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.
We were done the moment you told me what I was trying to discuss was unarguable.
You might be trying to make this about something else, but I'm not going into your "pick AorB" strawman.
You believe feelings -like a belief in faith or a belief in a desire for pleasure- are unassailable. Full stop. End of discussion.
@Taylor - Amusing, but you're just wasting time now. You are ignoring the whole conversation you've had with DJK and now trying to pretend that discussion never existed. Unfortunately for you, our posts exist in this thread. We actually do know that the discussion has been largely about whether faith (belief without evidence) is required to accept the scientific method. The discussion has not been solely about, "Let's all speculate on whether Taylor believes he has faith in the scientific method". That's silly.
I'm going to stop engaging with you on this now, because I don't see the point of continually swatting away this kind of quote-miney, goal-post-shifty stuff.
Normally faith is described as absolute belief in something without the need of proof or reasoning. I don't have faith in anything because I don't think any of my beliefs are 'absolute' or were endorsed by me without any form of reasoning (even if that reasoning turns out to be flawed).
I do trust the scientific method is good form of investigation, I trust all the scholars that came to that conclusion and I trust the mathematicians that established the scientific data analysis methods. Do I have faith in those things ? No.
I also believe that a purely empirical science is insufficient to promote the development of human knowledge frontier. There's a vast amount of natural and social phenomena of our interests that cannot be verified with controlled experimental methods. To only accept strict empiricism as a form of investigation would mean to simply not investigate a bunch of crucial matters. Sometimes a "non-scientific" slip (such as assuming a non-verifiable hypothesis on intuition alone) can help you investigate and make conclusions on phenomena that would be impossible otherwise. You could be wrong at the end of the day but well educated attempts are helpful.
Not to mention all the things philosophy and humanities related that are totally outside the realm of science. It would be very foolish to simply dismiss scholarly work in those fields.
2. Why do you really believe what you do?
I think at the end of the day we do not belief in a discrete way. We rather trust in things in a continuum. One way to put it is that for every belief we hold we associate a probability that this belief is true. Depending on the back ground information we have we adjust that probability.
Experimental results, specially in easily controlled experiments, are associated with high trust. Something that directly contradicts experimental results have low trust. And there are several stuff between. For example, a simulation of a phenomena that never happened is not to be trusted as experimental results but it can't be simply dismissed either. And so on.
Recognizing this scale of trust is why I believe most areas of inquiry have value, although not the same value. Now, why certain areas have more value then other is another story...
3. What would change your mind?
I tried to endorse a set of beliefs that are ample enough to not demand any changes from future developments. I think what may change is how I evaluate different methods - maybe I will mistrust simulations in the future or start to question the validity of sampling hypothesis or computer generated values. But the overall principle that some methods of inquiry are better then others and that not only the better method counts is not a position I think I will change.
- I'm a fan of the definition of faith I've seen from Matt Dillahunty: faith is the excuse people give for having a belief without a good reason.
- I was not raised in a theistic environment. Even saying Grace over a meal when visiting my theist relatives seemed silly to me (although I'll admit to liking the challah bread served by my Jewish relatives, but then I'm a fan of most kinds of bread). As an adult, the claims made by theists about the nature of the universe haven't seemed any less silly than they seemed to me as a child, and more recently I've adopted a more critical mindset than in the past, and the arguments from apologists have seemed even worse.
- I do not know what would convince me of the existence of a god. If I were to witness a genuine miracle, I would probably think I was mistaken, hallucinating, etc. That said, if the god we're taking about is omniscient and omnipotent, that god would both know exactly what it would take to convince me, and be capable of doing whatever it took to do so. The fact that nothing like that has happened is at least proof that there exists no god which is omniscient, omnipotent, and desires to prove its existence to me (at least not yet).
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.
The problem with these types of discussions comes with the conflating of two different definitions of "faith."
There's faith as in religious faith.
And then there's faith as in any belief in something that is not based on proof.
So, to respond to you, DJK3654, I posit that what you are saying is incorrect. I would respond that you certainly do believe in things outside of observation and experimentation. You must in order to be able to function in human society.
This is not, however, the same type of thing as religious faith. (Although it is worth questioning where one ends and the other begins.)
@Highroller
On your first point, you seem to have rather missed the point. My asking of what people mean by faith was specifically to illicit a response. You distinguish between "religious faith" and "belief in something that is not based on proof", but what is meant by religious faith? Is religious faith simply supposed to mean belief in religious ideas? In which case, where are your proofs? As you seem to think that religious belief (which you have said that you have elsewhere) is justified. Why is it justified? I am not expecting a comprehensive answer, that would be off topic, but what sort of reasoning do you use? Neither did you answer my question of why you believe what you do, which would presumably be at least related to the previous question. Nor did you answer what you would except as disproof of a sort. I would like to hear your responses.
To the second point, I'm a reasonably strong philosophical skeptic, so under most definitions of belief, I don't truly believe much of anything, or at least, I don't think I should (I'm far from perfectly reasonable, like the rest of us). One of the few things I would say could be fairly considered that I 'believe' is that life is best lived by asking questions. I call it the first principle- something is not worth thinking if it cannot withstand questioning. But even then, intellectually I am not absolutely committed to this view, not really because I think it will ever be defeated (though, you never know), but simply because it does me no good to think of it as a given. It serves me good to think of things as if they are true, it does not do me any good to commit to thinking things are true.
My 'belief' in science is based on science's ability to produce results and in a manner which corresponds to that which we see in logic, general rationality and everyday experience. Science may be wrong about things, but it is, for the most part, inarguable that science is a useful tool for guiding our actions. My 'belief' in observation and experiment is the strongest of all things I 'believe', as observation and experiment provide what seems to be the most useful, cooperative and precise guide to actions and ways of thinking in life. This does not mean, however, that I committed to only considering observation and experiment, just that nothing else has obtained as high a level of justification as they have for me. And neither does it mean I think being supremely logical and rational is the way to go about life, just that of the different kinds of thinking and 'belief', observation and experiment are the most sturdy, while others are more variable and imprecise. Other forms of thinking have their advantages, but their use is quite different and more concerns personal small scale decisions, ways of communicating ideas effectively, goals and motivations, and art- rather than the lens to view more metaphysical and universal topics through.
I didn't say "outside of evidence." I said "outside of proof."
Then define "proof," because outside of the logical absolutes and statements directly derived from them, we cannot be 100% certain of anything. And we may not even be 100% certain of those things, either, but then we start approaching hard solipsism and wasting our time.
Also, your actual words were "you certainly do believe in things outside of observation and experimentation," which I, at least, would call "evidence."
Yep. Lithl says it well. If you mean 100% infallible proof, then it's not super meaningful. I believe that my co-workers will be at work tommorrowm excepting our server engineer who doesn't come in on Tuesdays. Based on my prior experience and understanding of their schedules, I think this is going to be the case. Is this belief without proof? Under the strictest definitions of proof, yes. But that's not a meaningful statement here. There is still sufficient evidence to support this belief rationally.
If you just mean belief without sufficient evidence, what is your best example of something that DJK or someone similar likely believes despite a lack of sufficient evidence?
@theazurespirit
You seem to be defining faith to broadly. While there's nothing strictly wrong with using whatever definition you like, it's not going to going to get you very far. Faith is almost never, if ever, used by atheists to describe their belief. But theists will use it, and sometimes say that atheists have it to. But your definition seems misleading. The only instance in which I see faith NOT meaning 'belief without sufficient evidence', is when religious people talk about it. It seems to me that this is just an attempt to avoid admitting that religions promote or at least accept believing in things without sufficient evidence. Considering that 'belief without sufficient evidence' is a commonly used definition, it seems quite foolish to define justifiably held beliefs as being faith when this goes so much against the other definitions of the word. You're brewing a pot of misleading language here. I could see 'trust' as being fair for a religious context, but it does not seem fair to use it like that outside of a religious context, when other definitions quite contrary to this one operate in the same context.
On another point, 'acting upon beliefs' has nothing necessarily, or even commonly, to do with the degree or kind of belief. Acting upon beliefs has to do with the relevancy of those beliefs upon decisions and the perceived consequences. My philosophy, as I have already outlined, does away with the traditional notion of truth in favour of truth being 'thoughts justified in accordance with action'. In this way, I consider all true beliefs, any form of real conviction, to be pointless and malicious. Instead, thoughts are merely related usefulness.
Yes, I am aware that there is a disconnect between the commonly used definition and the religious definition, and it is regrettable. But this is how the Christian community has used the word since its inception, and considering that it is a rather central tenet of doctrine, it seems me unfair, and impractical, to require that we stop using it in that sense because its meaning has culturally shifted. I am aware that this will cause difficulties in communication, but I don't really see a way around this problem. I think the best approach is simply to be aware of the different usages. In any case, you asked what I mean by faith, and that is my answer, and one that I expect most Christians will largely agree with.
I didn't say "outside of evidence." I said "outside of proof."
Then define "proof," because outside of the logical absolutes and statements directly derived from them, we cannot be 100% certain of anything.
Which is my point exactly. All outside of that is uncertain, and therefore in the realm of belief.
Thus, to say, "I don't believe in things" or "I don't have faith in this" is, I'm sorry, an absurdity. You clearly do believe in things that are not 100% proven. It is pretty much required to function as a human.
Now, is this of the same order as religious faith? No. But that's my point. The OP is equivocating, taking two definitions of faith and conflating them.
@Highroller
I don't believe in belief, I think in terms of justified assumptions. I think somethings seem to be true, but I don't think they are true, I act in accordance with them if they can inform my decisions accurately in accordance with perceived effects.
EDIT: to expand further, you seem to have the underlying assumption that belief in something is required to act upon it. This simply isn't true. I act in accordance with things I don't believe because I generally avoid belief, instead I act on things that help me make decisions reliably.
Also, Highroller, I'm asking others to define what they mean and discussing the validity of their definitions. I'm not equivocating, I'm denying the applicability of some definitions, which is not the same as conflating two different definitions under the same pretense and circumstance. It's not equivocating to deny 'a kind of dog with spots' as a good definition of tree, it's merely a disagreement as to which linguistic labels to apply to different meanings.
@theazurespirit
Fair enough. I took objection with you applying that definitiin outside of religion, due to the confusion that can cause, and also the accuracy of the idea that religious beliefs are based on trust in certain reasonings, which I disagree is very descriptive of the behaviour that I have seen in religious belief- which seems to be mostly based on sociocultural conformity rather than rational belief. Religion is not alone in that aspect, it is a symptom of the disconnect between many societal beliefs and actual justification, the limits of our rationality.
I'm going to stop engaging with you on this now, because I don't see the point of continually swatting away this kind of quote-miney, goal-post-shifty stuff.
I reread my posts just to make sure I was or was not doing this, and I don't see it. I started with:
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.
And, asked a bunch of questions about how you justified declaring things unassailable.
Soo...... If I was goal post shifting, I don't know where. I'm pretty sure I stayed on-message. Mainly, you can't use the scientific method to prove the scientific method. And, since I only really accept the scientific method as the way to get closer to answers, I have to trust it.
Can you show me where I goal-post-shifted?
I mean, YOU were talking about a bunch of other stuff. But, you were talking past me, so I didn't really feel the need to respond to it. I was more talking about how the Munchhausen trilemmaforces us to do what Highroller is talking about to DJK3654. It is also related to the discussion you are having with Crushing00 on the other thread; mainly, logic can't be used to prove logic. Thus, you MUST (as a logical necessity) accept SOMETHING without justification, so you can justify other things. You have to have a bases to start from, and you can't justify your bases because -if you do- it no longer is your bases; your justification is and will become your new bases unless you try to justify IT, which only kicks the can further down the road.
If you want a more formal version of what we're all trying to say, you should check out Tarski's undefinability theorem. It is -again- more of the same.
@Taylor
I'm not using anything to prove anything. I'm using goals to justify thoughts. I'm not saying thoughts are justified in that they are true or definitive, they are justified in that they are useful notions to apply to decisions. That's why I went as far as saying that I don't believe in belief, the whole point is to be able to justify thoughts without reverting to faith or circularity, but instead relying on the pragmatic notion that things are justified because they are useful, with the addition that justifications based on being objective, methodical and cooperative are quite a lot more useful than subjective, imprecise ones like comfort. The argument is one of intent and desire, being the intent and desire to produce and develop ideas which can be used to determine what seems to be more effective decisions. It is not a system of determining truth, it's a system of determining actions in relation to ideas. It is centred in the question: what is good for us to think?
@Highroller
I don't believe in belief, I think in terms of justified assumptions.
It doesn't matter if the assumption is "justified." It's still an assumption. If it is not known with certainty, then it is in the realm of belief.
Which is why your statements about "belief" and "faith" are problematic. You clearly do believe in things that are not proven with certainty, because, as stated, so little can be proven with certainty.
EDIT: to expand further, you seem to have the underlying assumption that belief in something is required to act upon it.
I don't know what that means.
I'm saying that every human being must, by default, have faith in certain things or else functioning as a human being is pretty much impossible. Things as basic as "other people exist," "I can trust my senses," "this object will continue to exist even after I turn around," and "I will not be hit by a car in ten seconds," are not 100% proven things. Yet you operate with the belief that they do. Hell, science operates on the belief that certain outcomes are repeatable. We believe a stone will not fall upward. But we cannot know with 100% certainty that it won't.
All of those are leaps.
So you can't say you don't believe in anything outside of what is objectively proven or whatever. That's absurd. The problem is you're mixing belief in the sense of religion with belief in the broadest sense of the word. You can not have belief in a religion, that's fine. But that's not the same as not believing things.
@Highroller
I don't believe in belief, I think in terms of justified assumptions.
It doesn't matter if the assumption is "justified." It's still an assumption. If it is not known with certainty, then it is in the realm of belief.
Which is why your statements about "belief" and "faith" are problematic. You clearly do believe in things that are not proven with certainty, because, as stated, so little can be proven with certainty.
But I don't believe (or at least, try not to, whether I actually can is a different question), I merely think and act.
EDIT: to expand further, you seem to have the underlying assumption that belief in something is required to act upon it.
I don't know what that means.
No, you clearly don't as you continue to argue under the assumption that acting according to ideas requires you to believe in certain ideas. It doesn't. I can act according to the whatever ideas best allow to obtain desirable outcomes. Here's an example: I can act according to the idea that chairs exist, and that idea is useful for predicting the future of my experiences. But do I have to think that chairs actually do exist? No, I don't. All I need to do is consider that it is desirable and useful to act and think in terms of such ideas, but I don't need to think such ideas are true, I don't need to believe. In fact, it does me no good whatsoever to believe in something. When I speak of justified assumptions, I don't mean things that are justified to assume as true, but justified to act as if they are true- ideas that are useful. This whole principle doesn't mean I can't suspect that things are true, but merely that absolute truth is meaningless when it cannot be known, so I should think a little differently and dwell on the intangible absolutes of reality, if they even exist at all. I certainly suspect that chairs actually do exist, it seems likely, but I don't believe that chairs exist because I don't have any way to justify such a thought- it is unnecessary.
But I don't believe (or at least, try not to, whether I actually can is a different question), I merely think and act.
That is a thing you are asserting, but it is clearly a false proposition.
No, you clearly don't as you continue to argue under the assumption that acting according to ideas requires you to believe in certain ideas. It doesn't. I can act according to the whatever ideas best allow to obtain desirable outcomes. Here's an example: I can act according to the idea that chairs exist, and that idea is useful for predicting the future of my experiences. But do I have to think that chairs actually do exist? No, I don't.
Absurd. You clearly have an opinion as to whether or not chairs exist. That is just that: an opinion. An assertion of your belief.
When I speak of justified assumptions,
Otherwise known as beliefs.
I don't mean things that are justified to assume as true, but justified to act as if they are true- ideas that are useful. This whole principle doesn't mean I can't suspect that things are true, but merely that absolute truth is meaningless when it cannot be known, so I should think a little differently and dwell on the intangible absolutes of reality, if they even exist at all.
This is a statement of belief.
I certainly suspect that chairs actually do exist,
This is a statement of belief.
it seems likely,
This is a statement of belief.
but I don't believe that chairs exist because I don't have any way to justify such a thought- it is unnecessary.
This is a statement of belief.
Again, we go back to the problem: you define yourself as an atheist, and an atheist is a person who does not have belief or faith in the existence of a divine being, but the problem is you have taken this idea of "lack of faith," faith meaning belief in a deity, and are attempting to apply it to other instances of the word "belief" and "faith" in which they are used with different meanings. This is equivocating, and the result is the chain of nonsensical posts you've made thusfar.
Thus, to say, "I don't believe in things" or "I don't have faith in this" is, I'm sorry, an absurdity.
I don't know of anyone who knows the definition of the terms being used, is being truthful, is not an extreme nihilist, and would claim "I don't believe in things." Many people (in fact, I would venture to say every person on Earth) would happily say "I don't believe that proposition X is true," for some given X. For example, I don't believe the proposition that the Moon is made of green cheese. But outside of an extreme nihilist, nobody believes nothing.
Similarly, I would say many if not every person on Earth would be willing to say "I don't have faith in X," for some given X.
You clearly do believe in things that are not 100% proven. It is pretty much required to function as a human.
Of course (assuming by "100% proven" you mean "absolute certainty", since you still haven't clarified what you mean by "proof"). As I already said, we can't be absolutely certain of most things, and we might not even be absolutely certain of anything. I'm comfortable is claiming to be absolutely certain that A = A is true, that A ≠ ¬A is true, and that A = B is either true or false.
But that's irrelevant. We don't need absolute certainly to have justified beliefs. Knowledge (including absolute certainty) is a subset of belief. Beliefs direct our actions, and we cannot wait to have all possible information before acting. Everyone has beliefs without perfect knowledge. On the other side of the coin, we can't have knowledge of a thing without also believing it.
No, you clearly don't as you continue to argue under the assumption that acting according to ideas requires you to believe in certain ideas. It doesn't. I can act according to the whatever ideas best allow to obtain desirable outcomes. Here's an example: I can act according to the idea that chairs exist, and that idea is useful for predicting the future of my experiences. But do I have to think that chairs actually do exist? No, I don't.
Absurd. You clearly have an opinion as to whether or not chairs exist. That is just that: an opinion. An assertion of your belief.
A belief is something that is thought to be true. What I am saying is that truth is not meaningful in the absence of a definite understanding of reality. Instead, I am concerned with thoughts that are useful. Before you say, no I am not saying that it is true that they are useful. I am saying it appears that they are useful, I can give reasons why they are useful, and I can use them. But I don't know that they are, in fact, useful. This is just a matter of what is meant by belief, and I can easily redefine a belief to be 'a thought which seems to be useful' or something like that. What I am doing is deconstructing the traditional notion of truth.
I don't mean things that are justified to assume as true, but justified to act as if they are true- ideas that are useful. This whole principle doesn't mean I can't suspect that things are true, but merely that absolute truth is meaningless when it cannot be known, so I should think a little differently and dwell on the intangible absolutes of reality, if they even exist at all.
This is a statement of belief.
No, it's not. It's a statement of perception, of what seems to be and not what it is thought to be.
but I don't believe that chairs exist because I don't have any way to justify such a thought- it is unnecessary.
This is a statement of belief.
Again, we go back to the problem: you define yourself as an atheist, and an atheist is a person who does not have belief or faith in the existence of a divine being, but the problem is you have taken this idea of "lack of faith," faith meaning belief in a deity, and are attempting to apply it to other instances of the word "belief" and "faith" in which they are used with different meanings. This is equivocating, and the result is the chain of nonsensical posts you've made thusfar.
What on earth are you saying? Equivocating belief and faith in other instances? No, I am doubting the meaningfulness of the very concept of absolute truth. I am not committed to the statement "I don't believe anything" it's merely a provocative and simple way of presenting a deeper point about the limitations of knowledge and hence the limited relevance of it. There are certainly ways in which you could view the notion of belief in which I do believe things, it's just that under any version tied to truth as an absolute is not one I will hold to.
Thus, to say, "I don't believe in things" or "I don't have faith in this" is, I'm sorry, an absurdity.
I don't know of anyone who knows the definition of the terms being used, is being truthful, is not an extreme nihilist, and would claim "I don't believe in things."
I would, and I'm not a nihilist either. It's mostly just the implication of the absolute in the idea of belief, and I refuse to commit to anything in absolute. Everything, for me, is up to argument, that which is justified is what I will act upon and frames my way of thinking.
I don't know of anyone who knows the definition of the terms being used, is being truthful, is not an extreme nihilist, and would claim "I don't believe in things."
DJK has been saying exactly that.
We don't need absolute certainly to have justified beliefs.
A belief is something that is thought to be true. What I am saying is that truth is not meaningful in the absence of a definite understanding of reality.
Which is something you think to be true. You have just expressed a belief.
This is just a matter of what is meant by belief, and I can easily redefine a belief to be 'a thought which seems to be useful' or something like that. What I am doing is deconstructing the traditional notion of truth.
Thus, to say, "I don't believe in things" or "I don't have faith in this" is, I'm sorry, an absurdity.
I don't know of anyone who knows the definition of the terms being used, is being truthful, is not an extreme nihilist, and would claim "I don't believe in things."
I would, and I'm not a nihilist either. It's mostly just the implication of the absolute in the idea of belief, and I refuse to commit to anything in absolute. Everything, for me, is up to argument, that which is justified is what I will act upon and frames my way of thinking.
Sounds like belief, to me. It sounds like you try to believe in things for good reasons, but that doesn't mean you don't believe things.
You said in your previous pot that "A belief is something that is thought to be true." Do you believe that I exist? Do you believe your chair can support your weight? Just because you believe things doesn't mean you have to do so without evidence justifying the belief. Beliefs can be formed for many reasons, some good and some bad. As I said in my first post in this thread, I like the definition of faith: "the excuse people give for having a belief without a good reason."
You might be trying to make this about something else, but I'm not going into your "pick AorB" strawman.
You believe feelings -like a belief in faith or a belief in a desire for pleasure- are unassailable. Full stop. End of discussion.
I'm going to stop engaging with you on this now, because I don't see the point of continually swatting away this kind of quote-miney, goal-post-shifty stuff.
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
1. What do you mean by faith?
Normally faith is described as absolute belief in something without the need of proof or reasoning. I don't have faith in anything because I don't think any of my beliefs are 'absolute' or were endorsed by me without any form of reasoning (even if that reasoning turns out to be flawed).
I do trust the scientific method is good form of investigation, I trust all the scholars that came to that conclusion and I trust the mathematicians that established the scientific data analysis methods. Do I have faith in those things ? No.
I also believe that a purely empirical science is insufficient to promote the development of human knowledge frontier. There's a vast amount of natural and social phenomena of our interests that cannot be verified with controlled experimental methods. To only accept strict empiricism as a form of investigation would mean to simply not investigate a bunch of crucial matters. Sometimes a "non-scientific" slip (such as assuming a non-verifiable hypothesis on intuition alone) can help you investigate and make conclusions on phenomena that would be impossible otherwise. You could be wrong at the end of the day but well educated attempts are helpful.
Not to mention all the things philosophy and humanities related that are totally outside the realm of science. It would be very foolish to simply dismiss scholarly work in those fields.
2. Why do you really believe what you do?
I think at the end of the day we do not belief in a discrete way. We rather trust in things in a continuum. One way to put it is that for every belief we hold we associate a probability that this belief is true. Depending on the back ground information we have we adjust that probability.
Experimental results, specially in easily controlled experiments, are associated with high trust. Something that directly contradicts experimental results have low trust. And there are several stuff between. For example, a simulation of a phenomena that never happened is not to be trusted as experimental results but it can't be simply dismissed either. And so on.
Recognizing this scale of trust is why I believe most areas of inquiry have value, although not the same value. Now, why certain areas have more value then other is another story...
3. What would change your mind?
I tried to endorse a set of beliefs that are ample enough to not demand any changes from future developments. I think what may change is how I evaluate different methods - maybe I will mistrust simulations in the future or start to question the validity of sampling hypothesis or computer generated values. But the overall principle that some methods of inquiry are better then others and that not only the better method counts is not a position I think I will change.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
- I'm a fan of the definition of faith I've seen from Matt Dillahunty: faith is the excuse people give for having a belief without a good reason.
- I was not raised in a theistic environment. Even saying Grace over a meal when visiting my theist relatives seemed silly to me (although I'll admit to liking the challah bread served by my Jewish relatives, but then I'm a fan of most kinds of bread). As an adult, the claims made by theists about the nature of the universe haven't seemed any less silly than they seemed to me as a child, and more recently I've adopted a more critical mindset than in the past, and the arguments from apologists have seemed even worse.
- I do not know what would convince me of the existence of a god. If I were to witness a genuine miracle, I would probably think I was mistaken, hallucinating, etc. That said, if the god we're taking about is omniscient and omnipotent, that god would both know exactly what it would take to convince me, and be capable of doing whatever it took to do so. The fact that nothing like that has happened is at least proof that there exists no god which is omniscient, omnipotent, and desires to prove its existence to me (at least not yet).
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
There's faith as in religious faith.
And then there's faith as in any belief in something that is not based on proof.
So, to respond to you, DJK3654, I posit that what you are saying is incorrect. I would respond that you certainly do believe in things outside of observation and experimentation. You must in order to be able to function in human society.
This is not, however, the same type of thing as religious faith. (Although it is worth questioning where one ends and the other begins.)
2) Based on this definition, what is your best example of something that DJK (or anyone) certainly believe outside of evidence?
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
On your first point, you seem to have rather missed the point. My asking of what people mean by faith was specifically to illicit a response. You distinguish between "religious faith" and "belief in something that is not based on proof", but what is meant by religious faith? Is religious faith simply supposed to mean belief in religious ideas? In which case, where are your proofs? As you seem to think that religious belief (which you have said that you have elsewhere) is justified. Why is it justified? I am not expecting a comprehensive answer, that would be off topic, but what sort of reasoning do you use? Neither did you answer my question of why you believe what you do, which would presumably be at least related to the previous question. Nor did you answer what you would except as disproof of a sort. I would like to hear your responses.
To the second point, I'm a reasonably strong philosophical skeptic, so under most definitions of belief, I don't truly believe much of anything, or at least, I don't think I should (I'm far from perfectly reasonable, like the rest of us). One of the few things I would say could be fairly considered that I 'believe' is that life is best lived by asking questions. I call it the first principle- something is not worth thinking if it cannot withstand questioning. But even then, intellectually I am not absolutely committed to this view, not really because I think it will ever be defeated (though, you never know), but simply because it does me no good to think of it as a given. It serves me good to think of things as if they are true, it does not do me any good to commit to thinking things are true.
My 'belief' in science is based on science's ability to produce results and in a manner which corresponds to that which we see in logic, general rationality and everyday experience. Science may be wrong about things, but it is, for the most part, inarguable that science is a useful tool for guiding our actions. My 'belief' in observation and experiment is the strongest of all things I 'believe', as observation and experiment provide what seems to be the most useful, cooperative and precise guide to actions and ways of thinking in life. This does not mean, however, that I committed to only considering observation and experiment, just that nothing else has obtained as high a level of justification as they have for me. And neither does it mean I think being supremely logical and rational is the way to go about life, just that of the different kinds of thinking and 'belief', observation and experiment are the most sturdy, while others are more variable and imprecise. Other forms of thinking have their advantages, but their use is quite different and more concerns personal small scale decisions, ways of communicating ideas effectively, goals and motivations, and art- rather than the lens to view more metaphysical and universal topics through.
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 didn't say "outside of evidence." I said "outside of proof."
Also, your actual words were "you certainly do believe in things outside of observation and experimentation," which I, at least, would call "evidence."
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
If you just mean belief without sufficient evidence, what is your best example of something that DJK or someone similar likely believes despite a lack of sufficient evidence?
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
You seem to be defining faith to broadly. While there's nothing strictly wrong with using whatever definition you like, it's not going to going to get you very far. Faith is almost never, if ever, used by atheists to describe their belief. But theists will use it, and sometimes say that atheists have it to. But your definition seems misleading. The only instance in which I see faith NOT meaning 'belief without sufficient evidence', is when religious people talk about it. It seems to me that this is just an attempt to avoid admitting that religions promote or at least accept believing in things without sufficient evidence. Considering that 'belief without sufficient evidence' is a commonly used definition, it seems quite foolish to define justifiably held beliefs as being faith when this goes so much against the other definitions of the word. You're brewing a pot of misleading language here. I could see 'trust' as being fair for a religious context, but it does not seem fair to use it like that outside of a religious context, when other definitions quite contrary to this one operate in the same context.
On another point, 'acting upon beliefs' has nothing necessarily, or even commonly, to do with the degree or kind of belief. Acting upon beliefs has to do with the relevancy of those beliefs upon decisions and the perceived consequences. My philosophy, as I have already outlined, does away with the traditional notion of truth in favour of truth being 'thoughts justified in accordance with action'. In this way, I consider all true beliefs, any form of real conviction, to be pointless and malicious. Instead, thoughts are merely related usefulness.
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
Thus, to say, "I don't believe in things" or "I don't have faith in this" is, I'm sorry, an absurdity. You clearly do believe in things that are not 100% proven. It is pretty much required to function as a human.
Now, is this of the same order as religious faith? No. But that's my point. The OP is equivocating, taking two definitions of faith and conflating them.
I don't believe in belief, I think in terms of justified assumptions. I think somethings seem to be true, but I don't think they are true, I act in accordance with them if they can inform my decisions accurately in accordance with perceived effects.
EDIT: to expand further, you seem to have the underlying assumption that belief in something is required to act upon it. This simply isn't true. I act in accordance with things I don't believe because I generally avoid belief, instead I act on things that help me make decisions reliably.
Also, Highroller, I'm asking others to define what they mean and discussing the validity of their definitions. I'm not equivocating, I'm denying the applicability of some definitions, which is not the same as conflating two different definitions under the same pretense and circumstance. It's not equivocating to deny 'a kind of dog with spots' as a good definition of tree, it's merely a disagreement as to which linguistic labels to apply to different meanings.
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
Fair enough. I took objection with you applying that definitiin outside of religion, due to the confusion that can cause, and also the accuracy of the idea that religious beliefs are based on trust in certain reasonings, which I disagree is very descriptive of the behaviour that I have seen in religious belief- which seems to be mostly based on sociocultural conformity rather than rational belief. Religion is not alone in that aspect, it is a symptom of the disconnect between many societal beliefs and actual justification, the limits of our rationality.
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 I stuck to pretty much just that.
I also stated a few tautologies like:
Some philosophical facts, like: And, asked a bunch of questions about how you justified declaring things unassailable.
Can you show me where I goal-post-shifted?
I mean, YOU were talking about a bunch of other stuff. But, you were talking past me, so I didn't really feel the need to respond to it. I was more talking about how the Munchhausen trilemma forces us to do what Highroller is talking about to DJK3654. It is also related to the discussion you are having with Crushing00 on the other thread; mainly, logic can't be used to prove logic. Thus, you MUST (as a logical necessity) accept SOMETHING without justification, so you can justify other things. You have to have a bases to start from, and you can't justify your bases because -if you do- it no longer is your bases; your justification is and will become your new bases unless you try to justify IT, which only kicks the can further down the road.
If you want a more formal version of what we're all trying to say, you should check out Tarski's undefinability theorem. It is -again- more of the same.
Humans CANNOT prove everything; we've proven it.
I'm not using anything to prove anything. I'm using goals to justify thoughts. I'm not saying thoughts are justified in that they are true or definitive, they are justified in that they are useful notions to apply to decisions. That's why I went as far as saying that I don't believe in belief, the whole point is to be able to justify thoughts without reverting to faith or circularity, but instead relying on the pragmatic notion that things are justified because they are useful, with the addition that justifications based on being objective, methodical and cooperative are quite a lot more useful than subjective, imprecise ones like comfort. The argument is one of intent and desire, being the intent and desire to produce and develop ideas which can be used to determine what seems to be more effective decisions. It is not a system of determining truth, it's a system of determining actions in relation to ideas. It is centred in the question: what is good for us to think?
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
Which is why your statements about "belief" and "faith" are problematic. You clearly do believe in things that are not proven with certainty, because, as stated, so little can be proven with certainty.
I don't know what that means.
I'm saying that every human being must, by default, have faith in certain things or else functioning as a human being is pretty much impossible. Things as basic as "other people exist," "I can trust my senses," "this object will continue to exist even after I turn around," and "I will not be hit by a car in ten seconds," are not 100% proven things. Yet you operate with the belief that they do. Hell, science operates on the belief that certain outcomes are repeatable. We believe a stone will not fall upward. But we cannot know with 100% certainty that it won't.
All of those are leaps.
So you can't say you don't believe in anything outside of what is objectively proven or whatever. That's absurd. The problem is you're mixing belief in the sense of religion with belief in the broadest sense of the word. You can not have belief in a religion, that's fine. But that's not the same as not believing things.
But I don't believe (or at least, try not to, whether I actually can is a different question), I merely think and act.
No, you clearly don't as you continue to argue under the assumption that acting according to ideas requires you to believe in certain ideas. It doesn't. I can act according to the whatever ideas best allow to obtain desirable outcomes. Here's an example: I can act according to the idea that chairs exist, and that idea is useful for predicting the future of my experiences. But do I have to think that chairs actually do exist? No, I don't. All I need to do is consider that it is desirable and useful to act and think in terms of such ideas, but I don't need to think such ideas are true, I don't need to believe. In fact, it does me no good whatsoever to believe in something. When I speak of justified assumptions, I don't mean things that are justified to assume as true, but justified to act as if they are true- ideas that are useful. This whole principle doesn't mean I can't suspect that things are true, but merely that absolute truth is meaningless when it cannot be known, so I should think a little differently and dwell on the intangible absolutes of reality, if they even exist at all. I certainly suspect that chairs actually do exist, it seems likely, but I don't believe that chairs exist because I don't have any way to justify such a thought- it is unnecessary.
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
Absurd. You clearly have an opinion as to whether or not chairs exist. That is just that: an opinion. An assertion of your belief.
Otherwise known as beliefs.
This is a statement of belief.
This is a statement of belief.
This is a statement of belief.
This is a statement of belief.
Again, we go back to the problem: you define yourself as an atheist, and an atheist is a person who does not have belief or faith in the existence of a divine being, but the problem is you have taken this idea of "lack of faith," faith meaning belief in a deity, and are attempting to apply it to other instances of the word "belief" and "faith" in which they are used with different meanings. This is equivocating, and the result is the chain of nonsensical posts you've made thusfar.
Similarly, I would say many if not every person on Earth would be willing to say "I don't have faith in X," for some given X.
Of course (assuming by "100% proven" you mean "absolute certainty", since you still haven't clarified what you mean by "proof"). As I already said, we can't be absolutely certain of most things, and we might not even be absolutely certain of anything. I'm comfortable is claiming to be absolutely certain that A = A is true, that A ≠ ¬A is true, and that A = B is either true or false.
But that's irrelevant. We don't need absolute certainly to have justified beliefs. Knowledge (including absolute certainty) is a subset of belief. Beliefs direct our actions, and we cannot wait to have all possible information before acting. Everyone has beliefs without perfect knowledge. On the other side of the coin, we can't have knowledge of a thing without also believing it.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
A belief is something that is thought to be true. What I am saying is that truth is not meaningful in the absence of a definite understanding of reality. Instead, I am concerned with thoughts that are useful. Before you say, no I am not saying that it is true that they are useful. I am saying it appears that they are useful, I can give reasons why they are useful, and I can use them. But I don't know that they are, in fact, useful. This is just a matter of what is meant by belief, and I can easily redefine a belief to be 'a thought which seems to be useful' or something like that. What I am doing is deconstructing the traditional notion of truth.
No, it's not. It's a statement of perception, of what seems to be and not what it is thought to be.
Nope, perception again.
What on earth are you saying? Equivocating belief and faith in other instances? No, I am doubting the meaningfulness of the very concept of absolute truth. I am not committed to the statement "I don't believe anything" it's merely a provocative and simple way of presenting a deeper point about the limitations of knowledge and hence the limited relevance of it. There are certainly ways in which you could view the notion of belief in which I do believe things, it's just that under any version tied to truth as an absolute is not one I will hold to.
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 would, and I'm not a nihilist either. It's mostly just the implication of the absolute in the idea of belief, and I refuse to commit to anything in absolute. Everything, for me, is up to argument, that which is justified is what I will act upon and frames my way of thinking.
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
What's the key word in that sentence? "Beliefs."
Which is something you think to be true. You have just expressed a belief.
So you're admitting to freely redefining a word? Great, because that's exactly what I've been saying you're doing.
Which is an assertion of your belief on the subject.
Having fun yet?
You said in your previous pot that "A belief is something that is thought to be true." Do you believe that I exist? Do you believe your chair can support your weight? Just because you believe things doesn't mean you have to do so without evidence justifying the belief. Beliefs can be formed for many reasons, some good and some bad. As I said in my first post in this thread, I like the definition of faith: "the excuse people give for having a belief without a good reason."
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)