Misconception Faith vs. Reason

[Eightball]

Are you dissecting ways of arriving at faith?

Please, just grab a Webster's dictionary, and let's see how it defines faith, and just let things settle down on this topic.
....
As I've mentioned in previous posts, this can turn into a tail-chasing thing, and basically, nothing positive or encouraging will come out of this discussion.
...
Faith isn't some mysterious word/topic in my opinion. It's pretty basic. Faith is simply and act of the human will to trust in something. That "something" may have merit and it may not have merit. It's simply that.

Faith is often associated with religious belief, but it also can be associated with trust issues of many other kinds too.
.....
Here's good old Webster:http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

 

[LOki]

Please, just grab a Webster's dictionary, and let's see how it defines faith, and just let things settle down on this topic.
....
As I've mentioned in previous posts, this can turn into a tail-chasing thing, and basically, nothing positive or encouraging will come out of this discussion.
...
Faith isn't some mysterious word/topic in my opinion. It's pretty basic. Faith is simply and act of the human will to trust in something. That "something" may have merit and it may not have merit. It's simply that.

Faith is often associated with religious belief, but it also can be associated with trust issues of many other kinds too.
.....
Here's good old Webster:http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

You know what Eightball? A great deal of effort and thought went into the definition of faith that has to this point been used in this discussion. If you spent the minimal effort to review this discussion, you would have noted that the M-W.com was the source for a definition, and as written, is subject to the EXACT SAME self-referrential circular reasoning that YOU insist on embracing yourself, and injecting into the discussion. The exact wording from M-W was rejected, while the foundation was maintained that the term "faith" in this discussion could have some actual meaning.

In this particular thread, in which the thoughtful participants have exercised their level best efforts to do meaningful justice to the topic, I will not fail to point out, and flail you for, your question begging bullshit at every turn. I promise.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You know what Eightball? A great deal of effort and thought went into the definition of faith that has to this point been used in this discussion. If you spent the minimal effort to review this discussion, you would have noted that the M-W.com was the source for a definition, and as written, is subject to the EXACT SAME self-referrential circular reasoning that YOU insist on embracing yourself, and injecting into the discussion. The exact wording from M-W was rejected, while the foundation was maintained that the term "faith" in this discussion could have some actual meaning.

In this particular thread, in which the thoughtful participants have exercised their level best efforts to do meaningful justice to the topic, I will not fail to point out, and flail you for, your question begging bullshit at every turn. I promise.

It's a great deal of bs. Faith is a simple concept, like eightball said. If you want to comingle faith with ways of arriving at faith, that's fine, just don't pretend it's something enlightened or smart, it's really just wasting time.

 

[LOki]

It's a great deal of bs.

I'll ask you to demonstrate; without any fear that you actually will.

Faith is a simple concept, like eightball said.

This may be true, but this simple concept may not be so easy to express in a precise, accurate, and fair manner. However, by all means Mr. ThisIsSimpleShit, spell it out for us completely, unambiguously, and incontrovertibly, in one short sentence made preferrably of single syllable words, so as to not offend.

If you want to comingle faith with ways of arriving at faith, that's fine, just don't pretend it's something enlightened or smart, it's really just wasting time.

I don't think that's what is happening here.

However, if you want pull the intellectually dishonest stunt of equating all things known, by all means of knowing, to be indistinguishable from faith, in some cowardly attempt to avoid any possible unflattering comparison of faith to other kinds of knowledge, that's fine; but just don't pretend it's enlightened, or bravely stating the "simple" truth--it's really just dishonesty and cowardice.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'll ask you to demonstrate; without any fear that you actually will.

This may be true, but this simple concept may not be so easy to express in a precise, accurate, and fair manner. However, by all means Mr. ThisIsSimpleShit, spell it out for us completely, unambiguously, and incontrovertibly, in one short sentence made preferrably of single syllable words, so as to not offend.

I don't think that's what is happening here.

However, if you want pull the intellectually dishonest stunt of equating all things known, by all means of knowing, to be indistinguishable from faith, in some cowardly attempt to avoid any possible unflattering comparison of faith to other kinds of knowledge, that's fine; but just don't pretend it's enlightened, or bravely stating the "simple" truth--it's really just dishonesty and cowardice.

What is your point?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What is your point?

LOKI. This is not a trick question! what is your point about faith and reason? What is the misconception? Can you even say?

 

[LOki]

LOKI. This is not a trick question! what is your point about faith and reason? What is the misconception? Can you even say?

Out of fairness, because I did it for no1tovote4--CLICK! and scan to the last third, or so, of the post. You should be able to easily catch up from there.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Ok. Faith is required for everything. At the very least we have faith that the universe is consistent from day to day.

I know probably your main goal is to bash religion but faith comes at the most basic levels of existence.

 

[LOki]

Ok. Faith is required for everything. At the very least we have faith that the universe is consistent from day to day.

Nope. I guess you'll just have to read the whole argument now, or get someone to turn it into an GAP commercial for you.

I know probably your main goal is to bash religion...

Bullshit presumption--you're on better ground to presume my main goal is to bash the religious.

Of course, I'm on even better ground still, if I am presuming your main goal is to bash rational sensibility.

...but faith comes at the most basic levels of existence

Maybe. That's worth demonstrating. It would certainly go a great way towards refuting my argument if you could. Why don't you do so?

 

[dmp]

LOki - do you know you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are? Do you realize your lack of wisdom?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nope. I guess you'll just have to read the whole argument now, or get someone to turn it into an GAP commercial for you.

Nope what? What are you saying nope to.

Bullshit presumption--you're on better ground to presume my main goal is to bash the religious.

Just tell us your main goal, retard. Instead of dancing around like a fairy.

Of course, I'm on even better ground still, if I am presuming your main goal is to bash rational sensibility.

What you call "rational sensibility" is just another form of faith.

Maybe. That's worth demonstrating. It would certainly go a great way towards refuting my argument if you could. Why don't you do so?

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT? You're such a retard.

 

[LOki]

LOki - do you know you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are?

I surely don't pretend to know how smart other people think they are.

Do you realize your lack of wisdom?

You've leveled this aspersion on my self awareness at me before. I should ingore it now as I did then. I won't. To answer your question, I do, but I still want your, sure to be illuminating, assessment.

So please, tell me precisely how smart do I think I am? And please, from high upon your self-righteuos mountain of pretentious humility, pray tell me all about my lack of wisdom and intelligence.

Ok. Faith is required for everything. At the very least we have faith that the universe is consistent from day to day.

Nope. I guess you'll just have to read the whole argument now, or get someone to turn it into an GAP commercial for you.

Nope what? What are you saying nope to.

At the risk of the post being longer than a one syllable word sentence:<blockquote>"Nope" to: "Faith is required for everything."

AND

"Nope" to: "At the very least we have faith that the universe is consistent from day to day."</blockquote>

I know probably your main goal is to bash religion...

Bullshit presumption--you're on better ground to presume my main goal is to bash the religious.

Just tell us your main goal, retard. Instead of dancing around like a fairy.

Well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that having once spoon fed a retard who refuses to do his own intellectual leg-work, it would be demanded of me again.

Unlike a fairy dancing retard facilitating another retard, there comes a point where I say "no." This is that point.

Of course, I'm on even better ground still, if I am presuming your main goal is to bash rational sensibility.

What you call "rational sensibility" is just another form of faith.

Really? Without fear that you will, I say, demonstrate this.

...but faith comes at the most basic levels of existence

Maybe. That's worth demonstrating. It would certainly go a great way towards refuting my argument if you could. Why don't you do so?

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT? You're such a retard.

Post after post I have expressed and illuminated upon my argument. At your specific request, I directed you to the post where my argument was posited, and I went so far as to spare your feeble attention span to place you right in that post where you could find my argument--Yet I'm the retard because you can't grasp my argument?

Nonsense. I'm not buying it. What are you really on about here?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Apologies on the great delay. I required a bit of temporal marination on the subject.

You suggested it might be pertinent--I hope you're not being dismissive now that it has been offered.

Not at all.

Your past experience is evidence--as defined, conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established is not faith.

Perhaps, before I continue with the rest of your post, we should go back and revisit our definition of faith, which, through the course of our discussion, I now find to be inadequate.

Our original, agreed-upon definition:<blockquote>FAITH:
"Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established."</blockquote>to which I suggest modifying to:<blockquote>FAITH:
"Conviction of certainty in the/of the reality of some thing for which no support in conclusive evidence or valid logic has been established."</blockquote>of course to which you responded:

Unless we can estabish perfect accord on what constitutes "conclusive" and that any evidence can satisfactorily meet the requirements of "conclusive" we will erase all distinction between belief and faith except that validated by valid logic.

It appears as though you are saying it is impossible to nail down the definition of "conclusive" or that absolute conclusiveness is impossible. Which very well may be true, but it shouldn't serve as a basis for not including the word in our definition of faith.

Simplifying greatly, the vast majority of our difference in opinion lies in you coining what I call "good faith" "belief," or perhaps "well-reasoned belief," and coining what I call "bad faith," or "faith that is not good," simply "faith."

And until we can come to an agreement on the inclusion of the word conclusive, and what it entails, I find the rest of our discussion postponable.

 

[LOki]

Apologies on the great delay. I required a bit of temporal marination on the subject.

Think nothing of it.

Not at all.Perhaps, before I continue with the rest of your post, we should go back and revisit our definition of faith, which, through the course of our discussion, I now find to be inadequate.

Our original, agreed-upon definition:<blockquote>FAITH:
"Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established."</blockquote>to which I suggest modifying to:<blockquote>FAITH:
"Conviction of certainty in the/of the reality of some thing for which no support in conclusive evidence or valid logic has been established."</blockquote>of course to which you responded: It appears as though you are saying it is impossible to nail down the definition of "conclusive" or that absolute conclusiveness is impossible. Which very well may be true, but it shouldn't serve as a basis for not including the word in our definition of faith.

Simplifying greatly, the vast majority of our difference in opinion lies in you coining what I call "good faith" "belief," or perhaps "well-reasoned belief," and coining what I call "bad faith," or "faith that is not good," simply "faith."

And until we can come to an agreement on the inclusion of the word conclusive, and what it entails, I find the rest of our discussion postponable.

Tell me about "conclusive." And tell me why you deem it necessary.

I'll tell you why I don't think it is: beliefs which are conclusions based in [completely wrong] evidence; which in the wording of our definition would be "conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in [completely wrong] evidence has been established" is still evidence based belief, even if the evidence is wrong. Demanding "conclusive" (as I understand it) evidence would have the unfair effect of rendering all certainty not based in faith to be necessarily (by definition) without error--certainly a grand boon to the anti-faith argument; or perhaps, that if the certainty one holds contains error, that certainty then (by definition) would have to be considered faith--a rather unfairly unflattering comment on faith. Specious, yes, but not beyond the kind of dumbass reasoning I've been subjected to outside our conversation. There is, however, one more argument I levy against this: That any uncertainty by definition then means "faith", such that one's certainty where the slightest possibility that the evidence in support of it might, in some distant future, be refuted, must now be considered baseless in evidence.

Placing "conclusive" (again, as I understand it) will lead to a conclusion that is no different than saying, "Since there is no such thing as certainty in irrefutable evidence, then there is no such thing as certainty in evidence, and thus there is no meaningful distinction between beliefs based in evidence and those that are not, thus all certainty in one's beliefs is faith." You'll note the question begging tautology.

We now stipulate "faith" can be right, even if no evidence, or logic is validating it; I am very good with this. It is consitent with our definition, and certainly the spirit of fairness within which we are using it.

We should allow, in the same interest of fairness, that other (non-faith) convictions can be wrong without them being considered faith.

Faith is faith regardless of whether the evidence regarding it is existent or not, so certainly it doesn't require such evidence to be "conclusive." The crux of the biscuit is in the criteria one uses for stating certainty; evidence or not: belief (have we agreed on "reason"?) or faith. Likewise, beliefs based in evidence should not need to be "conclusive" to be considered evidence based beliefs. If anything (and I'm not advocating for this), I'd replace the term "evidence" with terminology that better indicates that certain confirmably palpable quality of things, that all things we agree to be real in the same reality, possess. But since we are being fair, I think "evidence" is fair shorthand for "that certain confirmably palpable quality of things that all things we agree to be real, in the same reality, possess."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I surely don't pretend to know how smart other people think they are.

You've leveled this aspersion on my self awareness at me before. I should ingore it now as I did then. I won't. To answer your question, I do, but I still want your, sure to be illuminating, assessment.

So please, tell me precisely how smart do I think I am? And please, from high upon your self-righteuos mountain of pretentious humility, pray tell me all about my lack of wisdom and intelligence.

At the risk of the post being longer than a one syllable word sentence:<blockquote>"Nope" to: "Faith is required for everything."

AND

"Nope" to: "At the very least we have faith that the universe is consistent from day to day."</blockquote>Well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that having once spoon fed a retard who refuses to do his own intellectual leg-work, it would be demanded of me again.

Unlike a fairy dancing retard facilitating another retard, there comes a point where I say "no." This is that point.

Really? Without fear that you will, I say, demonstrate this.

Post after post I have expressed and illuminated upon my argument. At your specific request, I directed you to the post where my argument was posited, and I went so far as to spare your feeble attention span to place you right in that post where you could find my argument--Yet I'm the retard because you can't grasp my argument?

Nonsense. I'm not buying it. What are you really on about here?

You're a fraud. You just like to hear your tongue wag.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But to continue.

Loki. You have faith in science, but you have not confirmed it's precepts for yourself. You had faith your teachers were not lying to you. and you had faith that the actual improvement of your life is their goal.

Every morning when you get up, you have faith that many things have not changed, though you do not know for sure. Thus faith is instrumental in our lives LONG BEFORE wankers like you like to pretend.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Fighting over how to say things? Is that what the thread is about?

 

[LOki]

You're a fraud.

Unfounded assertion.

You just like to hear your tongue wag.

Unfounded assertion.

Loki. You have faith in science, ...

Unfounded assertion.

...but you have not confirmed it's precepts for yourself.

Once again, without fear that you will, demonstrate the validity of this unfouded assertion.

You had faith your teachers were not lying to you.

Unfounded assertion.

...and you had faith that the actual improvement of your life is their goal.

Unfounded assertion.

Every morning when you get up, you have faith that many things have not changed, though you do not know for sure.

Unfounded assertion.

Thus faith is instrumental in our lives LONG BEFORE wankers like you like to pretend.

Question begging and unfounded assertion.

Fighting over how to say things? Is that what the thread is about?

Presumptuous and rhetorical.

BRAVO!!!!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Loki, so everything you know about science, your religion, you verified on your own? I call bullsnap.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Oh. and loki, when you get up every morning you don't assume some basic things are the way they were the day before? You're an idiot if that's true.