Define your terms!

[Clairvoyance]

When discussing issues like religion with people there are two very important first steps you must take to begin a successful discourse.

1. You must agree on the premise. If you can't even agree on the opening statement then everything that follows will be a waste of time since the person making the claim will just revert back to the premise and claim victory since you never addressed it.

It's like trying to argue with someone who says "I believe in the toothfairy". If you start by saying something like "you shouldn't believe in the toothfairy because there is no evidence for it." They will just respond with "well I BELIEVE it so it's true!"

The problem here is you didn't start with a premise that you both agreed on. A better premise in this situation would be to propose a question regarding the nature and definition of belief itself like "These are the rules I use to determine what I believe:" This will help establish why or why not the person would be justified in saying that they believe in the toothfairy.

2. You must define your terms! Many words have multiple meanings and there's nothing more frustrating in a discussion then people who use words incorrectly or constantly shift their meanings. Here's the top words that I see misused in religious conversation and what I propose the formal definitions should be:

Belief
Accepting a claim to be true. This can be done with or without evidence. I can believe that there might be aliens out there but I don't have any good evidence for them. I can also belief that my car will start tomorrow morning because I do have some evidence. It started almost every day since I bought it so it's likely that it will start again.

Knowledge
Plato calls it a "justified true belief" meaning that there must be substantial evidence before you can claim to know something. Also, knowledge is not 100% certainty. It's simply something that you belief very strongly because you've seen so much evidence for it. I can say that I KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow because it has done so for billions of years although I'm not 100% certain... The sun could blow up or something could cause the earth to stop spinning in it's orbit but I'm justified in saying that I KNOW the sun will rise because of the massive amount of historic evidence we have to support the claim.

Evidence
This is the trickiest one. There are 5 types of evidence:
1.Anecdotal evidence
2.Intuition
3.Personal experience
4.Scientific evidence
5.Testimonial.

The irony is that while testimony and personal experience is considered the most unreliable forms of evidence in court it's the most compelling evidence for religious believers.

When I define evidence I like to stick with the scientific definition because it's the only one that really allows us to verify the truth of a claim. So I define evidence as "Any objectively verifiable piece of information." I can't verify that you indeed saw a ghost last week and I can't prove that your gut feelings about aliens are true. What we should do is have everyone present REAL scientific evidence and form our beliefs based on that.

Faith
When evidence fails this is what people turn to. I define faith as "belief without evidence." This fits well with my previous definitions because you wouldn't need faith if you KNEW something because knowledge requires EVIDENCE and if you do have evidence then there's no reason to believe it on FAITH.

I run into a lot of problem with faith because people change the definition in mid conversation. They will say that they believe in God the same way they have faith the sun will rise. This is incorrect because they have massive amount of scientific evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow while they only have personal and testimonial evidence about God. It's not the same thing.

You can BELIEVE in God because of your FAITH but you can't say that you KNOW God because that would require EVIDENCE!

 

[Davian]

Welcome to CF!

 

[twinc]

When discussing issues like religion with people there are two very important first steps you must take to begin a successful discourse.

1. You must agree on the premise. If you can't even agree on the opening statement then everything that follows will be a waste of time since the person making the claim will just revert back to the premise and claim victory since you never addressed it.

It's like trying to argue with someone who says "I believe in the toothfairy". If you start by saying something like "you shouldn't believe in the toothfairy because there is no evidence for it." They will just respond with "well I BELIEVE it so it's true!"

The problem here is you didn't start with a premise that you both agreed on. A better premise in this situation would be to propose a question regarding the nature and definition of belief itself like "These are the rules I use to determine what I believe:" This will help establish why or why not the person would be justified in saying that they believe in the toothfairy.

2. You must define your terms! Many words have multiple meanings and there's nothing more frustrating in a discussion then people who use words incorrectly or constantly shift their meanings. Here's the top words that I see misused in religious conversation and what I propose the formal definitions should be:

Belief
Accepting a claim to be true. This can be done with or without evidence. I can believe that there might be aliens out there but I don't have any good evidence for them. I can also belief that my car will start tomorrow morning because I do have some evidence. It started almost every day since I bought it so it's likely that it will start again.

Knowledge
Plato calls it a "justified true belief" meaning that there must be substantial evidence before you can claim to know something. Also, knowledge is not 100% certainty. It's simply something that you belief very strongly because you've seen so much evidence for it. I can say that I KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow because it has done so for billions of years although I'm not 100% certain... The sun could blow up or something could cause the earth to stop spinning in it's orbit but I'm justified in saying that I KNOW the sun will rise because of the massive amount of historic evidence we have to support the claim.

Evidence
This is the trickiest one. There are 5 types of evidence:
1.Anecdotal evidence
2.Intuition
3.Personal experience
4.Scientific evidence
5.Testimonial.

The irony is that while testimony and personal experience is considered the most unreliable forms of evidence in court it's the most compelling evidence for religious believers.

When I define evidence I like to stick with the scientific definition because it's the only one that really allows us to verify the truth of a claim. So I define evidence as "Any objectively verifiable piece of information." I can't verify that you indeed saw a ghost last week and I can't prove that your gut feelings about aliens are true. What we should do is have everyone present REAL scientific evidence and form our beliefs based on that.

Faith
When evidence fails this is what people turn to. I define faith as "belief without evidence." This fits well with my previous definitions because you wouldn't need faith if you KNEW something because knowledge requires EVIDENCE and if you do have evidence then there's no reason to believe it on FAITH.

I run into a lot of problem with faith because people change the definition in mid conversation. They will say that they believe in God the same way they have faith the sun will rise. This is incorrect because they have massive amount of scientific evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow while they only have personal and testimonial evidence about God. It's not the same thing.

You can BELIEVE in God because of your FAITH but you can't say that you KNOW God because that would require EVIDENCE!

yes but do you intend to learn or to preach nonsense like the sun will rise tomorrow when it never ever has or will rise or set - you have blundered at the very first hurdle - twinc

 

[Davian]

yes but do you intend to learn or to preach nonsense like the sun will rise tomorrow when it never ever has or will rise or set - you have blundered at the very first hurdle - twinc

Listen to twinc. He speaks from experience. Much experience.

 

[Ken-1122]

yes but do you intend to learn or to preach nonsense like the sun will rise tomorrow when it never ever has or will rise or set - you have blundered at the very first hurdle - twinc

Are you kidding??? You know exactly what people mean when they say "Sunrise" or "Sunset". Quit trying to be difficult and listen to what she has to say; you might learn something. She made some excellent points.

Ken

 

[Clairvoyance]

yes but do you intend to learn or to preach nonsense like the sun will rise tomorrow when it never ever has or will rise or set - you have blundered at the very first hurdle - twinc

Lol my point exactly. Just a few hundred years ago everyone KNEW that the sun revolved around the earth. That didn't turn out to be quite right.

Every honest person realizes that they can never be absolutely certain about any piece of knowledge. But the people who used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth were justified in their belief because it conformed to the best evidence available at the time... at least in their part of the world.

Anyone who claims absolute knowledge of anything (like what religious leaders do) is being dishonest.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

yes but do you intend to learn or to preach nonsense like the sun will rise tomorrow when it never ever has or will rise or set - you have blundered at the very first hurdle - twinc

Are you for real?

Allow her to engage in a bit more discussion before passing judgement or claiming error. Her points appear sound and valid thus far.

 

[Ken-1122]

Lol my point exactly. Just a few hundred years ago everyone KNEW that the sun revolved around the earth. That didn't turn out to be quite right.

Every honest person realizes that they can never be absolutely certain about any piece of knowledge. But the people who used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth were justified in their belief because it conformed to the best evidence available at the time... at least in their part of the world.

Anyone who claims absolute knowledge of anything (like what religious leaders do) is being dishonest.

I disagree. I have been absolute certain about many things; sometimes I am right, sometimes I am wrong. I can know something to be true; I can be 100% convinced of it and still be wrong.

Ken

 

[Sectio Aurea]

I disagree. I have been absolute certain about many things; sometimes I am right, sometimes I am wrong. I can know something to be true; I can be 100% convinced of it and still be wrong.

Ken

Then you didnt actually know something was true, you just incorrectly believed so.

 

[twinc]

I disagree. I have been absolute certain about many things; sometimes I am right, sometimes I am wrong. I can know something to be true; I can be 100% convinced of it and still be wrong.

Ken

so of course you are not at all convinced that not just the sun but the whole Universe revolves around the sun - see www.galileowaswrong.com - twinc

 

[brightlights]

I'm okay with your stuff on belief, knowledge, and evidence. I understand what you mean by "faith" but your definition is very different from the meaning of the biblical word (which would be closer to "trust"). Trust is very different from belief as an intellectual assent. To believe that your father exists, for example, is very different from trusting your father. "Faith" as it's used in Christian theology refers to the latter.

 

[brightlights]

Then you didnt actually know something was true, you just incorrectly believed so.

Agreed. Knowledge has to have some correspondence with reality.

 

[brightlights]

Also: an interesting and short article:

Why knowledge can't be justified true belief.

 

[Clairvoyance]

I'm okay with your stuff on belief, knowledge, and evidence. I understand what you mean by "faith" but your definition is very different from the meaning of the biblical word (which would be closer to "trust"). Trust is very different from belief as an intellectual assent. To believe that your father exists, for example, is very different from trusting your father. "Faith" as it's used in Christian theology refers to the latter.

The definition of faith as "trust" is the precise one that I don't agree with when it comes to religion.

You don't have "faith" in your father. You have "reasonable expectations" in your father based on past evidence.

If your father was a drunken drug addict would you have "faith" that he will pick you up from soccer practice? Probably not.

Wouldn't you agree that trust requires at least SOME evidence? You've heard the old saying "trust is earned not given." On the other hand, faith does not require evidence.

In the context you presented I would define faith as "trust given not earned"
They are not the same thing in this context.

 

[brightlights]

You can BELIEVE in God because of your FAITH but you can't say that you KNOW God because that would require EVIDENCE!

Biblically, "knowledge" is highly relational and experiential. Adam "knew" his wife and they conceived. There are different meanings to "knowledge" in common language as well. Knowledge of a person is different from propositional knowledge. Knowing someone personally is much more than accumulating facts about them. It also entails relationship and personal exchange -- experience with that person. There is much to know about Abraham Lincoln, for example, but it is impossible for us to know him in the personal sense. When people say that they "know God" they mean personal knowledge and relationship.

 

[brightlights]

The definition of faith as "trust" is the precise one that I don't agree with when it comes to religion.

That's fine, but at this point you are departing from biblical meaning.

You don't have "faith" in your father. You have "reasonable expectations" in your father based on past evidence.

If your father was a drunken drug addict would you have "faith" that he will pick you up from soccer practice? Probably not.

Wouldn't you agree that trust requires at least SOME evidence? You've heard the old saying "trust is earned not given." On the other hand, faith does not require evidence.

Trust is a decision that requires no evidence. Evidence can motivate us toward trust. We can also have misplaced trust and irrational trust. But people put trust in all kinds of things without any evidence at all.

 

[Clairvoyance]

Trust is a decision that requires no evidence. Evidence can motivate us toward trust. We can also have misplaced trust and irrational trust. But people put trust in all kinds of things without any evidence at all.

I really can't think of anything in my life that I put trust in without at least a little bit of evidence... I trust my mom because she has never lied to me yet... I trust my car will start tomorrow because I just got it tuned up... I trust in myself because I have accomplished things I've set my mind to.

I have good reasons for everything I claim to "trust" in my life. Yes, people can be wrong in trusting something or someone just like how knowledge isn't absolutely certain.

What do you have trust in for no good reason?

 

[Clairvoyance]

Biblically, "knowledge" is highly relational and experiential. Adam "knew" his wife and they conceived. There are different meanings to "knowledge" in common language as well. Knowledge of a person is different from propositional knowledge. Knowing someone personally is much more than accumulating facts about them. It also entails relationship and personal exchange -- experience with that person. There is much to know about Abraham Lincoln, for example, but it is impossible for us to know him in the personal sense. When people say that they "know God" they mean personal knowledge and relationship.

Which is exactly why It's very important for people to define their terms. There is no "personal" knowledge or experience. REAL knowledge requires evidence and evidence must be objectively verifiable.

This is the whole point of my definitions. People say they have "knowledge" of God, aliens, Elvis, or bigfoot; but they REALLY mean that they have what you just said -personal feelings... testimonials... anecdotal stories... etc.

That's not real knowledge. If it isn't backed by evidence then you shouldn't believe it. And you definitely can't call it knowledge.

 

[Ken-1122]

Then you didnt actually know something was true, you just incorrectly believed so.

To know simply means to be 100% convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. You don't need to have evidence, you don't need proof, you don't even need to be right! All you need to know something is to be convinced. Example; If you ask me, I know my age, name, and who my parents are. I even have a birth certificate as proof! But if some new found evidence came up that showed I was actually adopted by the people I currently know to be my parents, and that I was born on a different day than I thought, and the birth certificate was all a part of the conspariacy to keep this information away from me, I will accept this new found information and recognize that I was wrong. But until such evidence surfaces, I will continue to know my age, name, and who my birth parents are.
To know does not require proof, all it requires is belief.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

so of course you are not at all convinced that not just the sun but the whole Universe revolves around the sun - see www.galileowaswrong.com - twinc

Wh at does the Sun and the Universe have to do with what I am talking about???

K