Faith Makes Life Possible

[Received]

I'm speaking of Tolstoy, who said: "without faith it is impossible to live." He probably didn't mean it in the way I'm meaning it.

I mean that faith, which can be equated with trust (which in turn signifies inclinations of the will, i.e., you can't just "believe" without showing some type of change in your behavior), is needed to move and live for all of our philosophical assumptions which can't (because they're assumptions) be proven. Take the existence of the outer world, other selves, uniformity in nature, induction, etc. All these things are what we would call "common sense," but this doesn't undermine the fact that we can't (and no philosopher so far has) proven these using reason. They're intuitive or instinctual axioms we have about the world, arguably hard wired into us.

What happens if we doubt these? We can't possibly move or live; we're bound in a constant state of skeptical paralysis. Without faith we can't be human. Religious faith is another flavor of a faith that's essentially no different than the daily faith we have in our basic assumptions.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I'm speaking of Tolstoy, who said: "without faith it is impossible to live." He probably didn't mean it in the way I'm meaning it.

I mean that faith, which can be equated with trust (which in turn signifies inclinations of the will, i.e., you can't just "believe" without showing some type of change in your behavior), is needed to move and live for all of our philosophical assumptions which can't (because they're assumptions) be proven. Take the existence of the outer world, other selves, uniformity in nature, induction, etc. All these things are what we would call "common sense," but this doesn't undermine the fact that we can't (and no philosopher so far has) proven these using reason. They're intuitive or instinctual axioms we have about the world, arguably hard wired into us.

What happens if we doubt these? We can't possibly move or live; we're bound in a constant state of skeptical paralysis. Without faith we can't be human. Religious faith is another flavor of a faith that's essentially no different than the daily faith we have in our basic assumptions.

Unless I have some sort of evidence to support my faith, I don't see any difference between faith and gullibility.

 

[Received]

Unless I have some sort of evidence to support my faith, I don't see any difference between faith and gullibility.

What evidence do you have that your intuition is sound, or that there's a reality that actually exists outside of your head?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have faith that this conversation is going nowhere fast.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

You guise.

 

[Davian]

What evidence do you have that your intuition is sound,

I know it is sound enough that I haven't been run over by a car crossing the street or to have stepped off of a cliff. Beyond that, the degree of accuracy can be questioned. I continue to exist.

or that there's a reality that actually exists outside of your head?

It is a very useful assumption, and has a lot of explanatory power. If it is only a simulation, it would seem a good one, by the standards I have been able to cobble together.

 

[Received]

I know it is sound enough that I haven't been run over by a car crossing the street or to have stepped off of a cliff. Beyond that, the degree of accuracy can be questioned. I continue to exist.

An assumption with utility. That isn't at all the same thing as veracity.

It is a very useful assumption, and has a lot of explanatory power. If it is only a simulation, it would seem a good one, by the standards I have been able to cobble together.

Ibid.

 

[Davian]

I'm speaking of Tolstoy, who said: "without faith it is impossible to live." He probably didn't mean it in the way I'm meaning it.

I mean that faith, which can be equated with trust (which in turn signifies inclinations of the will, i.e., you can't just "believe" without showing some type of change in your behavior), is needed to move and live for all of our philosophical assumptions which can't (because they're assumptions) be proven. Take the existence of the outer world, other selves, uniformity in nature, induction, etc. All these things are what we would call "common sense," but this doesn't undermine the fact that we can't (and no philosopher so far has) proven these using reason. They're intuitive or instinctual axioms we have about the world, arguably hard wired into us.

It would appear so. I suspect that the first of our potential ancestors that were capable of introspection to the point of nihilism probably took actions that subsequently took them out of the gene pool. Those that were able to avoid this pitfall, through possibly the avoidance of introspection or the development of a brain more capable in containing the "self" within its - I use this word tentatively - illusion of existence, became our ancestors. That is our inheretance.

What happens if we doubt these? We can't possibly move or live; we're bound in a constant state of skeptical paralysis. Without faith we can't be human.

I have faith - trust - in my desk chair as structural failures in desk chairs has been a very rare event in my experience. Likewise, even if I see the function of the brain (and "self") as described by philosophers Mezinger and Dennett, I can still function as a human being, with the knowledge that my ancestors got along fine without that knowledge. I just don't dwell on it. Much like when driving a car, I can press on the gas pedal without thinking about butterfly valves and fuel injector pulse widths.

Religious faith is another flavor of a faith that's essentially no different than the daily faith we have in our basic assumptions.

Equivocation. Why trust any religion?

 

[Received]

Equivocation. Why trust any religion?

That's a whole 'nother discussion, but I don't think it's equivocating to say that religious and secular faith are "essentially" the same, i.e., the same in terms of their mechanism of faith. It's just that religion involves faith in things that aren't arguably as intinctual or intuitive as secular stuff.

 

[Davian]

An assumption with utility. That isn't at all the same thing as veracity.



Ibid.

Ah, you want the truth. Do you think you can handle the truth?

 

[Davian]

That's a whole 'nother discussion, but I don't think it's equivocating to say that religious and secular faith are "essentially" the same, i.e., the same in terms of their mechanism of faith. It's just that religion involves faith in things that aren't arguably as intinctual or intuitive as secular stuff.

You will need to clarify. If religion involves faith in things that aren't arguably as instinctual or intuitive as secular stuff, then you are equivocating.

If you are looking at how the brain works at a deeper level, then perhaps the "mechanism" of faith may be the same, however, it would seem that the "religious" things would have to bypass the conscious mind's "critical factor", which still leaves you with the problem of equivocation.

Perhaps if you were to state the conclusion that you are working backwards from, what you are trying to accomplish would be clearer.

 

[Received]

Ah, you want the truth. Do you think you can handle the truth?

According to my wife, I definitely can't handle the truth (that's why I'm always wrong).

 

[Received]

You will need to clarify. If religion involves faith in things that aren't arguably as instinctual or intuitive as secular stuff, then you are equivocating.

If you are looking at how the brain works at a deeper level, then perhaps the "mechanism" of faith may be the same, however, it would seem that the "religious" things would have to bypass the conscious mind's "critical factor", which still leaves you with the problem of equivocation.

Perhaps if you were to state the conclusion that you are working backwards from, what you are trying to accomplish would be clearer.

Eh, I don't think it's equivocating because I'm referring to the mechanism of religion contra the mechanism of secular life.

And the things we have faith in in a secular sense still involves (by definition) bypassing the critical part.

 

[Davian]

Eh, I don't think it's equivocating because I'm referring to the mechanism of religion contra the mechanism of secular life.

And the things we have faith in in a secular sense still involves (by definition) bypassing the critical part.

No, one negotiates the critical factor, and the other bypasses it. My chair has its own track record, along with all the other chairs that I have experienced, with which it negotiates and 'earns' my trust. What kind of track record do religions have?

 

[Davian]

According to my wife, I definitely can't handle the truth (that's why I'm always wrong).

But seriously, what if Metzinger and Dennett are accurately describing what the brain does, and that the "self" is only a construct of the brain? Nothing more. Would you be comfortable with that?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ah, you want the truth. Do you think you can handle the truth?

I once wrote a philosophy paper on how neither "truth" nor " justice" had any actual existence beyond the concept stage, and that they were so subjective as to be meaningless.

Philosophy, a great way to run around in mental circles.

 

[Davian]

I once wrote a philosophy paper on how neither "truth" nor " justice" had any actual existence beyond the concept stage, and that they were so subjective as to be meaningless.

Philosophy, a great way to run around in mental circles.

Hence my use of the term "accurately describing" in post #15. Less philosophy, more science.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hence my use of the term "accurately describing" in post #15. Less philosophy, more science.

If people want to waste away their lives pondering possibilities, then philosophy is for them. For those who want to actively investigate said possibilities, science.

 

[Received]

But seriously, what if Metzinger and Dennett are accurately describing what the brain does, and that the "self" is only a construct of the brain? Nothing more. Would you be comfortable with that?

Yes.

 

[Received]

I once wrote a philosophy paper on how neither "truth" nor " justice" had any actual existence beyond the concept stage, and that they were so subjective as to be meaningless.

Philosophy, a great way to run around in mental circles.

You're critiquing philosophy and also using philosophy.