the idea of supernatural and the theist applies Occam's Razor to the idea of such improbable coincidence. I wouldn't call either of them right or wrong in their reasoning, even though only one of them can have the right answer.

Is Occam’s Razor relative? I would say no.
When there's several theories that explain the facts, Occam's Razor says pick the one with the least assumptions. So it depends on which set of believed facts that it is applied to. These sets of believed facts will be relative, right?

[Topher]

When there's several theories that explain the facts, Occam's Razor says pick the one with the least assumptions.
Yes

So it depends on which set of believed facts that it is applied to. These sets of believed facts will be relative, right?
It should be applied to the set that makes the least amount of assumptions.

How many assumptions a theory makes shouldn't be depended on the person. That is, if someone believed theism was correct, it would not mean Occam’s Razor supports it. A person belief is irrelevant to its proper use.

[Strafio]

What I meant is that it'll be applied to the set of facts that they believe in.
So perhaps you could argue that it's only because they have false beliefs (e.g. they've mistaken natural phenomena for mircales) but it's a correct application of Occam's Razor.

Based on the facts they believe in, theism has less assumptions than atheism so it's natural for them to pick theism.

[Topher]

What I meant is that it'll be applied to the set of facts that they believe in.
So perhaps you could argue that it's only because they have false beliefs (e.g. they've mistaken natural phenomena for mircales) but it's a correct application of Occam's Razor.
Which theory they believed in would not affect the result of applying Occam’s Razor. It’s really so simple I don’t know how you don’t get it.

Say you have ‘Theory A’ and ‘Theory B’. Just because you believed in Theory A, doesn’t not mean Theory A is more parsimonious, thus it would be incorrect to apply Occam's Razor to Theory A on the basis of belief. If you believed in Theory A, but Theory B was more parsimonious then it would be correct to apply Occam's Razor to Theory B.

It is not the correct use of Occam’s Razor to apply it to a theory just because you believe it.

Based on the facts they believe in, theism has less assumptions than atheism so it's natural for them to pick theism.
Theism has way more assumption than Athiem. Notebly, that a God exists; that he created the universe, Earth and people; that he interacts with us; that scriptures regarding him are true; that alledged historical events are true...

Athiems is the lack of belief and therefore dosn't assume (without reason). True, an athiests may initially assume the non-existent of God, but only because it's the most logical "first step" to take, as explained in the first post.

[Topher]

To add to the issue of assumptions... The metaphysical/supernatural is beyond the natural world and therefore beyond our ability to comprehend. The very fact that theism is a supernatural claim* means it is complex beyond necessary. Any theory is more parsimonious than a supernatural claim.

*We cannot really even use the word ‘theory’ regarding the supernatural because for the reasons stated above, we cannot even form a supernatural hypothesis.

[Strafio]

Interesting point...
I guess a theory involving supernatural simply says "these are things we can't explain"
Didn't think of it like that. :)

[Topher]

Exactly.

It's even worse when we can explain it.

:)

[Strafio]

Well, we say that we can explain bits.
"There's this God who's talked to us in these certain ways."
"He's made certain things happen"
"He kind of thinks like us (we're designed to think a little like him)."

But the most of it, who God is, what "rules" he'd live by, how he'd begin/end etc...
That would be complete mystery.

[Topher]

Anything in the realm of supernatural are claims and nothing more. If they could be explained, they would no longer be supernatural.

[Strafio]

Hmmm...
Perhaps I swap 'explain' for 'know' in that sentence.
We can 'know' certain things about supernatural, e.g. the effects they've had on the natural world and in the case of God/alien life, things they've communicated to this.
Back to the point though, even if the theist can't apply Ockham's Razor, the agnostic can still deny that it is appropiate for the atheist to. They could say that the atheist is over-simplifying the world and trying to deny possible facts of the world.

(someone can't be an agnostic unless they believe there's a possibility of truth to the claims of miracles and the like.)

[Topher]

Hmmm...
Perhaps I swap 'explain' for 'know' in that sentence.
We can 'know' certain things about supernatural, e.g. the effects they've had on the natural world and in the case of God/alien life, things they've communicated to this.
I don't believe we can know. As i said before, the supernatural is beyond the natural world and therefore beyond our ability to comprehend. Sure, the belief in supernatural claims can have effects, but there is no reason/evidence to suggest that the alleged supernatural entity is the cause of it because that would infer the existence of that supernatural entity.

As for God and aliens, their existence is nothing more than unsupported claims to.

Back to the point though, even if the theist can't apply Ockham's Razor, the agnostic can still deny that it is appropiate for the atheist to. They could say that the atheist is over-simplifying the world and trying to deny possible facts of the world.
On what grounds? Can you give an example?

I don't see how because the very nature of Occam's Razor is "one or the other." It's as simple as "which one makes the least amount of assumptions."

Also, atheists are not trying to deny possible facts (key word: "possible") they are merely and logically saying they you shouldn't start to make assumption that are unnecessary. By all means, make the assumption when you have grounds to do so, but even then, if another explanation it more parsimonious then it will be preferred.

(someone can't be an agnostic unless they believe there's a possibility of truth to the claims of miracles and the like.)
I would argue that true for atheism was well. The only difference being is an atheist will say they won't believe (or lack a belief) until they see evidence to the contrary, whereas the agnostic would say they reserve judgement until they get evidence for either side, however as stated in the first post, they can never get evidence of the non-existent of God.

[cloudz]

I think it's that they rejects theism as a viable version of god. So they don't reject per se the idea of something natural and all pervading - life itself. Seems it's everything in between theism and (including) atheism. It's pretty cool really, when you joining up holmes ? :)

[CosmicFish]

I would argue that true for atheism was well. The only difference being is an atheist will say they won't believe (or lack a belief) until they see evidence to the contrary, whereas the agnostic would say they reserve judgement until they get evidence for either side, however as stated in the first post, they can never get evidence of the non-existent of God.
The way I see it, neither Atheist nor Agnostic belives in a God. However, the Agnostic says "I'll reserve judgement until I have some kind of proof one way or the other". The Atheist, on the other hand says "Until I have proof that a God exists, I'm going to assume that one doesn't".

I'll admit I'm simplifying somewhat, but I don't see how pointing out the fact that you can't have evidence for the non-existence of God leads to making it more acceptable to assume that there isn't one.

[Strafio]

I don't believe we can know. As i said before, the supernatural is beyond the natural world and therefore beyond our ability to comprehend. Sure, the belief in supernatural claims can have effects, but there is no reason/evidence to suggest that the alleged supernatural entity is the cause of it because that would infer the existence of that supernatural entity.

As for God and aliens, their existence is nothing more than unsupported claims to.
I was talking hypothetical.
If there was something supernatural then these were things we could know.


By the by, maybe "supernatural" as we're calling it doesn't have to be unknowable. Maybe it's just something unknown to us yet. So the theist applies Ockham's Razor by saying:
"Trying to assume these miracles/unexplainable events (unexplainable by current knowledge) were purely down to the natural laws we are currently familiar with either doesn't work or requires amazing chance/coincidences."

That would be an argument for there's more than we can currently see.
Thing is, when they start talking about characteristics of a God they probably out-do coincidences on the craziness scale!

So perhaps the agnostic reckons that the atheist rules too much out but the theist then assumes too much. So the agnostic reckons that there's enough evidence to say there's something to it but not necessarily enough to justify the theistic belief. The weak agnostic would then be neutral as he reckons that any weak belief is as good as the other. How's that? :)

[Socrastein]

"Trying to assume these miracles/unexplainable events (unexplainable by current knowledge) were purely down to the natural laws we are currently familiar with either doesn't work or requires amazing chance/coincidences."

That would be an argument for there's more than we can currently see.

A fallacious argument, yes. It's an appeal to ignorance. A subtle version of "you can't disprove God therefore he exists", put in the form "you can't explain these things naturally therefore they're supernatural".

[Strafio]

Not quite...
I mean the burning bush that wouldn't burn up like the laws of chemistry demand called itself God. I mean, that's not quite an appeal to ignorance. :)
Seriously though, it's not necessarily an appeal to ignorance.
"Our current understanding of nature can't explain this." - so they're claiming a grasp of our current understanding of nature and saying it can't work for this and saying that it's something that we have no understanding of at this moment of time.

It might even be something that they believe isn't understandable.
If there's a problem, "it can't be solved" is sometimes the correct solution to have.
(e.g. there's a lot of problems proved mathematically unsolvable)

[Socrastein]

I mean the burning bush that wouldn't burn up like the laws of chemistry demand called itself God. I mean, that's not quite an appeal to ignorance.

Actually, yes it is. That's a perfect example. "Hey something weird is happening... I can't explain it, therefore it's magic". This is never a rationally justifiable conclusion Strafio. The reasonable person would simply say "I don't know, let's see what we can find out".

[Strafio]

Actually, yes it is. That's a perfect example. "Hey something weird is happening... I can't explain it, therefore it's magic". This is never a rationally justifiable conclusion Strafio. The reasonable person would simply say "I don't know, let's see what we can find out".
Remember the Bush actually calls itself God, that it talks and tells the answer.
I guess that would be missing your point though.
Accepting that the Bush is God talking is taking the "first answer to mind", rather than looking into all the possible causes how you could have seen such a thing that seems to contradict the laws of nature, would probably be an appeal to ignorance.

Although I don't think it has to be appealing to ignorance, it can be claiming ignorance with appeal to current knowledge. For instance, in Logic and Maths, some problems have been proved to be unsolvable. Mathematicians used their knowledge of mathematics to show that some questions can't be answered. (I'm sure you've come across Godel?)

Likewise, a theist could claim that there are events going on that our current scientific methods can't explain. The atheist on the other hand, uses current knowledge as justification to deny these events (suggest how it could be imagined, the accounts be exadurated, suggest a natural phenomenon that would produce a similar effect).

However, it is scientific to "rule out" anomalous results so the atheist might be more scientific here.

[Topher]

Likewise, a theist could claim that there are events going on that our current scientific methods can't explain.
So the best approach is to simply say “I don’t know”

The moment you say “I can’t explain it, therefore it must be…” is an appeal to ignorance. It’s making an assumption out of ignorance.

[Strafio]

Kind of, but not quite.
According to the theistic belief, this God communicates to them and tells them what's going on. So most of the details they don't/can't know, e.g. where this God came from etc...

All they know are messages that seem to come from him and that he causes some crazy things to happen. When I put it like that it kind of sounds silly... :)

[Topher]

Kind of, but not quite.
According to the theistic belief, this God communicates to them and tells them what's going on. So most of the details they don't/can't know, e.g. where this God came from etc...

All they know are messages that seem to come from him and that he causes some crazy things to happen. When I put it like that it kind of sounds silly... :)
First they need to prove that God actually did speak to them. Until then people have every reason to say that God didn't communicate. Until they can prove it, their claim is simply unsupported and useless!

And to state that "we cannot explane these alledged messages/events, therefore it's God" is an argument of ignorance.

Additionally, we can apply Occam's Razor - what's more likely: God spoke to someone, or, they were mistaken/there is a more naturalistic, provable answer.

As i said before, the claim of God communicating in any way is supernatural, hence any other explanation for it is a better explanation.

[Strafio]

First they need to prove that God actually did speak to them. Until then people have every reason to say that God didn't communicate.
But they'd still have plenty of reason to say that he did, right?
Agnosticism says both beliefs are as good as the other. (weak agnosticism anyway)

And to state that "we cannot explane these alledged messages/events, therefore it's God" is an argument of ignorance.
Not quite. Natural sciences can't explain it.
The people who are given "authority" to prophesy or perform these miracles talk of God. That's where it comes from.

Additionally, we can apply Occam's Razor - what's more likely: God spoke to someone, or, they were mistaken/there is a more naturalistic, provable answer.
Not sure! I'm an agnostic - I don't make this decision! ;)
But I reckon that both choices are potentially justifiable.
Scientific knowledge can tell us so much about the world but is there all there is to it? (atheist)
Or perhaps you believe in more but it cannot be talked about, "it must pass over us in silence"?
Or perhaps someone believes that despite the mystery of supernatural stuff, there are some things we can know?

[Topher]

But they'd still have plenty of reason to say that he did, right?
Such as?

Agnosticism says both beliefs are as good as the other.
No, it actually just withholds judgement, and therefore doesn’t really say anything.

Not quite. Natural sciences can't explain it.
The people who are given "authority" to prophesy or perform these miracles talk of God. That's where it comes from.
To suggest it “came from God” is to infer God’s existence, which is an argument of ignorance. It’s irrelevant whether it is supernatural or natural. The point is it is making an assumption out of lack of knowledge a.k.a ignorance - “I can’t explain it, therefore is must be God.”

But I reckon that both choices are potentially justifiable.
How? Based on what evidence?

Scientific knowledge can tell us so much about the world but is there all there is to it?
Maybe, maybe not. But because we don’t know whether there is something else out there, concluding there is, such as a God or heaven, is another argument of ignorance. “We can’t explain this by any means, therefore is magic.”

[Strafio]

Such as?
Something call itself God does the sort of thing only a "God" could do.
Sure, there's other possible explanations. It potentially could be a trick but it could also be true.

No, it actually just withholds judgement, and therefore doesn’t really say anything.
I thought that strong agnosticism said that you can't know.
So a weaker agnostic would just decide not to rule anything out?

To suggest it “came from God” is to infer God’s existence, which is an argument of ignorance. It’s irrelevant whether it is supernatural or natural. The point is it is making an assumption out of lack of knowledge a.k.a ignorance - “I can’t explain it, therefore is must be God.”
"I can't explain it, therefore I trust the explanation it gives to me."
After that, other things that can't be explained could also be attributed to this "God".

How? Based on what evidence?
What evidence I have that they're both justifiable?
Because I've heard justification from both sides and can't "disprove" the justification of either? At the moment I haven't fully analysed the arguments of either. Some theists say that disbelief in God is unjustifiable. Their "objective proof" is usually based in history - not sure how accurate it is although there are somethings that look difficult to refute, like the prophesies. Apparently 100+ OT prophesies have come true. Lots of things like that. Although I admit that it might involve a blind faith that no-one is completely irrational. :)

It's crossed my mind that on pure reason atheism might be the only justifiable belief, but even then I'd argue that pure reason isn't sufficient for practical belief. Basically, I'm trying every angle here so if I am wrong, atleast I'll be 100% sure how and why. So as we were... :)

[cloudz]

Although I admit that it might involve a blind faith that no-one is completely irrational. :)

Mm like this. As a faith it would seem to really stack up. can we say a faith also that no one is completely rational either. I mean you wouldn't be wanting one without the other would you.

[Topher]

Something call itself God does the sort of thing only a "God" could do.
Sure, there's other possible explanations. It potentially could be a trick but it could also be true.
Yes. But to say, “well, because we don’t know what it is, it therefore must be God” is a picture perfect example of an argument from ignorance.

I thought that strong agnosticism said that you can't know.
So a weaker agnostic would just decide not to rule anything out?
Yes.

Strong agnosticism is that the existence of Gods is unknowable and we are not capable of comprehending such information. It is based on epistemology which states that humans can only experience the natural world and therefore cannot know anything which may exist outside it.

Weak agnosticism is that the existence of Gods is currently unknown, but not necessarily indefinitely. Therefore the weak agnostic would withholds judgement until further evidence. This was the basis of my first post as weak agnosticism is the least neutral as if they are waiting for further evidence, they can only get evidence to conclude "God exists."

Agnosticism is a view about knowledge, whereas theism and atheism are beliefs, or lack of, and is therefore compatible with theism and atheism. With that in mind, you can believe in God and thus be a theist, but also believe that knowledge about such God is not obtainable and therefore also be agnostic.

For the record, I’m a strong agnostic (I don’t believe we can truly comprehend the supernatural), and a weak atheist (I don’t state that God doesn’t exist, I just don’t believe he does.) I would change my mind he we can get evidence which we can comprehend and therefore prove, although I'm a little confussed, because if we can understand it, it would be natural, not supernatural.

"I can't explain it, therefore I trust the explanation it gives to me."
After that, other things that can't be explained could also be attributed to this "God".
Still and argument of ignorance!
Also, what explanation does it give?

Because I've heard justification from both sides and can't "disprove" the justification of either?
And what would this justification be? (Besides the “prophecies”)
Also, it's not always about disproving it, but rather what is more likely.

although there are somethings that look difficult to refute, like the prophesies. Apparently 100+ OT prophesies have come true
There are tons of failed “prophecies” and the ones which seem to have been filled were either not about the events they were assigned to and/or so vague they could be assigned to various events (example, prophesises of Jesus’ resurrection were actually about David)

Any good prophecies must meet the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaticinium_ex_eventu

Also consider this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_proe.htm

You can also apply Occam’s Razor.

[Strafio]

Strong agnosticism is that the existence of Gods is unknowable and we are not capable of comprehending such information. It is based on epistemology which states that humans can only experience the natural world and therefore cannot know anything which may exist outside it.

Weak agnosticism is that the existence of Gods is currently unknown, but not necessarily indefinitely. Therefore the weak agnostic would withholds judgement until further evidence. This was the basis of my first post as weak agnosticism is the least neutral as if they are waiting for further evidence, they can only get evidence to conclude "God exists."
Meh! I probably need to refine my definitions a bit. :)

Still and argument of ignorance!
Also, what explanation does it give?
Like I said, it doesn't fully explain anything.
All they know is that something supernatural happened and they got communicated to by something who claimed to be behind it. That's what they called God. That's what they know about God purely from "history".
The rest is based on what he told them.

And what would this justification be? (Besides the “prophecies”)
Also, it's not always about disproving it, but rather what is more likely.
The usual "historical accuracy" of the gospels.
Psychological reasons why the disciples had no reason to give up their lives to spread a lie... Apparently, most historians agree that the Bible is accurately written, just that there's an "explanation" as to why things "seemed" like miracles. (Like Jesus having a brother who pretended to be him after the resurrections.)

The Christians then point out how crazy these "explanations" are. Purely on historical evidence and Ockham's Razor then the Christians are right. It's only when we talk of supernatural that people get put off. So people reject the historical accuracy because it seems so unrealistic rather than thinking it's unrealistic out of bad history. Also they seem to make a few too many assumptions themselves. One is that the time between the events happening and being written wasn't enough for chinese whispers and legends to creep in. Those two magicians argued against that point with "Elvis died only 30 years ago but plenty of people believe he's still alive/been abducted etc..."

It's complicated. :)

There are tons of failed “prophecies” and the ones which seem to have been filled were either not about the events they were assigned to and/or so vague they could be assigned to various events (example, prophesises of Jesus’ resurrection were actually about David)

Any good prophecies must meet the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaticinium_ex_eventu

Also consider this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_proe.htm

You can also apply Occam’s Razor.
Sounds interesting. I'll give it a look.

[Topher]

Like I said, it doesn't fully explain anything.
All they know is that something supernatural happened and they got communicated to by something who claimed to be behind it. That's what they called God. That's what they know about God purely from "history".
The rest is based on what he told them.
The smart thing to do then, before anything else, would be to investigate the accuracy/validity of this so called communicator and/or communication.

You need to ask yourself… was someone really contacted by God, or were they mistaken, misunderstood, dreamt, or hallucinated. Or look at it like this, what is more likely - David Blane can really levitate, or is there some trick going on?

You don’t what to conclude the supernatural claims with the hollow assumption of God.

Also, you say “all they know is that something supernatural happened.” Well just because we cannot explain something, does not mean it is supernatural. It just means we cannot explain it. Secondly, they allege to have been communicated. What did this communication consist of and what was the means of this communication? Thirdly, they base their knowledge of this God, and of his existence from books and so called “history.” More often than none, they were never commutated to; they just assume God as the cause based on their faith.

The usual "historical accuracy" of the gospels.
Psychological reasons why the disciples had no reason to give up their lives to spread a lie... Apparently, most historians agree that the Bible is accurately written, just that there's an "explanation" as to why things "seemed" like miracles. (Like Jesus having a brother who pretended to be him after the resurrections.)
Well lets not get into this as we all know where it would end up, but to say the Bible is accurately written is quite frankly laughable.

The Christians then point out how crazy these "explanations" are. Purely on historical evidence and Ockham's Razor then the Christians are right. It's only when we talk of supernatural that people get put off. So people reject the historical accuracy because it seems so unrealistic rather than thinking it's unrealistic out of bad history. Also they seem to make a few too many assumptions themselves. One is that the time between the events happening and being written wasn't enough for chinese whispers and legends to creep in. Those two magicians argued against that point with "Elvis died only 30 years ago but plenty of people believe he's still alive/been abducted etc..."
Well no, even if Christians thinks it is crazy (which is rich!), any explanation would be more parsimonious that the one they accept.

People reject their explanations because they are most likely not accurate and/or misleading. It’s bad, or at the very least, questionable history. It doesn’t help either when some/a lot of the “history” is supernatural based.

As for Chinese whispers and legends. Legends can start very quickly, within days, and then escalate. Just think what decades can do to an orally passed story.

Penn and Teller’s argument was not that some people believe Elvis is still alive (although they did mention it), their actual argument was that there was conflicting descriptions of the recipe to Elvis’ favourite chicken. Both accounts are from people who knew him. Imagine trying to recreate the real Elvis chicken 2000 years from now. ;)

[Strafio]

Have you seen the Red Dwarf episode where we see the evolution of "cat".
The cats that evolved from his cat had the a religion based on the fastfood restaurant that he was planning to open.

There was a holy war between those who thought that the hats should be blue and those that thought the hats would be red.

"Smegging Hell! They were supposed to be green!!"


It is looking like that based on pure reason that atheism is the one to choose.
Having said that, it might not be rational to rely on pure reason for all justification. Sometimes a little faith might be required, although that's for another topic.
Perhaps that would be the agnostic's position.
Theistic beliefs can't be justified through pure rationality, but what we can know through pure rationality is limited compared to what's really out there. So because the agnostic accepts that a little faith is justified, and that beliefs can still be justified with faith, and because a "lack of faith" requires a kind of faith, (faith in the fact that faith isn't necessary, if that makes sense) that both atheistic and theistic beliefs are justifiable and neither can claim the indisputibility of good science.
So like you said, this agnostic could be atheistic or theistic, but could find either position acceptable so long as they didn't claim to be more certain than they ought?

I think this is similar to your agnostic-atheist position, except you might not be happy to allow faith in justification?

[Topher]

Theistic beliefs can't be justified through pure rationality, but what we can know through pure rationality is limited compared to what's really out there.
How do we know something is out there?

Having said that, it might not be rational to rely on pure reason for all justification. Sometimes a little faith might be required, although that's for another topic.
Perhaps that would be the agnostic's position. So because the agnostic accepts that a little faith is justified, and that beliefs can still be justified with faith, and because a "lack of faith" requires a kind of faith, (faith in the fact that faith isn't necessary, if that makes sense) that both atheistic and theistic beliefs are justifiable and neither can claim the indisputibility of good science.
Agnosticism isn’t part theism, part atheism. It’s about knowledge, not belief. So someone can be agnostic and completely accept faith, while another person can be agnostic and completely accept logic and reason. Belief, or lack of it, is separate to agnosticism. It would be the person who accepts faith (or not), not agnosticism.

On a side note, how can you justify a belief based on faith? Also, ‘lack of faith’ is not faith. Lack of faith is not making assumptions without reason and faith is the opposite of that. So someone with lack of faith is simply not making unnecessary assumptions.

So like you said, this agnostic could be atheistic or theistic, but could find either position acceptable so long as they didn't claim to be more certain than they ought?

I think this is similar to your agnostic-atheist position, except you might not be happy to allow faith in justification?
An agnostic-theist accepts that we cannot/don’t know (their agnostic view) and admits their belief is entirely faith based (their theistic view). They wouldn’t necessarily say it was justified.

[Strafio]

So you want justification for allowing faith?

How do we know something is out there?
It's not that we know that something's out there, we just know that even if there is, pure reason denies it. It over simplifies things to a degree, irons out anomalous results for an "objective picture". The "pure reason" we've been talking about across the past pages anyway.

Agnosticism isn’t part theism, part atheism. It’s about knowledge, not belief.
I didn't say it was.
I was saying that an agnostic says that the definate answer isn't knowable so they consider both atheism and theism fair beliefs.

On a side note, how can you justify a belief based on faith? Also, ‘lack of faith’ is not faith. Lack of faith is not making assumptions without reason and faith is the opposite of that. So someone with lack of faith is simply not making unnecessary assumptions.
Refusal to "have faith" requires belief that faith isn't necessary.
That in itself is a leap of faith.
Personally, I think that everyone has faith in something or other.
I don't think it's a flaw in their rationality either.
It's a case of "making do" with the limited knowledge we have of something we don't fully understand.

An agnostic-theist accepts that we cannot/don’t know (their agnostic view) and admits their belief is entirely faith based (their theistic view). They wouldn’t necessarily say it was justified.
They would have some justification.
Not as strong justification as pure reason but theistic faith doesn't have to contradict pure reason. An atheist will likely have faith of their own in various beliefs. The difference is that they don't see reason to have faith in a God.

I'd agree that pure faith isn't justifiable but usually there's a good mix of reasoning entwined with the faith, with faith filling in the "gaps".

[Topher]

It's not that we know that something's out there, we just know that even if there is, pure reason denies it. It over simplifies things to a degree, irons out anomalous results for an "objective picture". The "pure reason" we've been talking about across the past pages anyway.
If there is actually something out there we are in no position to assert it without evidence and reason. Otherwise it's nothing more than a unproven claim/assumption.

My point was if you don’t have good reason to make the assumption, don’t make it. If you do have reason, expect it to be thoroughly investigated.

I was saying that an agnostic says that the definate answer isn't knowable so they consider both atheism and theism fair beliefs.
No it doesn’t. Yes, agnosticism states the answers isn’t knowable, but it’s up to the individual to select which belief (or non belief) they favour. Agnosticism doesn’t state they are both fair beliefs. The opinions regarding the beliefs are for individual person to subscribe to. So I subscribe to the view we cannot know (agnosticism), and I lack belief in God (atheism), and believe the atheistic view, based on reason, logic and evidence is probably right. I don’t step into strong atheism however and say it is right, because that would contradict the agnostic position of not being able to know.

It seems your agnostic, and based on your arguments, you subscribe you neither theism nor atheism. Is that right? Note that you subscribing to neither view is your personal view, which it separate to the agnostic position.

Refusal to "have faith" requires belief that faith isn't necessary.
That in itself is a leap of faith.
It isn’t necessary; rather, it’s an unnecessary hindrance. It get is the way as it gives you unproven conviction(s) regarding something which sculpts your outlook, thinking and reasoning.

Faith being unnecessary isn’t a belief, its common sense. Why make assumptions which you have no reason or evidence to make. However if you claim to have reason/evidence expect it to be thoroughly investigated.

It isn’t a leap of faith either as all you’re doing is removing an unnecessary factor.

Personally, I think that everyone has faith in something or other.
It’s also important to differentiate between the sort of religious-type faith and the common ‘everyday’ faith, such as the TV turning on when I turn it on, or the sun rising etc. So yes, people do have faith in something’s, I agree, however it's usually fairly trivial. It becomes a problem when it comes to religious people because faith based thinking and reasoning takes control and absorbs and influences their mind.

[Strafio]

If there is actually something out there we are in no position to assert it without evidence and reason. Otherwise it's nothing more than a unproven claim/assumption.

My point was if you don’t have good reason to make the assumption, don’t make it. If you do have reason, expect it to be thoroughly investigated.
You're just applying "pure technical reason" again.
What you're saying here is that if something isn't as certain as pure reason can give us then we shouldn't belief it true. What I'm saying is that's no good when it comes to things we can't be certain about, because it just pretends that they aren't there.

It seems your agnostic, and based on your arguments, you subscribe you neither theism nor atheism. Is that right? Note that you subscribing to neither view is your personal view, which it separate to the agnostic position.
Something like that...
I also figure that the agnostic, but the nature of "no one can know for sure" would find all guesses a reasonable effort, provided that they had some substance too them and the believer didn't attribute more certainty than they should.


It isn’t necessary; rather, it’s an unnecessary hindrance. It get is the way as it gives you unproven conviction(s) regarding something which sculpts your outlook, thinking and reasoning.
No. It means you can work with information you don't fully understand.
Yes, it is naturally more prone to mistakes than pure rationalé but it also allows you to find out things that pure rationalé prefers to ignore.

It isn’t a leap of faith either as all you’re doing is removing an unnecessary factor.
It's a leap of faith to be sure it's unnecessary.


It’s also important to differentiate between the sort of religious-type faith and the common ‘everyday’ faith, such as the TV turning on when I turn it on, or the sun rising etc. So yes, people do have faith in something’s, I agree, however it's usually fairly trivial. It becomes a problem when it comes to religious people because faith based thinking and reasoning takes control and absorbs and influences their mind.
I agree. We both say that everyone has a little faith to supplement their reason and too much faith is going too far. What we're disagreeing on is whether theism is that step too far. I've met examples of theists who have too much faith in their "faith", I've also met theists who have their faith in good perspective and have very good reasons for having it. For me, it's the difference between a "strong" theism and a "weak" theism.

The "strong" theism says there's a God, it's a fact and everyone who's rational should know it. I think that's a leap too far in faith.
A "weak" theism says that there's no certainty about God but they've seen enough in life to give them faith in one. Any atheist who tries to refute them is instantly making an assumption about their experiences. Perhaps you want to reserve the term "justified belief" for more certain beliefs?

Anysway, that's why I figure an agnostic that says "no one can know for sure" ought to find both "weak" atheism and "weak" theism reasonable beliefs, even if they do have a personal preference for one over the other. With me I seem to drift between them. Sometimes I have a more atheistic outlook on life, sometimes theistic...

[Topher]

You're just applying "pure technical reason" again.
What you're saying here is that if something isn't as certain as pure reason can give us then we shouldn't belief it true. What I'm saying is that's no good when it comes to things we can't be certain about, because it just pretends that they aren't there.
Well if you are not certain about it, don’t make positive assertions regarding it. You’re in no position to do such thing. Otherwise it becomes an unsupported claim. If your uncertain about it simply say “I’m not sure” or “I don’t know.” It doesn’t pretend they are not there, it’s simply admitting you lack the knowledge to make conclusions.

What you’re trying to say if we cannot be certain about something, it’s ok to revert to faith based reasoning. Well I’m sorry but it isn’t.

No. It means you can work with information you don't fully understand.
No, faith doesn’t justify making arguments from ignorance, which is what your implying. What you said implies that ignorance is acceptable. While ignorance isn’t a crime, it can be corrected, it doesn’t put you in a position to make assertions. If you don’t understand something, just say you don’t understand. It doesn’t man you cannot still study it. If science for example doesn’t understand something, it still studies the issue, only making hypotheses when it in the position to do so.

Faith impairs your thinking as it makes you believe that it is a virtue to believe something just because you believe it. To believe without evidence/reason.

It's a leap of faith to be sure it's unnecessary.
No, it can be demonstrated that faith is unnecessarily by the fact that we can work perfectly fine without it, and that working with it often makes it worse.

It takes no more 'faith' to accept that faith is unnecessary than it does to accept the fact that there is no such thing as the tooth fairy.

I agree. We both say that everyone has a little faith to supplement their reason and too much faith is going too far. What we're disagreeing on is whether theism is that step too far. I've met examples of theists who have too much faith in their "faith", I've also met theists who have their faith in good perspective and have very good reasons for having it. For me, it's the difference between a "strong" theism and a "weak" theism.
No, religionists don’t just have “more” faith, they have “different” faith. Different in that in everyday life, we based our “faith” (which in this case is equivalent to confidence) on experience and knowledge etc, whereas in religion, faith becomes an excuse to make assertion/conclusions when there is no reason/evidence to do so (in an attempt to try and support their unproven belief). They are two different applications of the word ‘faith’ and to confuse the two is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)

[Strafio]

Well if you are not certain about it, don’t make positive assertions regarding it. You’re in no position to do such thing. Otherwise it becomes an unsupported claim. If your uncertain about it simply say “I’m not sure” or “I don’t know.” It doesn’t pretend they are not there, it’s simply admitting you lack the knowledge to make conclusions.

What you’re trying to say if we cannot be certain about something, it’s ok to revert to faith based reasoning. Well I’m sorry but it isn’t.
You're making things all dualistic again. Certain/not certain.
So we should only talk of what we're absolutely certain and forget everything else? You've said it yourself that you think faith is fine so long as it's acknowledged as faith. So beliefs with a bit of faith should be fine so long as it's acknowledged that there's a degree of faith in them and the believer doesn't pretend that it's as solid as pure reason.


Faith impairs your thinking as it makes you believe that it is a virtue to believe something just because you believe it. To believe without evidence/reason.
I think you've completely misunderstood faith here.
Some belief systems encourage to have faith "no matter what", but that's not because it's without evidence/reason, it's just that there's only a limited amount. And remember that's only some belief systems. It can also be a practicality too. Some people want to get on with living life and don't have time to root out "all the answers", so just having "faith" means that they can keep it practical.

No, it can be demonstrated that faith is unnecessarily by the fact that we can work perfectly fine without it, and that working with it often makes it worse.
It happens to be an observation of mine that the stronger someone's "faith" is, the better they get on in life. Maybe I've just experienced a select few people.

It takes no more 'faith' to accept that faith is unnecessary than it does to accept the fact that there is no such thing as the tooth fairy.
To just "not have" faith in something doesn't require faith but to consciously "avoid" faith requires a faith in the fact "faith is bad".


No, religionists don’t just have “more” faith, they have “different” faith. Different in that in everyday life, we based our “faith” (which in this case is equivalent to confidence) on experience and knowledge etc, whereas in religion, faith becomes an excuse to make assertion/conclusions when there is no reason/evidence to do so (in an attempt to try and support their unproven belief). They are two different applications of the word ‘faith’ and to confuse the two is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)
Nah! I don't think you understand religious people at all.
"Religious" faith (and they are the same thing) also originates from experience and knowledge too. The difference is is that their faith is more disputable, and sometimes clashes with other knowledge. I think that some theists put too much faith in the absolute truth of the Bible. If they've built more faith in the Bible than scientific methods then the chances are that they'll believe scientists have gotten it wrong and argue their case as best they can.
Same kind of faith, just different degrees.

Ofcourse, I'd agree that people who put more faith in the "absolute truth" of the Bible than science are making a mistake, and are relying too much on faith and lacking "reason". Thing is, these people are extreme types. Most theists I know have their faith in good perspective.

[CKava]

Strafio your post is interesting but you are occasionally ignoring the fact that 'belief' has 2 connotations in modern life one religious and related to faith and the other non-religious and based on experience and past evidence.

I believe the sun will rise is a different kind of 'belief' than...
I believe God exists.

For your arguments sake I would suggest abandoning this point since it basically comes down to arguing something like the following:

You have 'faith' that your name is Jim. It's just a 'belief' based on information others told you and you yourself accepted. I mean you have to have 'faith' that your parents didn't deceive you and give you another name but not tell you. Therefore your choice to 'believe' in your name is just the same as religious peoples choice to 'believe' in God in that both 'beiefs' require 'faith'.

This argument is silly but yet is constantly repeated...

[Strafio]

I do think it's the same kind of faith, just different degrees.
Perhaps it's like saying spilling a coke can and an oil tanker spillage are just different degrees of littering (the first being being negligible and barely noticable while the latter being a major disaster).

My argument isn't that you have "faith" in this so you might as well have "faith" in that because that would be like saying "well you've coke on the pavement, you might as well go all the way and spill a tankers worth of oil..." and that would be silly.
It's more of a point that it's not the fact that someone has faith makes the belief "irrational" or "unjustified", it depends on what perspective they have their faith in.

Perhaps the "faith in refusing to have faith" was a bad point?
I genuinely thought that there was a significant leap of faith in ruling out "faith"?

[CKava]

The limitations of the English language are appearing... stop now before the French get wind of this.

[Strafio]

... ?

:confused:

[aikiMac]

I do think it's the same kind of faith, just different degrees.
So do I. Post #51 is excellent, especially this line: "I think you've completely misunderstood faith here."


I genuinely thought that there was a significant leap of faith in ruling out "faith"?
Well, yes. It's facially obvious to me. :confused:

[tekkengod]

The limitations of the English language are appearing... stop now before the French get wind of this.

THEY'RE COMING!

[Topher]

You're making things all dualistic again. Certain/not certain.
I’m merely saying if you don’t know, don’t claim you do.

So we should only talk of what we're absolutely certain and forget everything else?
I never said that. I said if we don’t know, don’t make positive claims. That doesn’t mean we cannot study and discuss the issue. This is needed to further knowledge.

You've said it yourself that you think faith is fine so long as it's acknowledged as faith. So beliefs with a bit of faith should be fine so long as it's acknowledged that there's a degree of faith in them and the believer doesn't pretend that it's as solid as pure reason.
Yes, if your honest and admit that your faith isn’t supported (which it isn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t be faith), then it wouldn’t be so bad. But I still don’t see justification for even stepping into the faith arena. It doesn’t add anything.

Faith is what steps in when you have no reason to believe.

I think you've completely misunderstood faith here.
Some belief systems encourage to have faith "no matter what", but that's not because it's without evidence/reason, it's just that there's only a limited amount. And remember that's only some belief systems. It can also be a practicality too. Some people want to get on with living life and don't have time to root out "all the answers", so just having "faith" means that they can keep it practical.
If it has evidence/reason, it isn’t faith; it would be a supported assertion.

It happens to be an observation of mine that the stronger someone's "faith" is, the better they get on in life. Maybe I've just experienced a select few people.
Would you include suicide bombers in that category, who have the strongest of faith. The stronger ones faith is, the more dangerous the possibilities. Suicide bombers might be on the extreme side of faith, however it is still faith and once you accept faith based thinking you open the possibility for the extreme, which is very dangerous.

Also, how do they get on better in life the stronger their faith is?

To just "not have" faith in something doesn't require faith but to consciously "avoid" faith requires a faith in the fact "faith is bad".
One doesn’t avoid faith, you either have it or you don’t. Scientists don’t say “I must avoid accepting this on faith,” no, they don’t accept it on faith by default.

Nah! I don't think you understand religious people at all.
"Religious" faith (and they are the same thing) also originates from experience and knowledge too. The difference is is that their faith is more disputable, and sometimes clashes with other knowledge. I think that some theists put too much faith in the absolute truth of the Bible. If they've built more faith in the Bible than scientific methods then the chances are that they'll believe scientists have gotten it wrong and argue their case as best they can.
Same kind of faith, just different degrees.
No, they are different. It so simple I don’t understand how you don’t get it.

If every time I turn on the TV, it turns on, I am therefore justified to accept it on faith (confidence) what it will turn on then text time I do so as I have demonstrated the consistency of it happening.

Religious faith however is difference as it is believing something, just because you believe it.

[Strafio]

I’m merely saying if you don’t know, don’t claim you do.

I never said that. I said if we don’t know, don’t make positive claims. That doesn’t mean we cannot study and discuss the issue. This is needed to further knowledge.
Hmmm...
I think people can still claim it's true, but should atleast understand that everyone is right to disbelieve them without sufficient proof (which I don't think any theists have).
So I think you're fully justified to disbelieve in theism, but I think it would be a step too far to believe that it was the only justifiable position. That makes too many assumptions for my liking. (e.g. that another person's knowledge is restricted to what you know also)

Yes, if your honest and admit that your faith isn’t supported (which it isn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t be faith), then it wouldn’t be so bad. But I still don’t see justification for even stepping into the faith arena. It doesn’t add anything.
I reckon you take more on "faith" than you realise but that's just a "faith-based" guess on my behalf so I won't try argue it! :)
When you're trying learn something you don't fully understand it requires faith. When you first learn techniques on how to add numbers you take them on pure faith. All you know it whether they work (teacher ticks) or whether they don't (teacher crosses) in which case the techniques need revising. I think that most of us learn to add by following the instructions on pure faith and then after a while figure that it's always worked through induction of our success of it.

I didn't learn the logical proof of 2+2=4 until just a couple of months ago. :)

I'd say that people are justified in saying that believing the addition method works because it always has done. That's their only reason. But maybe that's different because we have logicians who have proved it? But where does our faith in their calculations come from? From their reputation of success of solving logic problems? Again, it'll be because "it works".

Someone comes across a theology that explains things to them that science does not. This explanation fits their experience. They dwelve deeper into this theology and find that the more they explore it, the more it correlates to their day to day experience. To me it seems that they a justified in having faith in it.

Faith is what steps in when you have no reason to believe.
I think this is a bit black and white again.
Pure faith = no reason.
Pure reason = no faith.
Maybe I'm being pedantic.
Maybe when you say "Faith" you mean a sizable leap of one and maybe when you say "no reason" you mean insufficient reason?

If it has evidence/reason, it isn’t faith; it would be a supported assertion.
Again, this seems like a bit of a black/white approach.
There's always evidence and reason, just not strong enough to be absolutely convincing on it's own without a little added faith.


Would you include suicide bombers in that category, who have the strongest of faith. The stronger ones faith is, the more dangerous the possibilities. Suicide bombers might be on the extreme side of faith, however it is still faith and once you accept faith based thinking you open the possibility for the extreme, which is very dangerous.
Very good point. I guess extremists show the difference between a faith with reason and a blinder faith with less reason. People with a more reasonable faith will always be able to point out a several ways the extremists are flawed in their theology. Reasonable Christians will say that the Spannish Inquisition had it wrong. Reasonable Muslims condemn Al Queda and its terrorism.

What we're discussing is whether people are flawed in having any theology. Perhaps you're right and this is the achillies heel of otherwise rational people.

Also, how do they get on better in life the stronger their faith is?
I've noticed that they tend to be happier, more "enlightened", more moral. Basically, richer in things rational atheists also value.
Perhaps it's just some placaebo at work or something.

One doesn’t avoid faith, you either have it or you don’t. Scientists don’t say “I must avoid accepting this on faith,” no, they don’t accept it on faith by default.
Only when they are doing science.
When they are doing science they are talking about the science and the science only. When they talk about subjects that aren't limited to science then it'll be a different matter.

No, they are different. It so simple I don’t understand how you don’t get it.

If every time I turn on the TV, it turns on, I am therefore justified to accept it on faith (confidence) what it will turn on then text time I do so as I have demonstrated the consistency of it happening.

Religious faith however is difference as it is believing something, just because you believe it.
Anyone who has a religious faith will tell you that that's wrong.
There's always reasons for faith, they're just not always easily explainable.
Believing the TV will turn on requires a small leap of faith that's so negligible that people will barely call it faith. (like you say, induction says that the TV is reliable. The only faith you need is in the fact that nothing unlikely happens.)
It's the same faith that people have in their theology, just a larger leap of faith (so not as strongly supported by evidence/inductive experience so more faith required). If you find that the TV's on button often doesn't work, you start to lose faith in it. Likewise, if someone's theology isn't "working" for them then there's a good chance they lose faith in it too.

[aikiMac]

Anyone who has a religious faith will tell you that that's wrong.
Yes.

----
If you know a subject then you can explain it in terms that the adherents would accept.

If you can't explain it in terms that the adherents would accept, then you don't know that subject.

Homer is not explaining religious faith in terms that a person of religious faith would accept. Conclusion follows.

[tekkengod]

I think this is a bit black and white again.
Pure faith = no reason.
Pure reason = no faith.

Again, this seems like a bit of a black/white approach.
There's always evidence and reason, just not strong enough to be absolutely convincing on it's own without a little added faith.

What e're discussing is whether people are flawed in having any theology. Perhaps you're right and this is the achillies heel of otherwise rational people.

Anyone who has a religious faith will tell you that that's wrong.

Maybe when he said what he meant he meant what he said? I'd say thats a possibility :) I like the way thats stated, "The achillies heel of rationality" that gets the point across with out getting their panties in a twist. the BOLD, then wouldn't he have been right to say "Thats when faith steps in" ? of course he would. yes, its black and white, theres no gray there, rational or not rational. faith or no faith, fact, or fiction. of course they'll tell you its wrong, its not in accordance. :rolleyes:

[Topher]

I think people can still claim it's true, but should atleast understand that everyone is right to disbelieve them without sufficient proof (which I don't think any theists have).
So you saying someone can justifiably make positive claims based on faith :rolleyes:

When you're trying learn something you don't fully understand it requires faith.
No, it requires a will to learn and nothing more. You don’t accept it before you have reason/evidence to do so. If I said I can fly, you don’t accept it on faith until you get further knowledge. No, you remain sceptical, or just you don’t believe it, until proven otherwise. There is no reason for faith to be present. If you don’t understand something, don’t make claims regarding it, (faith is not justified here). Alternatively if you do understand it, there is no need for faith.

When you first learn techniques on how to add numbers you take them on pure faith. All you know it whether they work (teacher ticks) or whether they don't (teacher crosses) in which case the techniques need revising. I think that most of us learn to add by following the instructions on pure faith and then after a while figure that it's always worked through induction of our success of it.
…
But where does our faith in their calculations come from? From their reputation of success of solving logic problems? Again, it'll be because "it works".
You know it works because it can be demonstrated to work.

You answered the question yourself with the last sentence – “because it works.” Our faith/confidence in them is because they have been proven to work. But here your committing the fallacy of equivocation by taking the application of a word and using it in a different manner. The religious use of “faith” is irrelevant to this as we DO have very good reason for the belief.

Someone comes across a theology that explains things to them that science does not. This explanation fits their experience. They dwelve deeper into this theology and find that the more they explore it, the more it correlates to their day to day experience. To me it seems that they a justified in having faith in it.
Are there explanations proven? No. Until it is, it an unsupported claim. Explanations mean little without evidence, demonstration etc. I can think of hundreds of explanations which fit any issue. For example, when a car moves, it’s not the motor; it’s an invisible man pushing it. That explains the movement of the car completely, however it’s just a claim, it hasn’t been proven, and there is a better explanation out there for the movement of the car, so that explanation means little.

Again, this seems like a bit of a black/white approach.
There's always evidence and reason, just not strong enough to be absolutely convincing on it's own without a little added faith.
If the claimed evidence and reason (sometimes there isn’t even that) was any good there wouldn’t be any need for faith.

Very good point. I guess extremists show the difference between a faith with reason and a blinder faith with less reason. People with a more reasonable faith will always be able to point out a several ways the extremists are flawed in their theology. Reasonable Christians will say that the Spannish Inquisition had it wrong. Reasonable Muslims condemn Al Queda and its terrorism.
They both claim evidence/reason for their belief, one is just more extreme in their views; however the foundation is the same.

I agree there can be more 'sensible' religious people (in comparison), those that believe in the scientific method, that don’t take the bible literally…etc. So yes, they have less religious faith than the nutcases do, however you are often confusing religious faith with the ‘everyday’ faith, which I think is part of the problem here. Even the most moderate of religious people have more faith than I do, because I don’t have any religious faith. Compared to the extremists, moderate religious people and I are more on the same side so to speak, however most of the time that isn’t the case. It’s kind of like a three way battle.

What we're discussing is whether people are flawed in having any theology. Perhaps you're right and this is the achillies heel of otherwise rational people.
What I wonder is whether organised religion or religion in general is necessary at all. I don’t see what benefit is brings, plus, there is the possibility of danger opened because of religion, so is it worth it. As you said, faith might just be their achillies heel. Also, there are many good religious people, but are they good because they are religious? On the flip side, we do know that there are bad people because of religion.

I've noticed that they tend to be happier, more "enlightened", more moral. Basically, richer in things rational atheists also value.
Perhaps it's just some placaebo at work or something.
I would disagree as it would suggest that religion is the source of happiness, morality. I say otherwise as demonstrated by happy, moral, non-religious people. You should also question if they have these attributes because they are religious.

Only when they are doing science.
When they are doing science they are talking about the science and the science only. When they talk about subjects that aren't limited to science then it'll be a different matter.
The process of scientific thinking doesn’t just apply to science. Being rational, logical, requiring parsimony and evidence etc are attributes of scientist (and others) which a not turned off.

Anyone who has a religious faith will tell you that that's wrong.
There's always reasons for faith, they're just not always easily explainable.
Believing the TV will turn on requires a small leap of faith that's so negligible that people will barely call it faith. (like you say, induction says that the TV is reliable. The only faith you need is in the fact that nothing unlikely happens.)
It's the same faith that people have in their theology, just a larger leap of faith (so not as strongly supported by evidence/inductive experience so more faith required). If you find that the TV's on button often doesn't work, you start to lose faith in it. Likewise, if someone's theology isn't "working" for them then there's a good chance they lose faith in it too.
Again you’re confusing this type of faith with religion faith. Please stop. As CK said, it’s a silly argument and doesn’t make you look good.

This is a ploy used by religionists to try to insist that all people have faith in an attempt to justify it. Someone says they don’t have [religious] faith, then they suggest faith in something - such as the sun rising - so the religionist immediately insists they have faith, ignoring the fact that a different connotation of the word was used.

[Strafio]

No, it requires a will to learn and nothing more. You don’t accept it before you have reason/evidence to do so.
Are you kidding? If I'd started out with such high standards to believe things then I'd never have learned anything. When we're little we just learn what we're told. We gradually build a method of reasoning from experience.


If I said I can fly, you don’t accept it on faith until you get further knowledge.
That one's fairly easy to dis-prove.
I know what you're saying though, pure blind faith should not be accepted.
There are extreme cases where people find themselves to believe such things. On the most part, religious beliefs are mostly reasonable. Yes, there is a leap of faith. Yes, these claims will never be as solid as those with solider reasoning. Is there such a fine line between reasonable and unreasonable?
Is there no grey between black and white?

You know it works because it can be demonstrated to work.

...

Are there explanations proven? No. Until it is, it an unsupported claim.
This is what the "it works" point was for.
Their faith is "working", doing what it should do.
Seems to me to be a good reason to believe in it.
It's the same reason I had for believing in the facts of science and mathematics.

For example, when a car moves, it’s not the motor; it’s an invisible man pushing it. That explains the movement of the car completely, however it’s just a claim, it hasn’t been proven, and there is a better explanation out there for the movement of the car, so that explanation means little.
Yes. Thing is, there are not better explanations for these things.
In the car example, there's an obvious better explanation.
That's why nobody believes in the invisible man the same way they believe in religious beliefs.


I would disagree as it would suggest that religion is the source of happiness, morality. I say otherwise as demonstrated by happy, moral, non-religious people. You should also question if they have these attributes because they are religious.
I never assumed that much.
It's just something I've noticed.
It's not that non-religious/faithful people can't have this same morality/happiness. It's just for some unexplained reason, I've found faithful people better at it. Maybe I've just met a weird sample of people?

The process of scientific thinking doesn’t just apply to science. Being rational, logical, requiring parsimony and evidence etc are attributes of scientist (and others) which a not turned off.
And a scientist knows best of all what can and can't be reduced to scientific method. Considering that a great deal of scientists are theistic, I don't think you speak for all of them. (And no, I wasn't thinking of people like Hovind here.)

Again you’re confusing this type of faith with religion faith. Please stop. As CK said, it’s a silly argument and doesn’t make you look good.
No, you've invented a concept called "religious faith" that no one, not even religious people, has. Anyone who actually has a "religious faith" and knows what it is will describe it like I have. Ckava seemed to disagree with me too. Maybe it's because some theists have abused it with the "you have faith in the sun rising so why not God?" examples, but I'm certain of this.

This is a ploy used by religionists to try to insist that all people have faith in an attempt to justify it. Someone says they don’t have [religious] faith, then they suggest faith in something - such as the sun rising - so the religionist immediately insists they have faith, ignoring the fact that a different connotation of the word was used.
I agree that the "sunrise" argument is terrible. Believing that the sun will rise is hardly the same leap of faith as believing in a God. It's like telling someone that they've splashed in puddles so might as well jump in the lake. It's not a different "faith" though, it's a different amount of faith. If you're arguing anything here then you're arguing that faith in a God requires too much faith to be "reasonable". Personally, I think that your standards for "proof" are OTT and don't believe for a second that you realistically stick to them.

[Strafio]

By the way, this whole discussion is really good.
You should really reconsider your Uni choices.
You'd love some philosophy, even if you just pick one or two subsidaries alongside your art! :)

[aikiMac]

No, you've invented a concept called "religious faith" that no one, not even religious people, has. Anyone who actually has a "religious faith" and knows what it is will describe it like I have.
Aye, when the adherents say, "No, that's not it," it's probably not it.

[Topher]

Are you kidding? If I'd started out with such high standards to believe things then I'd never have learned anything. When we're little we just learn what we're told. We gradually build a method of reasoning from experience.
High standards? What is ‘high standard’ about not just accepting anything we’ve been told. Maybe you accept everything someone tells you, but I don’t. If someone makes a statement I don’t have knowledge about I’d ask them to back it up.

Children learn best via experience and observation. Tell a child something and you’ll get “why…why….why….why……” Children should be encouraged to question.

This is what the "it works" point was for.
Their faith is "working", doing what it should do.
Seems to me to be a good reason to believe in it.
It's the same reason I had for believing in the facts of science and mathematics.
I disagree. In most cases the faith is unproven; there are better explanations for things (such as evolution), and anything which does has some kind of solid “proof” (hard to think of anything atm) is usually trivial.

For a faith to try to explain external things such as life, science related issues etc, it should be more than internally consistent, and it should not require faith to believe it.

Anyway, just how does one evaluate the success of ones faith? How do we know if it is “working”?

Yes. Thing is, there are not better explanations for these things.
What are “these things?” If you mean explanations of supernatural things, then they are unproven claims.

In the car example, there's an obvious better explanation.
Yes, as with religion.

And a scientist knows best of all what can and can't be reduced to scientific method. Considering that a great deal of scientists are theistic, I don't think you speak for all of them. (And no, I wasn't thinking of people like Hovind here.)
In almost all cases, traits of the scientific method such as parsimony, rationality, logic etc can apply to almost all areas of life. And yes a few scientists are theistic, however I would only comment on an individual basis because I suspect, as with all religion, there would great diversity in belief.

No, you've invented a concept called "religious faith" that no one, not even religious people, has. Anyone who actually has a "religious faith" and knows what it is will describe it like I have. Ckava seemed to disagree with me too. Maybe it's because some theists have abused it with the "you have faith in the sun rising so why not God?" examples, but I'm certain of this.
I never invented it. There are two connotations of the words faith and belief. You’re confusing them hence your incorrect application of them.

Religious faith is believing something when there is no reason to believe (if you had reason for the belief, it would not be faith!) [Please refute that is you can]

Non-religious ‘faith’ is having confidence in something based on experience and knowledge etc. It’s not faith in the religious sense of the word, however the same word it commonly used to describe it, hence the importance is clarifying the difference.

I agree that the "sunrise" argument is terrible. Believing that the sun will rise is hardly the same leap of faith as believing in a God. It's like telling someone that they've splashed in puddles so might as well jump in the lake. It's not a different "faith" though, it's a different amount of faith. If you're arguing anything here then you're arguing that faith in a God requires too much faith to be "reasonable". Personally, I think that your standards for "proof" are OTT and don't believe for a second that you realistically stick to them.
It’s different use of the same word. There can be different amounts of religious faith; however it is still built on the same fact that it is a belief without reason. If there is ever reason for part of a belief, but not entirely, then faith comes into play to fill the void. However this is different from having confidence in something based on knowledge/experience. I believe/have faith that Big Ben will chime every hour based on my prior knowledge that this is what happens.

[Strafio]

High standards? What is ‘high standard’ about not just accepting anything we’ve been told. Maybe you accept everything someone tells you, but I don’t. If someone makes a statement I don’t have knowledge about I’d ask them to back it up.
Not accept everything, but some things.
And remember, we're not talking about accepting things on no evidence, just not requiring the same standard of evidence and proof of scientific information.

Children learn best via experience and observation. Tell a child something and you’ll get “why…why….why….why……” Children should be encouraged to question.
Yes. They also accept a lot on faith as well.
It takes a while before they learn to devellop proper scepticism.

Anyway, just how does one evaluate the success of ones faith? How do we know if it is “working”?
Someone knows if it's "working" if it's holding true to their experience of the world, that the world makes sense to them through it, that life is working out in relation to this "faith".

What are “these things?” If you mean explanations of supernatural things, then they are unproven claims.
Not just unproven claims, just odd everyday experiences that seem to fit the world the religion described. This and that paragraph probably seem weird


I never invented it. There are two connotations of the words faith and belief. You’re confusing them hence your incorrect application of them.
Alright. The "invented" bit was a bit cheeky, but the point still stands. Your version of "religious faith" is one that no one in the world has. Anyone who has/understands a proper religious faith will describe it like I am.

The different "applications" of the word can be explained like this:
There's someone who runs 100m to the sweet shop once a week.
They say "I go running regularly."
It was an incorrect use of the phrase "I go running regularly" even though technically they do run to the shop on a regular basis.
This is because when we say "I go running" we use it to designate a significant amount of running, and a significant regularity in running is more than once a week.

When someone says they have a "faith", they mean a belief with a significant amount of faith. Technically, all beliefs have an element of faith behind them. In most cases the amount of faith is so miniscule it's not worth mentioning. If you say you have faith in Big Ben chiming on the hour then people will give you a funny look. In this case, the amount of faith is so insignificant that it's not worth mentioning unless you're talking absolute technicalities.

Religious faith is the same but requires a larger amount of faith.
There's still plenty of reasons why people make this leap of faith.
You're not assuming that these people are stupid, are you?

Religious faith is believing something when there is no reason to believe (if you had reason for the belief, it would not be faith!) [Please refute that is you can]
This only works if "reason" is binary.
If belief is either absolutely reasonable or absolutely not.
In my experience, plenty of beliefs have some reason behind them but not enough to convince me. Some beliefs have such strong reason that I could not disbelieve in them even if I wanted to. So for you is there a thin dividing line between "enough reason" and "not enough reason"?
Even then, isn't that just the difference between "reasonable faith required" and "too much faith required"?

[Atharel]

This only works if "reason" is binary.

Brilliant point.

[Topher]

Someone knows if it's "working" if it's holding true to their experience of the world, that the world makes sense to them through it, that life is working out in relation to this "faith".
If this was the case, science would also come to the same conclusions, but it doesn’t. It's more likely that they have an incorrect perception of the world.

Not just unproven claims, just odd everyday experiences that seem to fit the world the religion described. This and that paragraph probably seem weird
Here the religionist would usually jump to the conclusion that it is related to their religion and that their religion is the best explanation for it. Religion aims to prove what it believes so it’s no surprise that everything is evaluated in an attempt to support that belief.

Just because something seems to “fit” the world as the religion describes it, doesn’t make it true. It needs to be proven/supported; however no attempt is ever made regarding religious claims.

In such a situation, don’t jump to conclusions.

Alright. The "invented" bit was a bit cheeky, but the point still stands. Your version of "religious faith" is one that no one in the world has. Anyone who has/understands a proper religious faith will describe it like I am.

Religious faith is the same but requires a larger amount of faith.
OK, let’s try this again. You’re clearly not getting it. Like most theists, you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation when talking about faith. Worse still, I’ve already told you many times. :rolleyes:

Faith in the colloquial sense is synonymous with trust/confidence. This is a contingent faith – it is built on experience and knowledge which we draw upon. For example, when I see a doctor, I trust them based on my previous experience with, and knowledge of doctors.

However in religion people have NO such experience or ANY knowledge of God. This is where religious faith comes into play…

Faith in the religious sense is NOT build upon experience, its non-contingent. It’s the dogma that one can maintain belief without justification, without ANY reason. In fact, non-contingent faith is usually held in the face of negative/contradicting evidence!

Religion must use this type of faith because it has no knowledge or experience of God and no reason to maintain the belief. It has no choice.

These two different types of faith are based on different foundations.

Religion does not question, it accepts. It seeks to prove what it believes, and if it fails, it simply ignores this failure.

Theists claim that all people have faith (i.e. trust), therefore this means that their faith (non-contingent faith) is legitimate. This is fallacious.

Finally, this is not definitions that only I hold, it is the correct definitions, however theists do not admit it as it would severely impair their arguments, hence the ploy refered to in the sentence above.

When someone says they have a "faith", they mean a belief with a significant amount of faith.
Your merging both uses of the word faith again. Regardless, they (religionists) don't have any justification for using faith. Even if, in some rare occasion, there is some reason/evidence in their belief, don't fill the rest with faith. Just admit it isn't complete.

Also, when defining "faith" you need to define each use. See the previous reply.

The different "applications" of the word can be explained like this:
There's someone who runs 100m to the sweet shop once a week.
They say "I go running regularly."
It was an incorrect use of the phrase "I go running regularly" even though technically they do run to the shop on a regular basis.
This is because when we say "I go running" we use it to designate a significant amount of running, and a significant regularity in running is more than once a week.
Weak analogy fallacy. The relation to the point is weak. Create an analogy around the use of “faith” - the word in questions.

Regarding your analogy, the use of "I go running" tell us that the person goes running, however how one defines “regular” varies. A once a week event is fairly consistent and regular. Many people only do martial arts once a week and they still say “I do martial arts.” Same can apply to “I go to the gym”, or indeed, “I go running.”

In my experience, plenty of beliefs have some reason behind them but not enough to convince me. Some beliefs have such strong reason that I could not disbelieve in them even if I wanted to. So for you is there a thin dividing line between "enough reason" and "not enough reason"?
Even then, isn't that just the difference between "reasonable faith required" and "too much faith required"?
In such a case, admit you don’t have enough reason/evidence and don’t rely on faith to “complete” it. This is the point…with religion, they are scared of simply saying “I don’t know” or “we’re not completely sure,” so they fall to non-contingent faith to fill in the lack of reason.

If you have “enough reason” you do not need faith.
If you don’t have enough reason simply admit that.
In either case, there is no justification for faith.

Another issue is that I haven’t seen any religious based belief with reason and/or evidence supporting it. Anything which has some evidence or reason supporting it is either a) not supernatural, b) trivial, and/or c) irrelevant. Please post otherwise.

[Strafio]

If this was the case, science would also come to the same conclusions, but it doesn’t. It's more likely that they have an incorrect perception of the world.
It's a subject that science doesn't talk about, unless you're talking about social sciences that will just pattern the behaviour of people.

Here the religionist would usually jump to the conclusion that it is related to their religion and that their religion is the best explanation for it. Religion aims to prove what it believes so it’s no surprise that everything is evaluated in an attempt to support that belief.
I was talking about what convinces the person into believing it in the first place. What fuels their faith. When someone's beliefs are challenged they'll look for arguments to defend it. This goes for religious/non-religious alike. My argument's definately evolved over this thread and although I'm not sure about yours in this thread, it definately has over various discussions in MAP.

Just because something seems to “fit” the world as the religion describes it, doesn’t make it true. It needs to be proven/supported; however no attempt is ever made regarding religious claims.
It means people have good reason to believe in it.
We went over this earlier with the maths/early-learning examples.


OK, let’s try this again. You’re clearly not getting it. Like most theists, you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation when talking about faith. Worse still, I’ve already told you many times. :rolleyes:
You mean I'm supposed to use your definition of "religious faith" that no one actually has? I'm kind of thinking the "told you many times" myself...

Faith in the colloquial sense is synonymous with trust/confidence. This is a contingent faith – it is built on experience and knowledge which we draw upon. For example, when I see a doctor, I trust them based on my previous experience with, and knowledge of doctors.
Trust that going to the doctor has always worked for you before? :p
Alright, this "trust". Would it be necessary if there were absolute proved reasons that this doctor would know how to fix the problem? You got lots of reasons for trusting the doctor, but there's still a "leap of faith" else there wouldn't be an element of trust necessary.
You'd have to be more trusting to trust a random person of the street to do a doctors job i.e. a larger "leap of faith" that they could help you.

I'm cutting the middle bit here where you prove that you don't understand anything about religious people at all...

Theists claim that all people have faith (i.e. trust), therefore this means that their faith (non-contingent faith) is legitimate. This is fallacious.
Not all theists claim this, but you're right. The ones that do are presenting a fallicious argument. It's like saying "you trusted (had faith in) the good Samaritan, so you might as well trust (have faith in) the dodgy geezer ushering you into a dark alley". It's still the same faith/trust, just a larger amount of trust, a larger leap of faith required.

Regarding your analogy, the use of "I go running" tell us that the person goes running, however how one defines “regular” varies. A once a week event is fairly consistent and regular. Many people only do martial arts once a week and they still say “I do martial arts.” Same can apply to “I go to the gym”, or indeed, “I go running.”
If someone says "I go running", you assume they mean more than just down the road to buy sweets once in a while. Why? Because when they say they go running they imply that they do a significant amount of running. If you don't see running to the shop as insignificant then how about running down the stairs for meal times? They regularly run down the stairs 3 times a day to get their food. Personally, I wouldn't describe them as a "runner".

So the reason why "faith" is talked more of with religious beliefs is that it's a significant amount of faith enough to be worth talking about.


In such a case, admit you don’t have enough reason/evidence and don’t rely on faith to “complete” it. This is the point…with religion, they are scared of simply saying “I don’t know” or “we’re not completely sure,” so they fall to non-contingent faith to fill in the lack of reason.
If a religious person is as sure of a religious belief as they are in a scientific fact then they're probably not being very honest with themselves. They'll probably admit that they're not "absolutely" sure, but still sure to a strong degree.


Another issue is that I haven’t seen any religious based belief with reason and/or evidence supporting it. Anything which has some evidence or reason supporting it is either a) not supernatural, b) trivial, and/or c) irrelevant. Please post otherwise.
That's why you're justified in your disbelief.
I was probably about to say that other people have come across such evidence but I noticed that you're probably also justified in not just taking my word for it either. :)

I'll tell you this much though. You don't really understand religious people or what's going through their head but you make a lot of assumptions about them. If you spent a lot of time with some then you might see what I meant. Otherwise it doesn't really matter. They've got their world, you've got yours. Peace out. :)

[Topher]

It's a subject that science doesn't talk about, unless you're talking about social sciences that will just pattern the behaviour of people.
It doesn’t talk about the supernatural, but who said the thing has supernatural causes. Thunder was once believed to be supernatural, and then science discovered the answer. So science doesn’t NOT talk about it, it just doesn’t make assumption about it.

It means people have good reason to believe in it.
Good reasons as in?

Just because it seems to “fit” isn’t a good reason for saying it is true.

You mean I'm supposed to use your definition of "religious faith" that no one actually has? I'm kind of thinking the "told you many times" myself...
What are your reasons for stating this definition is incorrect and that no one has it? They better be good.

Religious faith (non-contingent faith) is maintaining a belief when there is no evidence or reason for it, or worse, in the face of negative evidence.

The fact is, that is the definition of religious faith - they hold there belief without ANY evidence or ANY reason. If they had evidence and reason IT WOULD NOT BE FAITH!!

Example - there is no reason or evidence to support the great flood, or for that matter creationism, yet people still believe on faith.

Alright, this "trust". Would it be necessary if there were absolute proved reasons that this doctor would know how to fix the problem? You got lots of reasons for trusting the doctor, but there's still a "leap of faith" else there wouldn't be an element of trust necessary.
You'd have to be more trusting to trust a random person of the street to do a doctors job i.e. a larger "leap of faith" that they could help you.
You can never be absolutely sure, but your trust in them is based on your previous experience and knowledge with doctors. There is no “leap of faith” involved here.

There is only a leap of faith involved if you’re in a situation whereby you do not have previous experience and knowledge, which mainly involves religious and supernatural issues. This is why religion has to have this type of faith, the knowledge and experience is not there.

I were in such a situation I would not revert to faith as a replacement for the lack of experience or knowledge, I would be sceptical, wary or just say I wasn’t sure etc.

Oh and who said I would tryst a random person in the street. See above sentence.

I'm cutting the middle bit here where you prove that you don't understand anything about religious people at all...
:rolleyes:

It’s quite clear to don’t understand the definitions of faith and until you do this debate is going nowhere.

I’ve stated and evidence why the definitions I’ve used are correct. There repeated a few replies down.

Not all theists claim this, but you're right. The ones that do are presenting a fallicious argument. It's like saying "you trusted (had faith in) the good Samaritan, so you might as well trust (have faith in) the dodgy geezer ushering you into a dark alley".
I never said that.
I would have faith (trust) in someone based on experience and knowledge. Seeing as I wouldn’t have any such experience and knowledge in the “dodgy geezer ushering you into a dark alley,” I wouldn’t trust him.

It's still the same faith/trust, just a larger amount of trust, a larger leap of faith required.
Wrong! You kept stating this but you’ve yet to evidence it.

One is built on experience and knowledge, the other is not! How exactly are they the same?

Faith in a doctor is based on experience and knowledge, a.k.a reason.

Faith in God is not based on any experience or any knowledge, a.k.a. no reason.

I don’t know why you just don’t get it.

If someone says "I go running", you assume they mean more than just down the road to buy sweets once in a while. Why? Because when they say they go running they imply that they do a significant amount of running. If you don't see running to the shop as insignificant then how about running down the stairs for meal times? They regularly run down the stairs 3 times a day to get their food. Personally, I wouldn't describe them as a "runner".
I still don’t see how this relates to the definition of faith. Create an analogy based around faith, using the definition of faith that you’re using. It would be much more clearer.

If a religious person is as sure of a religious belief as they are in a scientific fact then they're probably not being very honest with themselves. They'll probably admit that they're not "absolutely" sure, but still sure to a strong degree.
Ask every Christian if they are sure if Jesus resurrected or even existed. They would say yes. They’d probably say they were certain.

Then ask them what evidence they base this on. They would likely say the Bible.

That would be begging the question. Fallacious.

Even saying “to a strong degree” still requires reason/evidence.

That's why you're justified in your disbelief.
I was probably about to say that other people have come across such evidence but I noticed that you're probably also justified in not just taking my word for it either.
I’m justified in my disbelieve because there is no evidence to believe it. This should not be subjective.

What evidence have they come across?

[Strafio]

It doesn’t talk about the supernatural, but who said the thing has supernatural causes. Thunder was once believed to be supernatural, and then science discovered the answer. So science doesn’t NOT talk about it, it just doesn’t make assumption about it.
You're making the assumption that scientific study will find an atheistic answer to these things. That's easily as big a leap of faith as believing it's something supernatural.

Just because it seems to “fit” isn’t a good reason for saying it is true.
The definition of a scientific theory is one that "fits" the data.
Obviously a solid scientific theorem will be better tested and more certain as a result, but the principle is the same.

What are your reasons for stating this definition is incorrect and that no one has it? They better be good.
Alright then. I'm yet to come across anyone who has the sort of faith you describe. Maybe they're hiding around corners. Besides, for this topic:
If I know atleast one theistic person who has faith the way I describe it then that's the definition we use. We're talking about whether a theism is justifiable. If just one theist is justified then my argument is correct. Whether all theists are justified is another question altogether.

For the moment, accept my definition "hypothetically".
Then if we need to settle it later we can do a poll where people choose which definition describes their faith.

Religious faith (non-contingent faith) is maintaining a belief when there is no evidence or reason for it, or worse, in the face of negative evidence.
Everyone has reasons for having faith.
Not always good ones. I agree that some take a "too large" leap of faith and lose touch of reason, but they're the minority. Bold creationists are a good example of this.

You can never be absolutely sure, but your trust in them is based on your previous experience and knowledge with doctors. There is no “leap of faith” involved here.
"You can never be absolutely sure." - that's proof that there is a "leap of faith". Faith is what's involved when it's not absolutely logically proved that the doctors will fix you, for example. It's a small "leap of faith" and so insignificant that it's barely worth recognising as faith unless you're being absolutely technical. That's why we reserve the word "faith" for a significant amount of faith.

That's what my examples with "the runner" were trying to display.

I never said that.
I would have faith (trust) in someone based on experience and knowledge. Seeing as I wouldn’t have any such experience and knowledge in the “dodgy geezer ushering you into a dark alley,” I wouldn’t trust him.

Read it again.
I said that the theistic argument - "You have faith in the sunrise so you might as well have faith in God" is equivilent to "You trust the doctor so you might as well trust the random person".
I was agreeing with you that it was fallicious and explaining why and that it wasn't because of the "definition of faith" used.

Wrong! You kept stating this but you’ve yet to evidence it.

One is built on experience and knowledge, the other is not! How exactly are they the same?
If religious faith wasn't built on knowledge and experience it would be completely random. Even if it's flawed, religious faith is not random.
The only difference I can see is that a "small leap of faith" e.g. trusting the doctor, believing the sun will rise, is based on very strong knowledge wheras a larger leap of faith has knowledge that isn't as strong.

Even saying “to a strong degree” still requires reason/evidence.
Yep. Any argument from here on inwards is whether there is reason/evidence to justify a theistic leap of faith.

Ask every Christian if they are sure if Jesus resurrected or even existed. They would say yes. They’d probably say they were certain.

Then ask them what evidence they base this on. They would likely say the Bible.

That would be begging the question. Fallacious.
No it wouldn't. They'd be citing the Bible as a historical document.
Historians (even unbiased ones) agree that it's one of most accurate historical documents we have. Other historical sources (I think Josephus was one) confirm that Jesus existed too. We went over this earlier in the thread.
If it was purely on historical evidence, it's said that you'd have reason to believe that it was all true. Alternative explanations start with the assumption that God doesn't exist and come up with theories that might be possible...

After all, there's less evidence for Julius Caeser's existence and none of us are sceptical about him.

I’m justified in my disbelieve because there is no evidence to believe it. This should not be subjective.
Yes it should. Otherwise you'd have to have seen all the evidence there is to have seen, seen it in an absolutely unbiased and impartial light and given it a flawless logical analysis. That doesn't mean that justified belief is absolutely subjective. I think it's mostly objective. But there is definately a strong element of subjectivity.

What evidence have they come across?
Evidence is a tricky subject here.
Theories where science is certain are areas of knowledge where evidence is easy to verify. It's definately not the same sort of evidence that justifies a scientific theory, after all, we've already agreed that we're talking about areas that current science doesn't cover.
So far, the best justification I've got is "it works".
I know that something "working" doesn't logically imply it's true but it's good justification to have faith in it.

This argument is currently fairly weak. :o
I might have to research/think this over a bit, but I reckon the answer is somewhere along these lines.

[Topher]

You're making the assumption that scientific study will find an atheistic answer to these things. That's easily as big a leap of faith as believing it's something supernatural.
I did no such thing. I said don’t make any assumptions.

Anyway, if science does find an answer it will be a naturalistic answer. The supernatural by its very definition is beyond nature, beyond human comprehension.

This is not “easily as big a leap of faith”, it is a statement based on evidence and logic. Contrast with supernatural claims, which are based on no such evidence or logic, so one is completely justified in calling it faith and nothing more.

The definition of a scientific theory is one that "fits" the data.
Yes, once it has been tested, demonstrated and evidenced. Just because something appears to “fit” alone isn’t good enough. It needs to be backed up.

Alright then. I'm yet to come across anyone who has the sort of faith you describe. Maybe they're hiding around corners. Besides, for this topic:
If I know atleast one theistic person who has faith the way I describe it then that's the definition we use. We're talking about whether a theism is justifiable. If just one theist is justified then my argument is correct. Whether all theists are justified is another question altogether.
Of course, the theist will deny this definition because it would reveal the hollowness of there claims and arguments. You only have to look at ANY faith based belief to see the accuracy of the definition.

Taken from the link below:
It wasn't an atheist who came up with that definition. Non contingent faith, or 'theistic' faith, was defined by theists:

”Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
- Paul, Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1.

I.e., it's belief based on hope, not evidence.

b]For the moment, accept my definition "hypothetically".[/b]
Then if we need to settle it later we can do a poll where people choose which definition describes their faith.
Why is it that every theist argument has to start out by simply assuming what you want to be true, is true? Let's wait until there is evidence to support such a position before we assume it.

Everyone has reasons for having faith.
Not always good ones. I agree that some take a "too large" leap of faith and lose touch of reason, but they're the minority. Bold creationists are a good example of this.
I agree that there are more sensible theists out there [a minority] (in comparison to the nutcases) – but they still use faith based thinking and reasoning.

The problem with this debate is you’re applying this type of faith to trust, which is a different type of faith. That is the issue and until you realise that you will continue to make the same mistake.

"You can never be absolutely sure." - that's proof that there is a "leap of faith". Faith is what's involved when it's not absolutely logically proved that the doctors will fix you, for example. It's a small "leap of faith" and so insignificant that it's barely worth recognising as faith unless you're being absolutely technical. That's why we reserve the word "faith" for a significant amount of faith.
Wrong….again.

This faith in the doctor is contingent (i.e. dependent/reliant). You keep committing a fallacy by merging religious faith (belief without reason) with non-religious faith (trust/confidence)

You’re basically saying that if you’re not sure, you revert to faith; you take a leap of faith. This is what theists do - when they are not sure, when there is no evidence to support sat they are saying, faith steps in.

The better approach is that if you’re not sure; simply admit that you’re not sure. Don’t try to cover/ignore the holes. There is no justifiable reason relying on faith.

With the doctor example, you can never be 100% sure that you will be ok, but the evidence: experience, knowledge and probability etc tells you that you can be confident and trust them. There is no faith needed (as there is evidence/reason), nor any justification for it.

The bottom line is you’re assuming that faith automatically steps in when you lack reason, evidence, and knowledge. This is because you’re confusing two different uses of the same word. This is incorrect and there lies your problem. What we call faith in the informal sense is not the same as faith in the religious sense.

Read this thread (or at least the first few pages) on another form: http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-17954-knowledge.html It discusses the definition of faith. (The last post on the first page is very good specifically clears up the confusion). Argue the point’s raises in that post.

Read it again.
I said that the theistic argument - "You have faith in the sunrise so you might as well have faith in God" is equivilent to "You trust the doctor so you might as well trust the random person".
I was agreeing with you that it was fallicious and explaining why and that it wasn't because of the "definition of faith" used.
I get you. I misread your wording. But anyway, this fallacy is precisely because of the theists confuse the two different connotations of “faith”

Faith in the sunrise is not the same faith as faith in God so it is fallacious to say, “well, you have faith the sun will rise, why not have faith in God.”

If religious faith wasn't built on knowledge and experience it would be completely random. Even if it's flawed, religious faith is not random.
It is built on desires, hopes, emption, not knowledge or experience.

No one has ANY knowledge or ANY experience with any supernatural thing. It’s impossible. The supernatural is beyond our comprehension so no coherent positive statement can be made about it. No assertions regarding God or anything supernatural can ever be made which means that no argument can even get off the ground.

This renders all other theistic claims useless.

The only difference I can see is that a "small leap of faith" e.g. trusting the doctor, believing the sun will rise, is based on very strong knowledge wheras a larger leap of faith has knowledge that isn't as strong.
There are no levels of faith. Either one is willing to hold beliefs regardless of the evidence or one is not.

Again, you’re confusing the two different definitions. You’re taking the definition of religious faith, and simply splitting it in two.

Your first definition, “small leap of faith” is illogical. The very fact there is evidence/reason for the trust (whether it be in a doctor or a rising sun) means there is no faith need. The term “faith” is only used here informally.

The second definition, “larger leap of faith,” is when one has no reason/evidence to believe, so the religionist has no choice but to fall on faith, otherwise their argument doesn’t exist. (It’s just better if they say they don’t know.) Usually no evidence can possibly exist (see previous reply) however if in some issues there is evidence, but isn’t complete or is simply not very good, faith is used to cover up the holes. In such a situation just admit there isn’t enough evidence.

No it wouldn't. They'd be citing the Bible as a historical document.
Err. Yes it would.

Begging the question is when you use the conclusion as one of the premises. Example…
The Bible says Jesus exists.
How do you know this is true?
The Bible says so.

Or in another form…

Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?
Because it was inspired by God.

Historians (even unbiased ones) agree that it's one of most accurate historical documents we have.
Lol :rolleyss:

The amount of inaccuracies, contradictions, misinformation and uncertainties makes it one of the worst “historical documents” out there. You certainly don’t want to use it for accuracy.

Other historical sources (I think Josephus was one) confirm that Jesus existed too. We went over this earlier in the thread.
This was a widely accepted forgery.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

(But let’s not turn into thread into a Jesus’ existence, it was only an example. Lets keep it on topic)

After all, there's less evidence for Julius Caeser's existence and none of us are sceptical about him.
You can’t be serious. We have complete history of his life and writings by himself, direct associates and contemporaries.

Yes it should.
You cannot say, “I see the evidence like this, therefore, my conclusion is different to what the evidence says.” It’s like saying, “I don’t agree with the evidence for gravity, therefore gravity doesn’t exist.”

The evidence should speak for itself. Ones personal opinions on it are irrelevant to its truth. If I believe that fire isn’t hot, it doesn’t change the fact that is it.

[Strafio]

I did no such thing. I said don’t make any assumptions.

Anyway, if science does find an answer it will be a naturalistic answer. The supernatural by its very definition is beyond nature, beyond human comprehension.
Very well. But it might well be a new "natural" which is unrecognisable from our current view of "natural" (i.e. seems "supernatural" on current knowledge), one that where a "God" is now part of the natural picture.
Any assumption that scientific answers will go against God is an assumption.

This is not “easily as big a leap of faith”, it is a statement based on evidence and logic. Contrast with supernatural claims, which are based on no such evidence or logic, so one is completely justified in calling it faith and nothing more.
I heard you were into Hume?
In his Treatese of Human Nature he proved that most of the beliefs we take for granted can't be attributed purely to reason and rely on a small leap of faith atleast. (the fact that every cause has an effect for example)

The difference between a standard "leap of faith" (present in all judgements) and a significant "leap of faith" depends on how noticable the jump from reason is.

Yes, once it has been tested, demonstrated and evidenced. Just because something appears to “fit” alone isn’t good enough. It needs to be backed up.
Backed up with what?
Evidence?
Another thing I've been meaning to bring up is your assumption of Evidentialism (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=evidentialism&gwp=13) being the be all and end all of justification. That is you're assuming justification requires a certain sort of "evidence". I think that's wrong. When we went through that example with the child believing that their method of addition was correct, we agreed that the justification was "it worked".
Later on we can find out how to logically prove it, but at first we just accept it because it seems to work.

Another thing is that this thread (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52939) mentioned that we lack the capacity for critical thought until we're mid-teenage. Without worrying about the accuracy of the exact age, when it is possible for someone to have a justified belief? When they've got a basic mastery of logic and reasoning? Does that mean I had no justified belief until I was mid-teenage?
(This argument probably has holes in it at the moment, but we'll fill them as we argue it over! :))

Evidentialism isn't a realistic theory for general knowledge.
It's just an ideal for certain disciplines in knowledge, e.g. science.

Taken from the link below:
It wasn't an atheist who came up with that definition. Non contingent faith, or 'theistic' faith, was defined by theists:

”Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
- Paul, Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1.

I.e., it's belief based on hope, not evidence.
a) Taking lines out of context is what I expect from creationists.
b) It wasn't necessarily a definition. Might've been a description of what faith does for people.
c) I for one don't rely on Paul for definitions and he hardly speaks for all theists.


For the sake of this thread, forget your notions of religious faith. We could argue forever about who understands religious people and it would be irrelevent. I brought up the word faith. I was talking about my definition.
So far, the only problem you've had with my use of the word is that you prefer to use it a different way.

Why is it that every theist argument has to start out by simply assuming what you want to be true, is true? Let's wait until there is evidence to support such a position before we assume it.
As if you're not doing the same?
Everyone does it.
We both started this thread with an opinion and we're both arguing it.
When one argument doesn't work we change it for another rather than change our opinion. Even if we were to be out-argued that wouldn't even mean we were wrong (although it would mean that we need to rethink a fair bit of stuff).

Opinions change over time, but while we believe in something we stick to our guns.


Cut the bit where you tell me off for using my definition of faith...
(When I said "take it hypothetically" it meant assume that's what I meant by faith, and then atleast you'd've understood what I was saying!)

I think your argument is that


Read this thread (or at least the first few pages) on another form: http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-17954-knowledge.html It discusses the definition of faith. (The last post on the first page is very good specifically clears up the confusion). Argue the point’s raises in that post.
His points are only valid against those who cite Martin Luther or St Paul as spouting absolute truths on Christian faith. Doesn't represent all Christians let alone all theists.


No one has ANY knowledge or ANY experience with any supernatural thing. It’s impossible. The supernatural is beyond our comprehension so no coherent positive statement can be made about it. No assertions regarding God or anything supernatural can ever be made which means that no argument can even get off the ground.

This renders all other theistic claims useless.

Not sure if you accept Wiki but:
Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, and may likewise be in direct conflict with scientific concepts of possibility or plausibility.
So if you define Supernatural as unknowable then God could be a "natural" that just seems "supernatural" to our current understanding. Besides, I think your definition of supernatural was too strong. There's plenty of possibility of a "supernatural" that we can understand some things about, just not everything completely.


Begging the question is when you use the conclusion as one of the premises. Example…
The Bible says Jesus exists.
How do you know this is true?
The Bible says so.
Yes. That is begging the question.
Your original was:
Jesus existed.
The Bible said so.
That wasn't.

Or in another form…

Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?
Because it was inspired by God.


Lol :rolleyss:
Yes. These are terrible arguments for God.
Are you assuming that all justifications for God are limited to these?

The amount of inaccuracies, contradictions, misinformation and uncertainties makes it one of the worst “historical documents” out there. You certainly don’t want to use it for accuracy.
I don't think you're familiar with the science around "historical documents".
To be honest, I'm not either and what I have learned is mostly from biased sources so I won't argue it here.

This was a widely accepted forgery.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

(But let’s not turn into thread into a Jesus’ existence, it was only an example. Lets keep it on topic)
The story I heard was that it was tampered with extra detail but the original still acknowledge Jesus' existence. But yeah, back on topic...

You can’t be serious. We have complete history of his life and writings by himself, direct associates and contemporaries.
Again it's to do with the science of history.
They base it on how many copies they have, how close it was to the original source, how much distinct copies disagree... The Bible comes off the mostly like to have been written at the time and be preserved word for word. That doesn't prove the truth of the contents - the authors might of lied but apparently there's loads of sociallogical reasons why that's unlikely etc...

I'm not going to argue it as I'm not an expert in history and dealing with historical evidence but unless you are (which I doubt) then ruling it out without studying it properly is a leap of faith. (personally, I think you'd be justified to do so, but you don't agree! :p)

You cannot say, “I see the evidence like this, therefore, my conclusion is different to what the evidence says.” It’s like saying, “I don’t agree with the evidence for gravity, therefore gravity doesn’t exist.”

The evidence should speak for itself. Ones personal opinions on it are irrelevant to its truth. If I believe that fire isn’t hot, it doesn’t change the fact that is it.
We're not talking about truth. We're talking about justified belief.
If for that split second your senses stopped working and you stopped feeling the heat (perhaps someone spiked your tea) then you'd be justified for disbelieving that the fire is hot.
"I see the evidence like this" might be an argument if there's different possible interpretations on the evidence. When I originally said it, I wasn't talking about consciously interpreting it a certain way. No one is absolutely unbiased or impartial. No one has perfectly flawless anylitical technique and no one has seen all the evidence there is to see.

[Topher]

That is you're assuming justification requires a certain sort of "evidence". I think that's wrong.
What justification/evidence do you think is valid.

So far, the only problem you've had with my use of the word is that you prefer to use it a different way.
I don’t use the word faith in a different way, it is used in a different way.

a) Taking lines out of context is what I expect from creationists.
b) It wasn't necessarily a definition. Might've been a description of what faith does for people.
c) I for one don't rely on Paul for definitions and he hardly speaks for all theists.
a) Out of context? That's exactly what he said. Paul then reinforces it on another quote.
b) It's quite clear what he was meaning, on both quotes.
c) Oh, so the Bible is suddenly not authoritative :rolleyes:

As if you're not doing the same?
Everyone does it.
We both started this thread with an opinion and we're both arguing it.
I don’t require the other person to assume what I am arguing. I prove it in my argument.

When one argument doesn't work we change it for another rather than change our opinion.
If I’m shown to be incorrect – with evidence, logic etc – I’d change my opinion(s).

Cut the bit where you tell me off for using my definition of faith...
(When I said "take it hypothetically" it meant assume that's what I meant by faith, and then atleast you'd've understood what I was saying!)

I think your argument is that
Oh I understand it, but it incorrect, it’s fallacious. Hence my arguing against it.

His points are only valid against those who cite Martin Luther or St Paul as spouting absolute truths on Christian faith. Doesn't represent all Christians let alone all theists.
But they are of some authority.

If even if you disagree with them, the point stands, and it makes logical sense.

Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, and may likewise be in direct conflict with scientific concepts of possibility or plausibility.
So if you define Supernatural as unknowable then God could be a "natural" that just seems "supernatural" to our current understanding. Besides, I think your definition of supernatural was too strong. There's plenty of possibility of a "supernatural" that we can understand some things about, just not everything completely.
By “current understanding” it means that what we assert as supernatural may one day be proven to be natural - classic example: thunder.

However the point I was making stands, we cannot understand the supernatural itself (if such a thing event exists), it s beyond us. We cannot comprehend it.

So if we do understand somthing considered supernatural, it is NOT supernatural (see thunder).

What supernatural things do you think we can understand?

Are you assuming that all justifications for God are limited to these?
No, but I never heard a good one. No positive assertions can be made about God, so no coherent argument can even get off the ground.


PS, i've started a thread on the definition on faith for other to add to: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=872553#post872553

[Strafio]

What justification/evidence do you think is valid.
Tricky subject.
(There's a lot of discussion in philosophy over theories for justification in belief)

I instinctively have a pragmatic approach to epistemology.
So I still see evidence as useful but for pragmatic reasons.
Having said that, I don't know a huge amount on the subject (only the basic principles of pragmatism) and there's atleast one pragmatic argument I disagree with (Pascal's Wager).

William James' Will to Believe (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/#3) argument looks fairly interesting, although I'll admit that I haven't fully analysed it yet, just skimmed over it and noticed that I agree with one or two principles.



I don’t use the word faith in a different way, it is used in a different way.
Ooooh... is this asking for a tangent in the philosophy of language? ;)
The general use/dictionary definition is fairly ambiguous.
If we took a normal sentence involving "faith", both our definitions would fit the sentence.

The difference is our philosophical analysis of this faith and what it means to have it.

a) Out of context? That's exactly what he said. Paul then reinforces it on another quote.
b) It's quite clear what he was meaning, on both quotes.
c) Oh, so the Bible is suddenly not authoritative :rolleyes:
a) Yes, a quote from a completely different letter to completely differnet people.
b) He was meaning to give a philosophical definition of faith? I don't think so.
c) I've told you lots of time that I'm not a Christian.
I've also said lots of times that while I accept other Christians have good reasons to believe the Bible has substance, I don't accept it personally.

I don’t require the other person to assume what I am arguing. I prove it in my argument.
Who said I needed you to assume what I'm arguing?
I said "assume definition of faith" so you knew what I meant by faith when I used it in the argument about justification.

Oh, and if you'd proved anything there wouldn't be anymore argument about it! :p


If I’m shown to be incorrect – with evidence, logic etc – I’d change my opinion(s).
As we all would, but it only when we were absolutely sure we'd been proven incorrect.


Oh I understand it, but it incorrect, it’s fallacious. Hence my arguing against it.
You didn't point out any fallacies in it.
What you said is "wrong definition of faith", "wrong definition of faith" without a good reason why it was wrong.

But they are of some authority.

If even if you disagree with them, the point stands, and it makes logical sense.
Not at all. You tried to refute theism using texts that only a few theists use.
Not all Christians take Paul to speak absolute truth and definer of philosophical terms. Maybe you can say that the faith of Lutherans is irrational. That says nothing about Catholics though.

And not all theists are even Christian.
Is your point that theists are rational if and only if they don't swallow the dogma of these two sources because I can settle with that one! :)


By “current understanding” it means that what we assert as supernatural may one day be proven to be natural - classic example: thunder.
Yes. Except this time the supernatural could just as easily prove to be the work of God.

However the point I was making stands, we cannot understand the supernatural itself (if such a thing event exists), it s beyond us. We cannot comprehend it.

So if we do understand somthing considered supernatural, it is NOT supernatural (see thunder).
By that definition, God wouldn't be supernatural.
He would just be a part of nature that seems supernatural to our current understanding.

What supernatural things do you think we can understand?
Their effects on the natural world.
Christians, for example, believe that God has revealed himself to the world by interacting with it. The "God is metaphysically impossible" arguments aren't going to work. :)

[Topher]

a) Yes, a quote from a completely different letter to completely differnet people.
b) He was meaning to give a philosophical definition of faith? I don't think so.
a) What matter is what he said, not who it was to. He and others clearly defined faith as “belief without reason.”
b) It was quite clear and obvious he was describing the theistic use of the word faith.

Who said I needed you to assume what I'm arguing?
When you said: “For the moment, accept my definition "hypothetically"”

Oh, and if you'd proved anything there wouldn't be anymore argument about it!
Oh I have proven it, you just fail to acknowledge it.

You didn't point out any fallacies in it.
What you said is "wrong definition of faith", "wrong definition of faith" without a good reason why it was wrong.
I believe I have in every reply – the fallacy of equivocation.

The reasons have been quite clear. Quite frankly I’m baffled why you don’t see it.

Again…

Theistic faith is maintaining a belief without reason/evidence, for if there was reason/evidence for the belief, faith in it would be unnecessary.

Non-theistic faith - which has nothing to do with the above definition - is equal to trust and confidence, which is based on experience, knowledge etc. The word faith here is used on the colloquial (informal) sense.

In other words, one is based on knowledge and experience, the other is not.

You commit the fallacy by applying theistic faith to non-theist issues buy saying, for example, “while belief that the sun will rise only has a small leap of faith, compared to belief in God, which has a large leap of faith, it is the same faith”

Well, they are NOT the same type of faith and I’ve shown this quite clearly.

Not at all. You tried to refute theism using texts that only a few theists use.
Of course, only a few theists use the Bible, what was I thinking!

Yes. Except this time the supernatural could just as easily prove to be the work of God.
If we explain something considered to be supernatural, which we can only do naturally, there is no reason to assume it is the result of supernatural causes. Do you assume thunder, or wind, or rain, while all being natural, are merely effects of supernatural entities? Of course not.

By that definition, God wouldn't be supernatural.
He would just be a part of nature that seems supernatural to our current understanding.
Only if God was explanted, but if he was explained, he would not be supernatural, and if God is not supernatural, he is not God.

For God to be God, he must be supernatural, and because he is supernatural by definition, no coherent explanation could even be grasped.

What this means is that if God does exist, anyone who asserts positive claims to him is irrational. It simply cannot be done.

Because of this, faith in God cannot be based on any knowledge or experience, ergo, faith in God is not based on any reason/evidence and is therefore unjustifiable.

That doesn’t mean one cannot hold belief in God…

The negative, or sensible theologian accepts that his god is incomprehensible and believes he is unjustifiable, but then speaks about him anyway (based on faith/irration)

The positive, or what I dub, ‘nutcase’ theologian irrationally holds his god to be comprehensible, and believes he is justifiable, and then makes the mistake of believing that what follows is rational.

The difference is not the amount of faith they have, but where they choose to be irrational.

Their effects on the natural world.
As I said a reply or two back, why assume that the natural effects have supernatural causes.

[Strafio]

a) What matter is what he said, not who it was to. He and others clearly defined faith as “belief without reason.”
b) It was quite clear and obvious he was describing the theistic use of the word faith.
It seems to me that Paul was describing a use of or an example of faith rather than defining it. There is a major difference there.

When you said: “For the moment, accept my definition "hypothetically"”
There was a good reason why I could've taken it down that route.

You claim theism is unjustifiable.
I claim theism is justifiable if a "faith" is.
So if a theism based on ANY "faith" justifiable then my argument holds.
Therefore, I can use any definition of faith to make my point.
Because I can't assume that one of the "faith"'s can be used to justify theism I have to show that one does, but I get to choose which one. Showing that another definition of faith doesn't is irrelevent.

Oh I have proven it, you just fail to acknowledge it.
Is that so? :)


I believe I have in every reply – the fallacy of equivocation.
I've not made that fallacy.
I've used one definition of faith (the one given in the other topic) and consistently used it with the same definition.

Theistic faith is maintaining a belief without reason/evidence, for if there was reason/evidence for the belief, faith in it would be unnecessary.

Non-theistic faith - which has nothing to do with the above definition - is equal to trust and confidence, which is based on experience, knowledge etc. The word faith here is used on the colloquial (informal) sense.

In other words, one is based on knowledge and experience, the other is not.
This disproves the justification of ONE definition of faith.
As I didn't try to argue that THIS faith was justifiable it was an irrelevent result.

You commit the fallacy by applying theistic faith to non-theist issues buy saying, for example, “while belief that the sun will rise only has a small leap of faith, compared to belief in God, which has a large leap of faith, it is the same faith”

Well, they are NOT the same type of faith and I’ve shown this quite clearly.
I think I've shown in the other topic that they are the same faith, different leaps. If I have made an error, it's not the fallacy of equivocation. I used the same definition of faith for both the small leap and for the large leap. Perhaps you disagree that the sun rising requires a leap of faith of this sort. See the other topic. I might've finally managed to answer it. :)

Of course, only a few theists use the Bible, what was I thinking!
I don't think that you were! ;):p:D
Remember, I'm not arguing that all theists are justified in their beliefs.
I'm arguing that theism is justifiable.

Only if God was explanted, but if he was explained, he would not be supernatural, and if God is not supernatural, he is not God.
It's a possibility that God might someday be explained, but you're right, not many people really believe that about him. I'll argue that a God can be supernatural and we can know things about him.

For God to be God, he must be supernatural, and because he is supernatural by definition, no coherent explanation could even be grasped.
Counter exampe:
Imagine a computer game like the Sims.
I would be the equivilent of God - outside the rules of their natural world governed by the game's code. Yet I can still interact with them and communicate with them and give them a basic understanding of certain things about me (provided the AI was advanced enough for them to communicate/understand things).

Other than my chosen interactions with them, I would be completely inaccessable and undetectable to them.

This is an example of how something supernatural can plausibly interact with the natural world and give it's inhabitants basic information about it through communication. The "metaphysically impossible" argument doesn't work.

As I said a reply or two back, why assume that the natural effects have supernatural causes.
It's as good as assumption that they don't.
My argument is that everyone assumes certain things, so justification can't be limited to a single theory.

[Topher]

I claim theism is justifiable if a "faith" is.
So if a theism based on ANY "faith" justifiable then my argument holds.
Your mistake is believing that faith is justifiable. Therefore your argument doesn’t hold.

Therefore, I can use any definition of faith to make my point.
I own part of a very small river.

Rivers have banks.

Banks have a lot of money in them.

Therefore, I am a millionare

The proof:

bank1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bngk)
n.
The slope of land adjoining a body of water, especially adjoining a river, lake, or channel. Often used in the plural.
A large elevated area of a sea floor.

bank2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bngk)
n.
A business establishment in which money is kept for saving or commercial purposes or is invested, supplied for loans, or exchanged.

Following your impeccable logic, I am now a millionaire.

But unfortunately, right after discovering my wealth, I played a game of pool and made a bankshot... as we all know, shooting at a bank is a criminal offence, so now I am facing jail time.

;)

The definition of the word is dependent on the context used. You can’t just make it up.

Because I can't assume that one of the "faith"'s can be used to justify theism I have to show that one does, but I get to choose which one. Showing that another definition of faith doesn't is irrelevant.
No you don’t, see the analogy above.

The definition of faith that doesn’t justify theism is precisely the definition which you have to use. If you use the non-religious definition you commit a fallacy.

I've not made that fallacy.
I've used one definition of faith (the one given in the other topic) and consistently used it with the same definition.
That is precisely the problem - you’ve used the same definition, religious faith, even when your not talking about religious issues. That is exactly what the fallacy is.


This disproves the justification of ONE definition of faith.
Exactly! Religious faith is not justified, non-religious faith is. However you’ve only used religious faith in your argument.

As I didn't try to argue that THIS faith was justifiable it was an irrelevent result.
Actually you were. See the reply after the next.

I think I've shown in the other topic that they are the same faith, different leaps.
No, they are not.

I'm arguing that theism is justifiabl
Theism relies on faith, so you are indirectly inferring that faith in justifiable.

It's a possibility that God might someday be explained, but you're right, not many people really believe that about him. I'll argue that a God can be supernatural and we can know things about him.
If he is explained, if we can know things about him, he would not be God.

It is irrational to believe you can even grasp a supernatural entity.

Counter exampe:
Imagine a computer game like the Sims.
I would be the equivilent of God - outside the rules of their natural world governed by the game's code.
God is beyond everything, so in your example, God could not be governed by the games code, he would be beyond them, he would have created them.

Also our postulating from the position of a God so the comparison doesn’t work. From the point of view of the “Sims,” which is what really matters, my argument would stand.

You said it yourself: ”I would be completely inaccessable and undetectable to them.”

[Strafio]

Your mistake is believing that faith is justifiable. Therefore your argument doesn’t hold.
Had we concluded that faith isn't justifiable, because I was under them impression that's exactly what we were debating right now.

I own part of a very small river.

Rivers have banks.

Banks have a lot of money in them.

Therefore, I am a millionare

The proof:

bank1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bngk)
n.
The slope of land adjoining a body of water, especially adjoining a river, lake, or channel. Often used in the plural.
A large elevated area of a sea floor.

bank2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bngk)
n.
A business establishment in which money is kept for saving or commercial purposes or is invested, supplied for loans, or exchanged.

Following your impeccable logic, I am now a millionaire.
:) Maybe I should've made myself clearer.
I choose which definition of faith to use but I have to stick to it consistantly.
(i.e. not switch definitions mid argument like in the "bank" example) I've used one definition and stuck with it consistently. Maybe you mistook it for another use which is why you thought that I was being inconsistent in my use, in which case the equivication call was understandable. You were also telling me which definition of faith I should assume, the "without reason" one. That wasn't right.

The definition of faith that doesn’t justify theism is precisely the definition which you have to use. If you use the non-religious definition you commit a fallacy.
I've consistently used a single definition which I've tried to show that applies to both religious and non-religious use.

That is precisely the problem - you’ve used the same definition, religious faith, even when your not talking about religious issues. That is exactly what the fallacy is.
Oh, so the problem isn't that I was making the fallacy of equivication, the problem was that I wasn't? I understand now... :p

I try to show that the same type of faith applies to both situations so I use the same definition of faith? Was that wrong of me? I don't think so. :)

Exactly! Religious faith is not justified, non-religious faith is. However you’ve only used religious faith in your argument.
No. Your chosen explanation of religious faith is not justified.
That doesn't say anything about my explanation of faith that can also be applied to religious people. Maybe I haven't been very clear on what I mean by "faith". I'll clear things up.
When I use the word "faith" in this topic, it's defined like this:

Faith fills the gap from lack of absolute reason.
As our reasons for belief are never perfectly logical there will always be a small leap of faith. (I will try and show that without this leap of faith, no kind of belief is possible)
The more solid the reasoning is, the less faith is necessary. The less complete the reasoning is, the larger the leap of faith necessary to believe it.

In the other topic you're arguing that our reasons for belief are perfectly logical. If that's the case then I'd have to weaken the definition a bit, from never perfectly logical to not always.
Even then, this version of faith is not "without reason" (which you often assume when you try to refute my arguments).

In this topic, the is the definition I've always meant.
I've made no "equovication fallacy".
It might be that the claim that "all beliefs require faith" (as in this faith) is fallicious. We'll settle that in the other topic.


God is beyond everything, so in your example, God could not be governed by the games code, he would be beyond them, he would have created them.
Yes. In the example I was God. Beyond the code of the game.

Also our postulating from the position of a God so the comparison doesn’t work. From the point of view of the “Sims,” which is what really matters, my argument would stand.
No it wouldn't.
If I chose a character in the game and told them that my favourite colour was blue then they would know and understand something about me (provided there was something in their world that was defined as "blue").

So it's not necessarily impossible to know things about supernatural, even if it's impossible to get this knowledge through scientific methods. The best their science could do is determine the laws of their world dictated by the game's code. They could only know about me through what I told them.

You said it yourself: ”I would be completely inaccessable and undetectable to them.”
Ahem? Full quote please:
"Other than my chosen interactions with them, I would be completely inaccessable and undetectable to them."

See the bit in bold? :)
So it's not metaphysically impossible that something supernatural interacts with this world and in communicating with us provides us with knowledge of them, depite our inability to access them of our own accord.

Right. Back to work for real this time.
I'll be back tonight! :Angel:

[Topher]

Had we concluded that faith isn't justifiable, because I was under them impression that's exactly what we were debating right now.
You said “I claim theism is justifiable if a "faith" is.” Well theistic faith isn’t justified, therefore theism isn’t justified.

I choose which definition of faith to use but I have to stick to it consistantly. I've used one definition and stuck with it consistently.
That is EXACTLY the error! That is precisely what the fallacy of equivocation is.

You’re applying the definition of faith you’re using to all areas, when it should only be applied to theistic issues such as God.

When you are not referring to theistic issues, such as trust the sun will rise, or trust in the doctor, it is fallacious to continue to use the theistic definition. This the ploy thesis us to suggest everyone has faith (i.e. you have faith in doctors, why not have faith in God). Faith in doctors is not the same faith used regarding God.

You need to change definition according to the context of what is said. Until you realise this you will continue to make the same error.

As for the definitions, as simply as possible:
Theistic faith is belief without reason.
Non-theistic faith is belief with reason.

I've consistently used a single definition which I've tried to show that applies to both religious and non-religious use.
Again, this is your error, it does NOT apply to both religious and non-religious use. Religious faith/belief is without evidence/reason. Why… well the evidence/reason doesn’t exist because it relates to the supernatural, something we cannot grasp. Non religious faith/belief however is based on evidence – experience, knowledge, probability etc. This definition is completely different to religious faith.

Oh, so the problem isn't that I was making the fallacy of equivication, the problem was that I wasn't? I understand now...

I try to show that the same type of faith applies to both situations so I use the same definition of faith? Was that wrong of me? I don't think so.
What!?! :confused:

You really don’t understand the fallacy of equivocation do you! :rolleyes:

Yes, it is wrong of you. The definitions are different and by confusing them is exactly what the fallacy of equivocation is, and is exactly what you have been doing.
See the previous reply, I go over each definition.

No. Your chosen explanation of religious faith is not justified.
No, it the explanation as defined by The Bible, leading theists and logic.

As our reasons for belief are never perfectly logical there will always be a small leap of faith. (I will try and show that without this leap of faith, no kind of belief is possible)
The more solid the reasoning is, the less faith is necessary. The less complete the reasoning is, the larger the leap of faith necessary to believe it.
I’ve pointed the problem with this before. Here you are assuming the when we lack evidence/reason; faith automatically come into play. This is incorrect. However it is the crux of your definition of faith, which is exactly why it is wrong.

When we lack evidence/reason, you DO NOT revert to faith to fill on the void. You simply say: “I lack reason/evidence” and don’t make assumption.

No it wouldn't.
If I chose a character in the game and told them that my favourite colour was blue then they would know and understand something about me (provided there was something in their world that was defined as "blue").

They could only know about me through what I told them.
Who says they, just like us, would take God’s messages as real?

Just like our reality, there would probably be no evidence of your “God” existenc other than allege claims. We have so-called evidence in this reality of God, however it is not evidence. Even if God were actually true, you need to look from the perspective of the “Sims” - how they view the reality, how they perceive God etc.

By looking at things in reverse, from Gods perspective, is not resolving the issue of how they/we perceive God and the supernatural.

So it's not metaphysically impossible that something supernatural interacts with this world and in communicating with us provides us with knowledge of them, depite our inability to access them of our own accord.
What reason/evidence, if any, would we have to accept these “messages” as being real? There would be no reason/evidence, so the only way to accept it would be on faith, just like this reality.

[Strafio]

I think I've clarified things a bit in the other topic.
Whatever flaws I had in my argument, "equivocation" wasn't one.
I was trying to show that a single definition of faith could be applied to both theistic and non-theistic beliefs. So I had to use the same definition when I tried to apply it to both beliefs.

I definately showed that you likely make a lot of leaps of faith in your average day, but perhaps not concerning what you'd call "justified beliefs".
There is one bit in that last post that needs answering:


What reason/evidence, if any, would we have to accept these “messages” as being real? There would be no reason/evidence, so the only way to accept it would be on faith, just like this reality.
Hence we get back to the justification discussion.
(The computer game example was to prove your "all claims of supernatural are logically nonsense" claim wrong)

I mentioned pragmatic justification (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/#3) for beliefs a while back. So far I can't justify theistic beliefs with it, but it can justify a lot of beliefs that your evidentialism wouldn't. The position you've stated in this thread is similar to the Clifford's Rule that he argues against. He gives some good examples when it's justifiable to make leaps of faith.

E.g. believing you're better at something that you really are will boost your confidence and performance. (it has to be a genuine belief for obvious reasons)

There are restrictions though.
Not anything goes. It's not allowed to contradict very certain knowledge, for example.

His pragmatic argument for theism is that belief in God was required to enforce ethics on people. I don't agree with that though. I have noticed that there is a strong "spirit" around people with strong faith and I have also noticed that it has turned lives around. (Some kids who were druggies a year ago got baptised at my friend's church today. It turns out they got introduced to Christianity and they've managed to break the habit, find new meaning in life etc...)

If someone finds that a faith is "meaning" something to them then I see that as a very good pragmatic reason to have this faith.

[Topher]

Whatever flaws I had in my argument, "equivocation" wasn't one.
I was trying to show that a single definition of faith could be applied to both theistic and non-theistic beliefs. So I had to use the same definition when I tried to apply it to both beliefs.
Errr…. that IS the fallacy of equivocation.

Theistic faith and non-theistic faith ARE different. They have NOTHING to do with each other hence they cannot have the same definition. The fallacy of equivocation is when you use a definition of a word in the wrong context.

Hence the analogy i posted before, and again below. Here the word "bank" is being applied to multiple different contexts. Exactly what you have been doing with the word faith.

I own part of a very small river.

Rivers have banks.

Banks have a lot of money in them.

Therefore, I am a millionare

The proof:

bank1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bngk)
n.
The slope of land adjoining a body of water, especially adjoining a river, lake, or channel. Often used in the plural.
A large elevated area of a sea floor.

bank2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bngk)
n.
A business establishment in which money is kept for saving or commercial purposes or is invested, supplied for loans, or exchanged.

Following your impeccable logic, I am now a millionaire.

But unfortunately, right after discovering my wealth, I played a game of pool and made a bankshot... as we all know, shooting at a bank is a criminal offence, so now I am facing jail time.

[Strafio]

If I'd visited a money bank situated on the edge of a river withdrawn money, you'd say:
"You idiot! The types of bank situated on the edge of rivers don't have money in them!"

But never mind. I'll take this into the other thread and try and simplify it a little. :)


By the way, did you read that stuff on pragmatism?
I'll definately be using pragmatic arguments to justify people taking large leaps of Fayh so it might be handy to get familiar with pragmatic principles, so know you can tell me if you think I'm abusing the pragmatic argument (breaking its rules) or you can tell me why you reject pragmatic arguments for justification. :)