The question of faith (and Bertrand Russell quote)

[ontological_realist]

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

There can be more to you without your believing so. Your being aware or unaware of a truth or falsehood has no effect on the truth or falsehood.

 

[DBT]

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.

The objects and events of the World are independent from our perceptions and beliefs of them, but how well our perceptions and beliefs match the objects and events of the World, degree of accuracy is a matter of the reliability of our minds and senses.

Evidence, repeatably, falsifiability, etc, providing confirmation that what we perceive and what we believe is a reasonable representation of external objects and events.

Faith represents the condition where there is little or no evidence to support a belief, yet the man of faith holds a conviction in truth of his belief regardless.

 

[ronburgundy]

Russel is correct. Faith (in the sense of an epistemic basic upon which to base a belief) is essentially emotion. You are correct, that hope and desire are essentially forms of emotion. To want something is to experience positive emotion at the idea of having it or when recalling having had it in the past. Thus desire is positive emotion toward something. I would add that religious faith (especially theism) has at least as much or more to do with the emotion of fear than "hope" and a desire to reduce that negative emotion. Ultimately religious faith is psychologically the same as the faith that a mother has that her beloved son is not a drug dealer or criminal, no matter how much evidence is against him. No reasonable objective observer would deny that such a mother's faith amounts to an intense emotional desire to want her son's innocence to be true. No reasonable objective observer would deny that faith in theism amounts to an intense emotional desire to want the Universe (and thus one's own life) to have cosmic grander meaning and longevity than a chance and fleeting moral life, and to want their to be a protective daddy in charge that will make all wrongs right in the end. Note that some theists' emotional desires may not be about the God concept directly, but more about a desire to conform to norms or get parental/family approval. Atheism could actually be based in such desire too, if one's family was atheist. The big difference is that honest reasoned thought will lead to atheism, whereas emotional faith is required for theism.

 

[diana]

There's some great stuff here. Thank you all for your thoughts so far.

I don't have time to futz with it just now, as I'm behind in finishing the syllabus for this semester and already have lesson prep to fold in with finishing said syllabus. I'll try to get back to this (as well as the Facebook discussion that spawned it) this weekend, at which point I'll be better able to address your questions.

d

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is the unknown. Doubt is accepting it is unknown. Faith is pretending it isn't unknown.

 

[braces_for_impact]

There is the unknown. Doubt is accepting it is unknown. Faith is pretending it isn't unknown.

This is the definition I find most often apt. Often for emotional reasons, as you mentioned. Personally, if I'm going to actually involve myself in a discussion over faith (which I actually prefer to discussions over god's existence) I employ the Socratic method. Especially if the interlocutor is trying to actually insist that faith is a kind of revelation which is valid like another epistemology. If they insist this is the case, what is the mechanism is uses? How do you know it's valid in comparison to someone using another method, or more importantly, to someone using the same method but coming to a different conclusion, like a Muslim and a Christian each using faith to believe in incompatible ideas? What other areas of your life would you use faith to draw important conclusions that have real effects in the real world? Ask for best case examples.

It usually doesn't take people long to realize (even if they don't admit) the answers coming out of their own mouth sound pretty silly.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is the unknown. Doubt is accepting it is unknown. Faith is pretending it isn't unknown.

This is the definition I find most often apt. Often for emotional reasons, as you mentioned.

I'd say "always" not just "often" for emotional reasons. What other reason could there be to motivate you to pretend something is true when you have no idea? (or even have good evidence that it is not true, which is the case for the God most theists believe in)

Psychologically, a belief cannot spring from nowhere. It must have some form of basis. For rational beliefs, the basis is that application of logic and reason to one's experiences and knowledge suggest that the idea is likely true and more probable than the alternatives. What other basis is there except some desire to either believe in the idea or desire for the consequences that come with believing that idea. Psychologically, there just is no other plausible basis for belief other than reason or desire/emotion (though beliefs can be based upon a mixture of these in which desire biases and perverts the reasoning process rather than just completely ignores it). Ultimately faith is just a form of wishful thinking in which the person not only cons themselves that what they desire is in fact true, but cover-up the fact that their belief is emotionally based by labeling it "faith" and then pretending the faith is too mysterious to define. No it isn't. Its emotion.

 

[DBT]

Indoctrination into an unfounded world view, especially from an early age, is one aspect of faith. False dogma presented and repeated as if it was perfectly true and reasonable eventually appears to be perfectly true and reasonable to the indoctrinated.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is the definition I find most often apt. Often for emotional reasons, as you mentioned.

I'd say "always" not just "often" for emotional reasons. What other reason could there be to motivate you to pretend something is true when you have no idea? (or even have good evidence that it is not true, which is the case for the God most theists believe in)

Psychologically, a belief cannot spring from nowhere. It must have some form of basis. For rational beliefs, the basis is that application of logic and reason to one's experiences and knowledge suggest that the idea is likely true and more probable than the alternatives. What other basis is there except some desire to either believe in the idea or desire for the consequences that come with believing that idea. Psychologically, there just is no other plausible basis for belief other than reason or desire/emotion (though beliefs can be based upon a mixture of these in which desire biases and perverts the reasoning process rather than just completely ignores it). Ultimately faith is just a form of wishful thinking in which the person not only cons themselves that what they desire is in fact true, but cover-up the fact that their belief is emotionally based by labeling it "faith" and then pretending the faith is too mysterious to define. No it isn't. Its emotion.

There is faith in a creator and then there is a faith in a particular religion. The prior can be based on sober logic the latter can be based on emotion, but in others merely inertia. Evangelicals are emotionally based, but barely Catholics or Protestants can believe as such just because of inertia (and laziness).

 

[Malintent]

"Faith" in the context of god belief is the code word to indicate that belief holds a compartmentalized set of conflicting ideas that are off-limits to scrutiny.

In short, "faith" is the manifestation of a set of beliefs that conflict with observed reality, and are not subject to modification.

There are other uses of the word. for example, I have experiential knowledge of the strength of wooden objects. I've snaped a few twigs in my life and have a general concept of leverage and the tensile strength of wooden objects. I also know that there are stronger and weaker kinds of wood.. and that wood is susceptible to weakening forces, such as rot. There are mathematical models to predict the behavior of wooden levers placed under stress.

That is all fine and good... but as I walk through the forest and find myself before a narrow stream with a log fallen across it, I do not pull out a slide ruler to determine if the log can support my weight. I use the "faith" I have in my experiences to judge the wood sturdy or not.

I guess the differentiator here is the validity of one's experiences. "blind faith', as it were, describes what most posters have been speaking of. "regular faith" is what I am referring to here... the trust in one's ideas.

 

[DBT]

What is trust in one's ideas? Trust is not necessarily faith. Trust is normally built or broken on the basis of direct experience with people or things, building 'trustworthiness.' Trust in our ideas implies some basis for that trust, while having faith in our ideas means that we have no foundation of trust, only a leap of faith or a hope without foundation (Mary believes she is going to win the lottery next week).

 

[Brian63]

There is the unknown. Doubt is accepting it is unknown. Faith is pretending it isn't unknown.

This is the definition I find most often apt. Often for emotional reasons, as you mentioned. Personally, if I'm going to actually involve myself in a discussion over faith (which I actually prefer to discussions over god's existence) I employ the Socratic method. Especially if the interlocutor is trying to actually insist that faith is a kind of revelation which is valid like another epistemology. If they insist this is the case, what is the mechanism is uses? How do you know it's valid in comparison to someone using another method, or more importantly, to someone using the same method but coming to a different conclusion, like a Muslim and a Christian each using faith to believe in incompatible ideas? What other areas of your life would you use faith to draw important conclusions that have real effects in the real world? Ask for best case examples.

It usually doesn't take people long to realize (even if they don't admit) the answers coming out of their own mouth sound pretty silly.

+1.

Years ago I was posting on a fundamentalist forum and got into the topic of "faith" itself with a poster there, and I kept asking him, over and over and over, how he knew that the faith of a Muslim or Hindu (and such) was wrong, while his own faith (Christian) was right. They are all faith, so it seemed like he was saying that faith does not always lead a person to the actual truth. Elsewhere in the thread though, he kept propping up "faith" as a general concept and a reliable means of learning truth. He was very blatant in just dodging these sorts of questions about the specific contents and details, not even responding to them or quoting them. Just 100% ignoring them again and again and again. It was just a wild scene to watch. So once I just wrote that question and nothing else, so there was nothing else to dodge. He still dodged it though. I got some private feedback from someone else as well, letting me know that that line of questioning was working well, from an audience perspective. It was just amazing to me to think this grown adult has centered so much of his perspective on life on this matter, and gave it such incredibly shallow and superficial thought as well. This is so common too. I kinda felt sorry for him too, actually, just coming to that realization himself probably. Hopefully things have gotten better since.

Brian

 

[Malintent]

What is trust in one's ideas? Trust is not necessarily faith. Trust is normally built or broken on the basis of direct experience with people or things, building 'trustworthiness.' Trust in our ideas implies some basis for that trust, while having faith in our ideas means that we have no foundation of trust, only a leap of faith or a hope without foundation (Mary believes she is going to win the lottery next week).

Trust in one's own ideas is a measure of confidence in being right (that their ideas represent the truth). The basis for this is stems from how useful or seemingly accurate their ideas are, historically (their history, their story).

I'm glad you brought up trustworthiness... because that seems to be exactly what god-believers have faith in... how trustworthy their god is to them.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'd say "always" not just "often" for emotional reasons. What other reason could there be to motivate you to pretend something is true when you have no idea? (or even have good evidence that it is not true, which is the case for the God most theists believe in)

Psychologically, a belief cannot spring from nowhere. It must have some form of basis. For rational beliefs, the basis is that application of logic and reason to one's experiences and knowledge suggest that the idea is likely true and more probable than the alternatives. What other basis is there except some desire to either believe in the idea or desire for the consequences that come with believing that idea. Psychologically, there just is no other plausible basis for belief other than reason or desire/emotion (though beliefs can be based upon a mixture of these in which desire biases and perverts the reasoning process rather than just completely ignores it). Ultimately faith is just a form of wishful thinking in which the person not only cons themselves that what they desire is in fact true, but cover-up the fact that their belief is emotionally based by labeling it "faith" and then pretending the faith is too mysterious to define. No it isn't. Its emotion.

There is faith in a creator and then there is a faith in a particular religion. The prior can be based on sober logic the latter can be based on emotion,

If a belief in a creator is based in logic than it is by definition, not based in faith (in the epistemic sense of the term, not its rater useless sense of being synonymous with with word belief or confidence). In addition, no belief in any sort of personified creator can be based in logic. First, logic operates upon premises that must be derived from empirical experience or a-rational faith/emotion. There is no set of empirically based premises from which "a creator" in any sense by which any theists mean that term, logically follows. All theism requires either emotionally based premises or an emotionally-based deviation from logic in the analysis of those premises. IF you can provide a rationally sound logical argument for a creator, (both sound premises and argument from them), you'd be the first person in history to do so.

but in others merely inertia. Evangelicals are emotionally based, but barely Catholics or Protestants can believe as such just because of inertia (and laziness).

Inertia does not really apply to human thought, unless it is a concept that the believer never consciously thinks about or applies, in which case the person is not a Catholic or Protestant in any meaningful sense other than that being the box they reflexively check on a survey (and that reflex would need to be a true non-conscious reflex not just one in a metaphorical sense). In addition, laziness is actually a rooted in desire and emotion. It is the desire/preference for remaining in a current state rather than dealing with what is required for it to change. Thus, people conditioned into Catholicism who on some level know its bogus but don't bother to "change" their belief state are maintaining their theism on emotional grounds (alternatively, one could argue that they are not actually theists if they are just maintaining a label without true belief in what the label refers to.
In addition, nearly all theism is conditioned via emotional coercion to being with, whether its rewards/punishments from one's community or the idea of eternal rewards/punishments. In the rare instances where the child is convinced via rational argument of God's existence, it is virtually always the case that as their knowledge and thinking skills mature the absurdity of these arguments becomes transparent, and those arguments must be replaced or blostered with emotion-based biased rationalizations or, for most theists, the active avoidance of applying any knowledge and rational thought to the question of God's existence. In a world in which the notion of God is so prevalent and the realities of the world so logically incoherent with that concept, one cannot merely accidentally fail to see the rational failing of the idea. Rather one must deliberately and actively avoid applying even a semblance of reason to the idea, which is what most "moderate" and not completely convinced "theists" do. That is entirely why they invented the silly notion that it is rude or impolite to discuss religion in "polite company" or to ever challenge a person's religion. We don't apply such a conversational restriction on any topic, except where it is obvious that the beliefs are rationally indefensible and emotion based and thus can only be preserved by active suppression of reason.

 

[DBT]

Trust in one's own ideas is a measure of confidence in being right (that their ideas represent the truth). The basis for this is stems from how useful or seemingly accurate their ideas are, historically (their history, their story).

I'm glad you brought up trustworthiness... because that seems to be exactly what god-believers have faith in... how trustworthy their god is to them.

The problem being, they have no actual experience with their god.

 

[Togo]

I think Russel is being a bit disingenuous.

The problem is in the basic terms. He's seeking to divide everything into 'reason' and 'emotion'. Faith is called out as not based on reason, and thus based on emotion.

Which is great, except that what is the difference in practice? Reason is supposedly based on logical connection to evidence, and Russel's standards in this matter are extremely high. This is the person that tried to create a logical calculus that would act as the basis for all logic, all reason, from first principles.

Yet there is no evidence that such a calculus could actually exist. Godel proved as much, and Russel agreed with that proof. Is it fair to say that Principa Mathematica is an exercise of emotion?

I think the idea that everything is either reason or emotion is an unexamined article of faith. Instead it's worth looking at how rationalism, by which I mean structured logical thought, works in practice. In any logical sequence you have a starting position, a logical chain, and a conclusion. In valid logic, the conclusion is entailed by the starting position, as demonstrated by the logical chain.

But that starting position, can only be an assumption. Care is taken to make it as basic and as uncontrovertial as possible, but it's still an assumption.

The issue that atheists tend to have with the faithful is not that their beliefs are somehow a form of emotional whim or passing fancy, but rather that they are predicated on a massive assumption - the existance of God. And while that might seem natural and sensible to those who have grown up in a religious community, I doubt even they would regard the assumption of god as being a minor matter.

The blind spot tends to be that such massive assumptions are not just annoying or unjustified, they make the entire rational system break down. If you can shoehorn anything you fancy in as an assumption, logic becomes useless, and thus the person doing so can't claim to be acting on a reasoned basis. That's the split. It's nothing to do with religious belief being somehow inherently emotional.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think Russel is being a bit disingenuous.

The problem is in the basic terms. He's seeking to divide everything into 'reason' and 'emotion'. Faith is called out as not based on reason, and thus based on emotion.

Which is great, except that what is the difference in practice? Reason is supposedly based on logical connection to evidence, and Russel's standards in this matter are extremely high. This is the person that tried to create a logical calculus that would act as the basis for all logic, all reason, from first principles.

Yet there is no evidence that such a calculus could actually exist. Godel proved as much, and Russel agreed with that proof. Is it fair to say that Principa Mathematica is an exercise of emotion?

I think the idea that everything is either reason or emotion is an unexamined article of faith. Instead it's worth looking at how rationalism, by which I mean structured logical thought, works in practice. In any logical sequence you have a starting position, a logical chain, and a conclusion. In valid logic, the conclusion is entailed by the starting position, as demonstrated by the logical chain.

But that starting position, can only be an assumption. Care is taken to make it as basic and as uncontrovertial as possible, but it's still an assumption.

No, the assumptions are where empirical observation comes in. Empirical observation is inherently flawed and limited, but still far more valid an indicator of accuracy of an assumption than emotion which has no correspondence to accuracy. Reason is not just deductive logic. It includes induction and use of empirical evidence. Also, imperfect reason based upon incomplete knowledge is not faith. Honest errors in reasoning or empirical observation produce relatively random deviations from the conclusions best supported by perfect reasoning. However, when those errors are honest, they tend to get corrected in the long run by continued honest effort to apply reason and incorportate accumulating evidence. Faith, and what all theists do, is the act of dishonestly and intentionally violating reason and ignoring or biasedly cherry-picking empirical experience in order to create non-random deviations from the conclusions best supported by reason and toward emotionally preferred ideas. IOW, honest efforts to reason and dishonest efforts to subvert reason with emotion are the only systematic psychological bases for belief. Besides these, there are non-systematic errors in thinking or unintentional non-representativeness and incompleteness in evidence that do impact belief. Faith is not merely a lack of perfect reason, it is a systematic alternative basis of belief that bypasses reason with emotion. That is why the concept of "faith" as an epistemology is exists and is promoted as a virtue by religions.

The issue that atheists tend to have with the faithful is not that their beliefs are somehow a form of emotional whim or passing fancy, but rather that they are predicated on a massive assumption - the existance of God.

That assumption of God's existence is a product of emotional desire. It is an assumption not only unsupported but contradicted by reason and evidence, including the reason and evidence available and known to theists themselves. The problem is that theists generate this assumption from emotion rather than reasoned inference and then defend this assumption by actively denying clear facts before them and engaging in logical fallacy to deny the logical implications of those facts. Religions promotion of "faith" as a virtuous epistemology is nothing more than an direct effort to devalue the important of reason and evidence because neither God nor most other religious claims of fact can survive in the face of any honest reasoned thought. Even if one starts with the assumption of God, almost nothing that religionists believe follows from that assumption, including the independent assumptions of immaterial souls, human-centrism of creation, or any of their moral claims. Basically religion is a set of logically unconnected assumptions that are all just based upon wishful thinking, then crammed together into a nonsensical and incoherent doctrine.

The blind spot tends to be that such massive assumptions are not just annoying or unjustified, they make the entire rational system break down. If you can shoehorn anything you fancy in as an assumption, logic becomes useless, and thus the person doing so can't claim to be acting on a reasoned basis. That's the split. It's nothing to do with religious belief being somehow inherently emotional.

Yes, it is inherently emotional because the psychological basis for those starting assumptions is emotion combined with highly emotional active suppression of evidence and reason that is inconsistent with that God concept. Theists actively suppress the logical implications of their own knowledge in relation to their theistic beliefs, and their motive to do so is to satisfy emotional preferences.

 

[Kharakov]

It is an assumption not only unsupported but contradicted by reason and evidence, including the reason and evidence available and known to theists themselves.

What reason and evidence contradicts belief that God exists?

The stories and grueling experiences we've all experienced? "God doesn't exist because life's perfection includes suffering. Wahhh. Why not God make life perfect without me having to help or suffer? Wahhh. snuffle, hiccup, wahh."

The problem is that theists generate this assumption from emotion rather than reasoned inference and then defend this assumption by actively denying clear facts before them and engaging in logical fallacy to deny the logical implications of those facts.

You can just go back to the BB, and trace the existence and evolution of energy/matter and spacetime, if you want to divorce emotion from it. I doubt the creation of the universe was a non-emotional event, and I doubt the interaction between m/E and spacetime is entirely divorced from Emotion.

Emotionally unstable beings often become atheists if they focus on the way things are divided, instead of the way things are joined together, which is only a problem when they suffer due to their unfounded beliefs.

Religions promotion of "faith" as a virtuous epistemology is nothing more than an direct effort to devalue the important of reason and evidence because neither God nor most other religious claims of fact can survive in the face of any honest reasoned thought.

Beings seize to exist when someone discovers that one of their beliefs about them is untrue. Does anyone know what age people develop the ability to understand that someone doesn't seize to exist because someone else makes up stories about them? It has to be after object permanence, right?

On a serious note: is there a name for the phenomena (besides atheism), in which someone believes someone does not exist because they have participated in more than one storyline?

It is a more advanced form of object permanence, but in this case, the "object" is a being hidden behind stories.

 

[bilby]

What reason and evidence contradicts belief that God exists?

The stories and grueling experiences we've all experienced? "God doesn't exist because life's perfection includes suffering. Wahhh. Why not God make life perfect without me having to help or suffer? Wahhh. snuffle, hiccup, wahh."

You are only able to consistently make this absurd argument because you refuse to clearly define what you mean by God.

For the very large number of people who define their God as all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, the existence of suffering is incontrovertible proof that God does not exist.

If you define 'God' differently to those people, then clearly that proof no longer applies; but at the same time, nor does their definition of God - so your argument amounts to "Proving that X does not exist is childish, because there is no proof that Y does not exist, and I use the same word for X that I use for Y", which is pathetically transparent, and transparently pathetic.

If you want to asset both that God exists, and that God is not all powerful, and/or not all knowing, and/or not all loving, then you need to define exactly what characteristics your God has; and you need to refrain from using arguments that support the existence of whatever you are defining as 'God' as though they were arguments for other definitions of God, lest you be considered a fool or a charlatan.

Explain exactly what characteristics a 'God' has, according to you, that separate that definition from other common definitions; Or accept that arguments against God's existence are NOT arguments against your undefined entity, but are rather arguments against the entity as defined by other people.

Your constant muddying of the waters, by conflating other people's definitions with your own idiosyncratic and un-stated definition, is tiresome, unhelpful and pathetic.

If everyone else is talking about John 'Hannibal' Smith, the fictional character in the 'A-Team', and you keep popping up to say "Just because the A-Team is fiction, that doesn't mean that there isn't a real person called 'John Smith'", you are not contributing to the discussion. If you want to discuss whether another person called 'John Smith' is real or fictional, then you need to start by defining which John Smith you are talking about. John Smith the accountant from Reading may well exist; but knowing this does not help to advance a discussion of whether we can hire a vigilante team in Los Angeles to defend ourselves against criminals in positions of power.

 

[Kharakov]

What reason and evidence contradicts belief that God exists?

The stories and grueling experiences we've all experienced? "God doesn't exist because life's perfection includes suffering. Wahhh. Why not God make life perfect without me having to help or suffer? Wahhh. snuffle, hiccup, wahh."

You are only able to consistently make this absurd argument because you refuse to clearly define what you mean by God.

Creator of the universe, who is raising humans out of ignorance, into intelligent bliss. Sorry about the bumpy ride, morons.