The question of faith (and Bertrand Russell quote)

[diana]

Yo.

I recently posted a fairly popular Bertrand Russell quote on my Facebook. It goes like this:

We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. ​

A couple of religious friends found this odd enough to comment. They (naturally) take exception to being accused of thinking with their emotions. They insist faith is based on reason but goes beyond it, and it is decidedly not emotion, but...something else.

I pointed out the biblical definition of faith, and gave my layman's understanding that it is, essentially, hope that what you want to happen, happens. (Or, hope that what you believe is, is.) I think hope=desire=emotion.

They find it odd that I say desire is an emotion. (Note: we've already differentiated emotional desire from physical desires/needs, so there's no need to go there.)

I suppose my problem (?) here is that I know of nothing else that makes me me than my knowledge/reason and my emotions. I know of no other variable in the equation, and they point to some other variable.

What say you?

d

 

[diana]

Wicked slow board anymore, ain't it?

d

 

[Gila Guerilla]

Yo.

I recently posted a fairly popular Bertrand Russell quote on my Facebook. It goes like this:

We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. ​

A couple of religious friends found this odd enough to comment. They (naturally) take exception to being accused of thinking with their emotions. They insist faith is based on reason but goes beyond it, and it is decidedly not emotion, but...something else.

I pointed out the biblical definition of faith, and gave my layman's understanding that it is, essentially, hope that what you want to happen, happens. (Or, hope that what you believe is, is.) I think hope=desire=emotion.

They find it odd that I say desire is an emotion. (Note: we've already differentiated emotional desire from physical desires/needs, so there's no need to go there.)

I suppose my problem (?) here is that I know of nothing else that makes me me than my knowledge/reason and my emotions. I know of no other variable in the equation, and they point to some other variable.

What say you?

d

It seems that the word faith has a number of meanings, see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith for example. But when the religious say that they believe something on faith, or that they have faith, I think that in general they mean that they believe without good evidence, or even when the evidence says that they ought not to believe. If your religious friends, Diana, use faith in a different way, then maybe they do have good reasons to believe, and that is fine. The way to find out, is to discuss examples of what they take on faith.

As an atheist, I can take something as highly likely, without proof. If my son takes a trip into town, I take it as being highly likely that he has the wherewithal to get the task accomplished. It's a matter of past experience, (me of my son, and of other people), to accept that they can continue to do what they have always done , or that they have capacities at least as good as others who have done that thing. That to me is not 'faith', it is judgement based on experience and a developed ability to rate likelihoods.

The religious will try to say that a person takes the love of their spouse on faith. I say, not so. We can evaluate the likelihood of professed love by comparing the lover's actions against that of other people who do not love you, and against what one might expect of a person professing love for you. People can evaluate that a person no longer loves them, and this can lead to separation or divorce.

Sometimes, when one says of a religious idea or of "God", that one cannot accept something about it or "him", the religious may tell you that: "You've got to have faith". I'd say that in such a case, they mean that you simply have to accept. That is, they are suggesting belief without evidence, or when the evidence is not convincing you.

So if the religious folk use the term faith to mean that they have good reasons to believe something, it is up to the sceptic to look at their reasons, to determine if the reasons given are adequate, justified and not outweighed by alternatives which are simpler and also adequate and justified.

 

[DBT]

Yo.

A couple of religious friends found this odd enough to comment. They (naturally) take exception to being accused of thinking with their emotions. They insist faith is based on reason but goes beyond it, and it is decidedly not emotion, but...something else.

I pointed out the biblical definition of faith, and gave my layman's understanding that it is, essentially, hope that what you want to happen, happens. (Or, hope that what you believe is, is.) I think hope=desire=emotion.

They find it odd that I say desire is an emotion. (Note: we've already differentiated emotional desire from physical desires/needs, so there's no need to go there.)

I suppose my problem (?) here is that I know of nothing else that makes me me than my knowledge/reason and my emotions. I know of no other variable in the equation, and they point to some other variable.

What say you?

d

Hope in relation to faith entails an article. The thing, God in this instance, that is believed to be true. If it is believed to be actually true, what need is there for hope? Why hope when you are convinced your belief is true and accurate?

Hope implies doubt, it may not be true, it may not happen, so unless a faith based believer is utterly deluded, doubt is necessarily the flip side of faith: holding a belief without the benefit of evidence. Hope may be an aspect of the doubt that is felt, but not a part of the conviction of truth, which without evidence is a form of self deception borne of desire and fear.

''Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.'' Hebrews 11:1

The biblical 'being sure of' what 'we hope for' tends to conflate certainty and hope, but if one is certain, what need is there for hope? Being hopeful is not a sign of certainty.

 

[diana]

Hi, Gila Guerilla. Thanks for your thoughts.

It seems that the word faith has a number of meanings, see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith for example. But when the religious say that they believe something on faith, or that they have faith, I think that in general they mean that they believe without good evidence, or even when the evidence says that they ought not to believe. If your religious friends, Diana, use faith in a different way, then maybe they do have good reasons to believe, and that is fine. The way to find out, is to discuss examples of what they take on faith.

I pointed out the dangers of equivocating different meanings of the word early in the conversation, and was shocked when one such friend said that in her opinion, the two main definitions (confidence in a thing based on evidence/experience and belief in a supernatural being) are basically the same thing. Other than pointing out through a simple, clear example that that is demonstrably not the case, I really don't know how to respond to such a remark. I mean, if her belief that the sun will come up tomorrow is in exactly the same playing field with her belief that an impossible being exists, where is my starting point for even having a basis for communication?

As an atheist, I can take something as highly likely, without proof. If my son takes a trip into town, I take it as being highly likely that he has the wherewithal to get the task accomplished. It's a matter of past experience, (me of my son, and of other people), to accept that they can continue to do what they have always done , or that they have capacities at least as good as others who have done that thing. That to me is not 'faith', it is judgement based on experience and a developed ability to rate likelihoods.

The religious will try to say that a person takes the love of their spouse on faith. I say, not so. We can evaluate the likelihood of professed love by comparing the lover's actions against that of other people who do not love you, and against what one might expect of a person professing love for you. People can evaluate that a person no longer loves them, and this can lead to separation or divorce.

Those are excellent responses to that particular assertion, but it hasn't (yet) reared its ugly head.

Sometimes, when one says of a religious idea or of "God", that one cannot accept something about it or "him", the religious may tell you that: "You've got to have faith". I'd say that in such a case, they mean that you simply have to accept. That is, they are suggesting belief without evidence, or when the evidence is not convincing you.

So if the religious folk use the term faith to mean that they have good reasons to believe something, it is up to the sceptic to look at their reasons, to determine if the reasons given are adequate, justified and not outweighed by alternatives which are simpler and also adequate and justified.

True, but they were simply taking exception to the Bertrand Russell quote that asserts that since they aren't using reason, they are using emotion. According to them both, there is another factor involved that is neither, although neither can tell me what that factor is. The closest they have come is that it is something "deeper" and "vaster" than reason/intellect or emotions.

I think they're trying to suggest "soul" without saying it (again), since I already pointed out that that word is meaningless to me (as is the word "God"). In my experience, these are only fluffy words theists use which, when examined closely, simply evaporate into meaninglessness.

One of the friends--and they are true friends --and I had the following brief exchange toward the end of the conversation:

ME: Desire is driven by something, though. Excluding physical needs, what is it driven by? Emotions. However you slice it, it comes back to emotions. Russell was not so daft as y'all seem to think....

Lisa: It looks to me like you're just not getting it, lol.

ME: Neither are you!

Lisa: Lemme ask you this - are thoughts the same as emotions?

Lisa: Are ideas the same as emotions?

Lisa: Are emotions the deepest, most basic part of our psyche? Our being?

ME: Nope. I can have an idea without believing in it. I have an idea that that I have a billion dollars in a Swiss bank account that I will receive from an anonymous well-meaning person when I turn 50, for example....

ME: I've never been asked what is the deepest part of my psyche. Probably emotions, yes. I don't know. I don't know of any other part of my psyche that I can itemize besides knowledge/reason and emotions, frankly.

ME: But it's a fascinating question!

(I could copy the whole conversation here, but I don't want to bore y'all.)

I suppose she's trying to get me to acknowledge that I, too, believe that there's more to me than intellect and emotion. The problem she's up against, is that I'm honestly unaware of any other part of me.

:/

Thoughts?

d

 

[diana]

Hi, Diana! Great to "see" you!

Hope in relation to faith entails an article. The thing, God in this instance, that is believed to be true. If it is believed to be actually true, what need is there for hope? Why hope when you are convinced your belief is true and accurate?

This makes good sense to me, but I don't have much faith (heh) in its efficacy with a believer. They seem immune to the realization that their arguments are circular--as the hope/belief one most certainly is.

Hope implies doubt, it may not be true, it may not happen, so unless a faith based believer is utterly deluded, doubt is necessarily the flip side of faith: holding a belief without the benefit of evidence. Hope may be an aspect of the doubt that is felt, but not a part of the conviction of truth, which without evidence is a form of self deception borne of desire and fear.

That's how I've always seen it, too, but they're arguing precisely that desire and fear are not part of the equation for them. To wit:

Stephanie: Ok let me put it another way...emotions and feelings certainly play a part, as they are part of the human condition. What I reject is the dichotomous nature of the quote (it must only be EITHER evidence OR emotion.) If it were true that my faith were based solely on emotion as opposed to evidence, or even contrary to evidence, then any time I wasn't "feeling" my religion, wouldn't the logical conclusion be a loss of faith? Sometimes it is more uncomfortable to keep living one's faith than it would be to stop. I think it is likely difficult to discuss because of varying definitions of the word faith, especially. Faith to me is so much more than mere "belief in God," it is action, it is doing more than believing, so it's hard for me to grasp what is trying to be asserted. All I know is, as a person with faith, it does not ring true.

An example that springs to mind is Mother Teresa, when she lost all of the spiritual consolation (warm feelings, closeness to God) she'd had up to that point, went on acting as though what she had previously "felt" quite strongly was still true, even as those feelings/emotions were gone. So would that faith still be considered based on emotions, then? I think I'd say no and you'd say yes, lol, because I think we're just using the words differently.

(and)

Lisa: Maybe this will illustrate what I'm trying to say about desire. I read a lot of articles and biographies about athletes. I especially enjoy reading about Olympic athletes. What is common to these elite athletes is their desire to win - a gold medal, a national or world championship, world records, etc.

Another thing that is common to these athletes -setting aside their feelings on a daily basis in order to achieve their goals.

Bad moods, boredom, feeling lonely, homesick, hating cold mornings, or whatever - doesn't matter. They set those feelings aside and continue training. Diver Greg Louganis had a fear of heights. But he set those feelings of fear aside and dove off a 10 meter platform nearly every day.
The desire these athletes have to win supercedes whatever emotions surface each day.

At some point in life they decided they wanted to be a champion. It was not based on emotion. It was a thought that captured their imagination. It became a belief as they pursued it. They used their emotions in positive ways or set their emotions aside. A great champion draws from deep within when he or she is being challenged, in danger of losing, stretched beyond their previous limits. They aren't looking for emotions to bring them back up again. They are using their minds, their thoughts, their faith& beliefs (in God, in possibilities, in themselves, or whatever motivates them). You can hardly read about great athletes without discussions about their indomitable spirits.

Now if you want to insist that desire & belief & faith are simply other words for emotion or that emotion is the basis of those things, we'll have to part company on that.

''Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.'' Hebrews 11:1

The biblical 'being sure of' what 'we hope for' tends to conflate certainty and hope, but if one is certain, what need is there for hope? Being hopeful is not a sign of certainty.

Very interesting point! It marks yet another problem with this definition.

d

 

[diana]

I'll add that both of my friends seem to see desire as being...not an emotion. This baffles me.

I understand that psychologists differentiate between physical cravings (like hunger and thirst) and, well, emotional desire, but it's precisely the latter we're talking about here.



If desire isn't an emotion (or emotionally-driven), then what is it?

d

 

[DBT]

You can differentiate hunger and thirst in terms of a physical sensation, an impulse to eat food or drink because you are dehydrated or hungry, in contrast to the psychological desire for comfort foods, chocolates, lollies, cream puffs, soft drinks, etc, regardless of a physical need for sustenance, or even in face of over consumption and obesity.

Just as faith is a firm conviction in the reality of something that has little or no evidential support, or indeed, holding a firm conviction in the face of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This makes good sense to me, but I don't have much faith (heh) in its efficacy with a believer. They seem immune to the realization that their arguments are circular--as the hope/belief one most certainly is.

Yeah, on other forums i've been told, with utter sincerity:

To say that God doesn't exist is TOTALLY overlooking the fact that God does exist

We evidence of God in the fact that He has not wiped us off the planet yet for our sin. This shows he is indeed abounding in mercy and slow to wrath

More logic from the same poster:

But what if he isn't there you may ask, will my words be wasted? The Bible says anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

I understand that psychologists differentiate between physical cravings (like hunger and thirst) and, well, emotional desire, but it's precisely the latter we're talking about here.

Hunger, thirst, cold, physical dependency, are all bodily reactions. People in comas still need to be fed, watered, protected from the elements. The body has the need even if they can't notice the lack. They do not wake up from a coma and announce that they've missed seven or seventy Masses and feel the lack.

But desire requires an imagination. A dissatisfaction with an aspect of life that requies either a memory of when things were different, or an imagination that things could be different. And a wish that things would be different.

 

[diana]

Keith&Co,

Neither of these friends are quite that daft. Good luck with that, mate.

Hunger, thirst, cold, physical dependency, are all bodily reactions. People in comas still need to be fed, watered, protected from the elements. The body has the need even if they can't notice the lack. They do not wake up from a coma and announce that they've missed seven or seventy Masses and feel the lack.

But desire requires an imagination. A dissatisfaction with an aspect of life that requies either a memory of when things were different, or an imagination that things could be different. And a wish that things would be different.

Damn good point. I was just rocking with the general overview Wiki provides, frankly. I'm willing to stipulate that we have "desires" that are entirely physiological. That still leaves us with the other kind: emotion.

I suppose I should go check on the conversation. A bright new shiny atheist friend of mine seems to have taken over for a while, but it might be entertaining to see what has happened since then....

d

 

[fast]

There is one sure-fire way to destroy people's faith in God's existence. All He has to do is appear now in person before man.

People that do believe will continue to believe, but do so as they will, they will no longer be doing so on faith.

Faith is a kind of belief, but not every belief is a belief on faith.

 

[DBT]

There is one sure-fire way to destroy people's faith in God's existence. All He has to do is appear now in person before man.

People that do believe will continue to believe, but do so as they will, they will no longer be doing so on faith.

Faith is a kind of belief, but not every belief is a belief on faith.

Unjustified belief.
Justified belief.
Knowledge.

 

[fast]

There is one sure-fire way to destroy people's faith in God's existence. All He has to do is appear now in person before man.

People that do believe will continue to believe, but do so as they will, they will no longer be doing so on faith.

Faith is a kind of belief, but not every belief is a belief on faith.

Unjustified belief.
Justified belief.
Knowledge.

Truth is independent of knowledge, and not all false beliefs are unjustified.

 

[DBT]

Unjustified belief.
Justified belief.
Knowledge.

Truth is independent of knowledge, and not all false beliefs are unjustified.

How and how?

 

[James Brown]

A couple of religious friends found this odd enough to comment. They (naturally) take exception to being accused of thinking with their emotions. They insist faith is based on reason but goes beyond it, and it is decidedly not emotion, but...something else.

Of course they do. Just like a hammer salesman will insist that any project must use a hammer, advocates for faith must emphasize its unique properties lest others think it is of no use.

If reason is comprehensive, if no sphere of reality is exempt from its scrutiny, there are no grounds on which to posit faith as an alternate method of cognition. If reason can tell us anything there is to know, there is no longer a job for faith. The entire notion of faith rests upon and presupposes the inadequacy of reason. This explains why discussions in favor of faith are always accompanied by references to the limits of reason. The Christian must use this procedure in order to prepare the necessary groundwork for faith. Without this preparation, he will be in the position of advocating the use of a concept for which there is no use.

George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

 

[fast]

Truth is independent of knowledge, and not all false beliefs are unjustified.

How and how?

My wife is at the house, and I'm at the office, or so I believe she is. The truth of the matter is that either she is at the house or she isn't. Suppose I don't know either way. In no way does my knowledge (or lack thereof) alter the the truth of the matter. If I say that she's at the house, then what I say is true if (and only if) she is in fact at the house. Neither belief, knowledge, nor wishes upon a star impact the truth of the matter.

Also, knowledge implies truth whereas truth does not imply knowledge. Additionally, knowledge implies belief whereas belief doesn't imply knowledge. If I know something, then I believe something, but just because I believe something, that doesn't mean that I know something. If I believe something, I do not therefore know something, furthermore, if I believe something, then what I believe is not therefore true. If I know something, then not only do I believe something, but what I believe is true--not because I believe it but because we cannot know something to be true unless that something is true.

A belief is not therefore an unjustified belief merely because a belief is false. If my wife has always been at the house at this time, and if she tells me she's at the house, and if my child says she's home with her, and if there's no history of deceit, then I have justification for holding the belief I do. If it turns out that my belief is false, my belief was not therefore unjustified, as the truth of the matter isn't what's pertinent to whether a belief is justified or not.

 

[ontological_realist]

Truth is independent of anybody and everybody's belief whether justified or not.

 

[ontological_realist]

Yo.

I recently posted a fairly popular Bertrand Russell quote on my Facebook. It goes like this:

We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. ​

A couple of religious friends found this odd enough to comment. They (naturally) take exception to being accused of thinking with their emotions. They insist faith is based on reason but goes beyond it, and it is decidedly not emotion, but...something else.

I pointed out the biblical definition of faith, and gave my layman's understanding that it is, essentially, hope that what you want to happen, happens. (Or, hope that what you believe is, is.) I think hope=desire=emotion.

They find it odd that I say desire is an emotion. (Note: we've already differentiated emotional desire from physical desires/needs, so there's no need to go there.)

I suppose my problem (?) here is that I know of nothing else that makes me me than my knowledge/reason and my emotions. I know of no other variable in the equation, and they point to some other variable.

What say you?

d

Interesting post!

I think that generally speaking, faith is produced by wishful thinking (self-deception) and brain washing etc.


You wrote, "I suppose my problem (?) here is that I know of nothing else that makes me me than my knowledge/reason and my emotions. I know of no other variable in the equation, and they point to some other variable."

I am curious, what other variables do they point to?


All your knowledge is not conscious knowledge. You may be knowing things which you consciously do not know. Humans certainly do not know themselves completely. There are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy or mine.

 

[fast]

Truth is independent of anybody and everybody's belief whether justified or not.

Correct

 

[ontological_realist]

Yo.

I recently posted a fairly popular Bertrand Russell quote on my Facebook. It goes like this:

We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. ​

A couple of religious friends found this odd enough to comment. They (naturally) take exception to being accused of thinking with their emotions. They insist faith is based on reason but goes beyond it, and it is decidedly not emotion, but...something else.

I pointed out the biblical definition of faith, and gave my layman's understanding that it is, essentially, hope that what you want to happen, happens. (Or, hope that what you believe is, is.) I think hope=desire=emotion.

They find it odd that I say desire is an emotion. (Note: we've already differentiated emotional desire from physical desires/needs, so there's no need to go there.)

I suppose my problem (?) here is that I know of nothing else that makes me me than my knowledge/reason and my emotions. I know of no other variable in the equation, and they point to some other variable.

What say you?

d

By the way, I like that " We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. "