Religious people commonly refer to having 'faith'. But what do they mean by that? Tell me honestly:
-What do you mean by faith? (I don't talk about faith is a valid answer)
-Why do you really believe what you do?
-What would change your mind?
For reference, my atheistic response to these questions:
-I don't believe in having faith, but instead in following your values (moral and epistemic) in accordance with the evidence.
-Because I think observation and experiment provide the only reasonable basis for claims of objective truth. See empiricism/pragmatism.
-Observation and experiment, or a really good argument as to why I shouldn't need it.
To be clear, this is not a thread about debating the general question of the accuracy of religious beliefs, but a more personal one about what people's philosophy on such matters is.
Oh hey, someone actually commented on this thread
Anyway
Why have faith? There are good reasons to support the scientific method, it seems foolish and unnecessary to have faith in it instead of simply affirming it as a useful method for determining working truths. Sure, science can't determine absolute truths, but it's justified assumption to act as if it does.
Working truths are determined by relative information, so as I long as I correctly assess all information presented, there is a definitive truth rating I can give to anything. How do I do this? By finding an exterior principle, a principle that is not based on truth itself but a reason for why I would want to think of something as true. This principle being practicality in sense experience. The better something is capable of informing my decisions in my sense experience according to the perceived consequences, the more 'true' it is considered to be. I can then using this principle to choose the methods of justification for truth by assuming those methods are true because they fit my principle. In this way, I can develop a model of truth not based n absolute reality, which is elusive, but of the most justified explanation of available information, updated as new information is found. Science is one of the methods that I can justify using this process, others being pure logic and reason (it's an assumption too) and the basic method of observation- which lead to science.
I don't have faith in this method, as it is essentially self-justifying- practicality is not a truth, it is merely a self-contained reason to think and act in a certain way and the best one that I can think of. This method is merely a method for determining what the best assumptions to make are, it is not an absolute metric of truth and in fact relies on absolute truth not being knowable to be something we would even bother with.
it seems foolish and unnecessary to have faith in it instead of simply affirming it as a useful method for determining working truths. Sure, science can't determine absolute truths
So, you don't see any connection between "simply affirming" something is true (knowing you'll never have absolute proof) and "faith?"
Cuz....
"Faith is complete confidence or trust in a person or thing; or a belief not based on proof."[1]Anyway, in your OP, you asked: "What would change your mind?"
I would like to ask you what it would take to shake your 'confidence' in the scientific method?
@Taylor
When I say 'assume they are true' I don't mean 'truly believe they are true' I mean 'live your life as if it were true'. The whole point of the theory is to be able to make justifications without making a claim to absolute truth- an thereby allowing us to still be objective in our thinking without giving up on argument.
That science is a useful tool for determining working truths is a justifiable statement, so no, it's not faith. My 'belief' in science is a justified assumption, and the principle of practicality is established by argument.
In response to your last comment, a really good argument as to why it is not one of the most useful methods for justifying propositions- some reason why it fails. Or perhaps, as it may be, some alternative exterior principle for justifying propositions that is in some way better than practicality.
I can then using this principle to choose the methods of justification for truth by assuming those methods are true because they fit my principle.
Isn't a legitimate justification; it's a quintessential example of circular reasoning.
You might as well have said: "I am justified in assuming the Bible is true, because the Bible says right in it that it's true."
In response to your last comment, a really good argument as to why it is not one of the most useful methods for justifying propositions- some reason why it fails. Or perhaps, as it may be, some alternative exterior principle for justifying propositions that is in some way better than practicality.
DJK did not engage in circular reasoning there. The bible analogy is absurd. He is describing that he determines truth by how the claim in question fits to his prior principle. He is not determining his principle based on these methods of evaluation. That is not circular reasoning. You may think there are other issues with that quote, but circular reasoning isn't one of them. He basically said this:
"I have a premise about what I consider true. My methods for evaluating truth are based on this premise."
A real analogy would look more like...
"This is my definition of the word 'tree'. To see if something is a tree, I check it against my definition."
You can argue his principle is unjustified if you want, but this quote you found isn't circular reasoning.
Thank you StairC. I do not justify science using science, I justify science because it is a useful method for the predicting the behaviour of my sensory experience such that I can make what seems to be meaningful decisions- it is practical. The point of the practicality part is to avoid circular reasoning, because practicality is more like a moral claim (it's not actually though) than a metaphysical one. It's a reason unto itself, a motivation to act and think in certain ways.
Stairc, you did read the part where he said "Science is one of the methods that I can justify using this process," right?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sleep deprived and stressed out; so, I'm not going to tell you my reading of that block of text is spot on, but the ONLY specific 'method' he has mentioned so far (as far as I can tell) is 'science.' So, my reading of that quote was "I can then using this principle (which is science and some other stuff I'm not naming) to choose the methods of justification (scientific method) for truth by assuming those methods (scientific method) are true because they fit my principle(which is -again- science and some other stuff I'm not naming)."
But -Stairc- you might disagree to what extent that is 'circular reasoning' (because of the 'some other stuff I'm not naming'); however, you know where I am going with this. He's going to have to eventually accept something without proof or justification, 'faith,' as a starting point. I mean, he already has admitted as much a few times, he's just not seeing it.
No, we don't both know he's going around in circles. The fact you make these blanket assumptions of what people believe may be the reason you keep running into issues. If sticking you hand in fire feels painful to you, that feeling is a fact. You can't prove you're not in the matrix, but you don't have to. Pain is still pain, pleasure is still pleasure. I feel pain when I burn my hand or stub my toe. That sense may be an illusion, but it's real to me. I then choose to seek experiences I feel are desirable (pleasure) and avoid those I dislike (pain).
Our senses form the base. They determine what we experience. From there we can decide which experiences we want to pursue and which we want to avoid. From there we can explore methods that seem to best produce these desirable results. Nothing in this process is unjustified.
I am describing my personal preference. This is simply a fact that I observe about myself. It requires no external proof.
I am not stating a claim in the nature of "pleasure is universally better than pain" I am reporting the fact I prefer pleasure to plain. Likewise if someone sincerely prefers one sports team over another, the existence of that preference is a fact. Their stated reasons for preferring one team over another can be challenged, but they don't need to prove that their preference exists to themselves.
Would you prefer if I said "nothing in this process that requires justification is unjustified"? I assumed that was implied. It still prevents the need for an eventual circle.
This link is meant to go to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchhausen_trilemma
I guess I confused the forum software with my "ü."
If you look at the format of that post (quote the original, and note it's not been edited by me) you can see it does. I guess the assumption was I was making some glib statement about circular reasoning with a circular link.
I wasn't.
I was trying to invoke the Munchhausen trilemma, which -as far as I know- is inescapable. We all -as far as I know- are stuck in that metaphorical mud, with no way out.
Your use of the term "justified" here is not meaningful. You equated it to "faith". I'll quote.
He's going to have to eventually accept something without proof or justification, 'faith,' as a starting point.
Recognizing the fact that I feel what I feel does not require faith in any meaningful way. Nor am I unwarranted in recognizing a preference, which is how I was referring to the term "unjustified".
Asking, "How do you know you are feeling what you are feeling?" Is a nonsense question. The feeling is description of my inarguable experience. I know what I am feeling. This is indeed axiomatic under the trilemma. However, unlike many attempted axioms, it is inarguable and unquestionable. You feel what you feel by definition of what the word "feel" means. The sentence structure looks circular, but that's only because it's not meaningful to ask "How do we know for sure if what we're feeling is what we're feeling?" There is no "because" necessary.
People see what they see and feel what they feel. There is no logical problem in stating this.
EDIT - If you disagree with me, how do you know that you disagree? I'm not asking why you think I'm wrong, I'm asking how you even KNOW if you disagree?
I know what I am feeling. This is indeed axiomatic under the trilemma. However, unlike many axioms, it is inarguable and unquestionable. You feel what you feel by definition of what the word "feel" means.
I thought that was one of the major issues people had with 'faith;' that it was declared "inarguable and unquestionable." That it was a feeling they have deep inside they know to be true.
How can you tell me your feelings about pleasure and pain are assailable, but mine about the scientific method shouldn't be?
How are you justifying that it's "inarguable and unquestionable?
I mean, aren't we arguing and questioning it right now?
Not coherently. Obviously you can ask a question about anything. I didn't mean it was literally impossible to ask a question on the subject, or have an argument about it. I think you can probably guess how I was actually using the terms.
How are you justifying [quote from="Stairc »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/religion/641818-define-your-faith?comment=17"]I thought that was one of the major issues people had with 'faith;' that it was declared "inarguable and unquestionable." That it was a feeling they have deep inside they know to be true.
You aren't differentiating between a statement about internal belief and a statement about external reality. Surely you can see the difference between these two claims:
A) "I have a belief that god exists."
B) "God exists."
As an atheist, I have no doubt that people who believe in god hold the belief that god exists. That's self-evident and self-defining. Whether that belief is based on evidence or not is a different matter.
How can you tell me your feelings about pleasure and pain are assailable, but mine about the scientific method shouldn't be?
I'll leave off your feelings for now because the first part is the more important to me to explain.
The process of questioning whether how you feel is how you feel is nonsense. It's just putting meaningless words together. Our senses deliver us an experience. Whether those senses are accurate or not is irrelevant to the fact that we are indeed receiving the experience that we are recieving.
What you are feeling is what you are feeling. You might be hallucinating, you might be in the matrix, you might be in a coma, you might be any number of things. But you are still feeling what you are feeling. It can never be any other way.
If you still disagree with me, how do you even know that you disagree? Is it circular? Axiomatic? Infinite regression?
I have no doubt that you believe you have faith in the scientific method. To which DJK responded...
Why have faith? There are good reasons to support the scientific method, it seems foolish and unnecessary to have faith in it instead of simply affirming it as a useful method for determining working truths. Sure, science can't determine absolute truths, but it's justified assumption to act as if it does.
The fact you have faith is not under question (though we may question if you're using the same definition of 'faith' we are). Whether faith is necessary in this case is under question. If by faith we mean, "Belief without evidence" - then no, it isn't. If someone stated they had faith in the existence of bears, I'd raise my eyebrows too.
Also, not sure what you think an axiom is. First result off google:
"An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy".
Being assailable isn't a prerequisite for being an axiom. And I already said that I was using an axiom, so I'm not sure where you think you're disagreeing with me.
@Taylor
I think you are missing the point somewhat. The point is that practicality is IN NO WAY used to make actual truth claims. Practicality is used to justify action and thinking- it's a goal. This is why I said it's more like a moral argument than a metaphysical one; it's based on desired outcomes and methods and not on something which definitively IS.
The reason to do this being that true knowledge is unobtainable due to the Munchhausen trilemma. Far from denying my argument, the trilemma supports it, in that it gives us reason to follow goals rather than absolute guidelines. The biggest problem with my exterior principle idea is that it's entirely optional. Nobody is under any obligation to support it, BUT almost everyone follows it to some degree, which helps the argument be convincing and easy to follow.
Exactly. The only thing I'd add is that it's as close to actual truth as we can reasonably come to state "what I feel is what I feel". Just by definition. The way these arguments tend to go is that they seek to doubt the accuracy of your senses. But whether you're hallucinating or not, you still see what you see.
I have no doubt that you believe you have faith in the scientific method.
Good. Then I guess -by your own argument- nothing more can be said.
"The feeling is a description of my inarguable experience. I know what I am feeling. "
So, you -or anyone else- can't 'coherently' question my own thoughts. You can't tell me I 'shouldn't' have faith anymore than I can tell you you 'shouldn't' like pleasure. So, I guess that's that. There isn't any disagreement, only a need for clarification, which has been given. I have faith (which is a mod of thought), and you can't argue.
Right? I am understanding your point correctly? (<-not rhetorical)
Taylor, at least try reading the whole post if you want to respond to it. I'm not going to waste time quoting myself when I specifically addressed this already in the same post your snipped that out of. Quote mining doesn't work against the person you're quote mining.
I'm not going to continue to engage with you if you continue in this vein.
-What do you mean by faith? (I don't talk about faith is a valid answer)
-Why do you really believe what you do?
-What would change your mind?
For reference, my atheistic response to these questions:
-I don't believe in having faith, but instead in following your values (moral and epistemic) in accordance with the evidence.
-Because I think observation and experiment provide the only reasonable basis for claims of objective truth. See empiricism/pragmatism.
-Observation and experiment, or a really good argument as to why I shouldn't need it.
To be clear, this is not a thread about debating the general question of the accuracy of religious beliefs, but a more personal one about what people's philosophy on such matters is.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Anyway
Why have faith? There are good reasons to support the scientific method, it seems foolish and unnecessary to have faith in it instead of simply affirming it as a useful method for determining working truths. Sure, science can't determine absolute truths, but it's justified assumption to act as if it does.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
And, do you have faith in that method?
I don't have faith in this method, as it is essentially self-justifying- practicality is not a truth, it is merely a self-contained reason to think and act in a certain way and the best one that I can think of. This method is merely a method for determining what the best assumptions to make are, it is not an absolute metric of truth and in fact relies on absolute truth not being knowable to be something we would even bother with.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
So, you don't see any connection between "simply affirming" something is true (knowing you'll never have absolute proof) and "faith?"
Cuz....
"Faith is complete confidence or trust in a person or thing; or a belief not based on proof."[1]
Anyway, in your OP, you asked: "What would change your mind?"
I would like to ask you what it would take to shake your 'confidence' in the scientific method?
When I say 'assume they are true' I don't mean 'truly believe they are true' I mean 'live your life as if it were true'. The whole point of the theory is to be able to make justifications without making a claim to absolute truth- an thereby allowing us to still be objective in our thinking without giving up on argument.
That science is a useful tool for determining working truths is a justifiable statement, so no, it's not faith. My 'belief' in science is a justified assumption, and the principle of practicality is established by argument.
In response to your last comment, a really good argument as to why it is not one of the most useful methods for justifying propositions- some reason why it fails. Or perhaps, as it may be, some alternative exterior principle for justifying propositions that is in some way better than practicality.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You might as well have said: "I am justified in assuming the Bible is true, because the Bible says right in it that it's true." Can you give a concrete example? Or imagine one?
"I have a premise about what I consider true. My methods for evaluating truth are based on this premise."
A real analogy would look more like...
"This is my definition of the word 'tree'. To see if something is a tree, I check it against my definition."
You can argue his principle is unjustified if you want, but this quote you found isn't circular reasoning.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sleep deprived and stressed out; so, I'm not going to tell you my reading of that block of text is spot on, but the ONLY specific 'method' he has mentioned so far (as far as I can tell) is 'science.' So, my reading of that quote was "I can then using this principle (which is science and some other stuff I'm not naming) to choose the methods of justification (scientific method) for truth by assuming those methods (scientific method) are true because they fit my principle(which is -again- science and some other stuff I'm not naming)."
But -Stairc- you might disagree to what extent that is 'circular reasoning' (because of the 'some other stuff I'm not naming'); however, you know where I am going with this. He's going to have to eventually accept something without proof or justification, 'faith,' as a starting point. I mean, he already has admitted as much a few times, he's just not seeing it.
We both know he's going round in circles trying to catch his own tail, or pull himself out of the mud by his own hair.
Our senses form the base. They determine what we experience. From there we can decide which experiences we want to pursue and which we want to avoid. From there we can explore methods that seem to best produce these desirable results. Nothing in this process is unjustified.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I am not stating a claim in the nature of "pleasure is universally better than pain" I am reporting the fact I prefer pleasure to plain. Likewise if someone sincerely prefers one sports team over another, the existence of that preference is a fact. Their stated reasons for preferring one team over another can be challenged, but they don't need to prove that their preference exists to themselves.
Would you prefer if I said "nothing in this process that requires justification is unjustified"? I assumed that was implied. It still prevents the need for an eventual circle.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I am not arguing what 'requires' justification. I am simply pointing out things that are without justification are -by definition- "unjustified."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchhausen_trilemma
I guess I confused the forum software with my "ü."
If you look at the format of that post (quote the original, and note it's not been edited by me) you can see it does. I guess the assumption was I was making some glib statement about circular reasoning with a circular link.
I wasn't.
I was trying to invoke the Munchhausen trilemma, which -as far as I know- is inescapable. We all -as far as I know- are stuck in that metaphorical mud, with no way out.
Recognizing the fact that I feel what I feel does not require faith in any meaningful way. Nor am I unwarranted in recognizing a preference, which is how I was referring to the term "unjustified".
Asking, "How do you know you are feeling what you are feeling?" Is a nonsense question. The feeling is description of my inarguable experience. I know what I am feeling. This is indeed axiomatic under the trilemma. However, unlike many attempted axioms, it is inarguable and unquestionable. You feel what you feel by definition of what the word "feel" means. The sentence structure looks circular, but that's only because it's not meaningful to ask "How do we know for sure if what we're feeling is what we're feeling?" There is no "because" necessary.
People see what they see and feel what they feel. There is no logical problem in stating this.
EDIT - If you disagree with me, how do you know that you disagree? I'm not asking why you think I'm wrong, I'm asking how you even KNOW if you disagree?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I mean, aren't we arguing and questioning it right now?
How are you justifying
I thought that was one of the major issues people had with 'faith;' that it was declared "inarguable and unquestionable." That it was a feeling they have deep inside they know to be true.
How can you tell me your feelings about pleasure and pain are assailable, but mine about the scientific method shouldn't be?
Not coherently. Obviously you can ask a question about anything. I didn't mean it was literally impossible to ask a question on the subject, or have an argument about it. I think you can probably guess how I was actually using the terms.
You aren't differentiating between a statement about internal belief and a statement about external reality. Surely you can see the difference between these two claims:
A) "I have a belief that god exists."
B) "God exists."
As an atheist, I have no doubt that people who believe in god hold the belief that god exists. That's self-evident and self-defining. Whether that belief is based on evidence or not is a different matter.
I'll leave off your feelings for now because the first part is the more important to me to explain.
The process of questioning whether how you feel is how you feel is nonsense. It's just putting meaningless words together. Our senses deliver us an experience. Whether those senses are accurate or not is irrelevant to the fact that we are indeed receiving the experience that we are recieving.
What you are feeling is what you are feeling. You might be hallucinating, you might be in the matrix, you might be in a coma, you might be any number of things. But you are still feeling what you are feeling. It can never be any other way.
If you still disagree with me, how do you even know that you disagree? Is it circular? Axiomatic? Infinite regression?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Since I don't share you're opinion that some things 'should be' unassailable, I will fully admit this to be an axiom.
The fact you have faith is not under question (though we may question if you're using the same definition of 'faith' we are). Whether faith is necessary in this case is under question. If by faith we mean, "Belief without evidence" - then no, it isn't. If someone stated they had faith in the existence of bears, I'd raise my eyebrows too.
Also, not sure what you think an axiom is. First result off google:
"An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy".
Being assailable isn't a prerequisite for being an axiom. And I already said that I was using an axiom, so I'm not sure where you think you're disagreeing with me.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I think you are missing the point somewhat. The point is that practicality is IN NO WAY used to make actual truth claims. Practicality is used to justify action and thinking- it's a goal. This is why I said it's more like a moral argument than a metaphysical one; it's based on desired outcomes and methods and not on something which definitively IS.
The reason to do this being that true knowledge is unobtainable due to the Munchhausen trilemma. Far from denying my argument, the trilemma supports it, in that it gives us reason to follow goals rather than absolute guidelines. The biggest problem with my exterior principle idea is that it's entirely optional. Nobody is under any obligation to support it, BUT almost everyone follows it to some degree, which helps the argument be convincing and easy to follow.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
"The feeling is a description of my inarguable experience. I know what I am feeling. "
So, you -or anyone else- can't 'coherently' question my own thoughts. You can't tell me I 'shouldn't' have faith anymore than I can tell you you 'shouldn't' like pleasure. So, I guess that's that. There isn't any disagreement, only a need for clarification, which has been given. I have faith (which is a mod of thought), and you can't argue.
Right? I am understanding your point correctly? (<-not rhetorical)
I'm not going to continue to engage with you if you continue in this vein.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane