Faith Makes Life Possible

[variant]

Right, but here you're referring to induction -- which you're having faith in.

People believe induction works because it is literally impossible not to.

Make the same argument for your god faith and your point would be more interesting.

 

[Received]

And if we use day to day thinking to address philosophy you get pretty muddled philosophy.

That doesn't have relevance to my point.

 

[variant]

That doesn't have relevance to my point.

It is entirely relevant to how you argue.

 

[Received]

People believe induction works because it is literally impossible not to.

So you're saying that something must be capable of ascertaining the truth -- or that it's true that something can ascertain the truth -- just because you're not capable of doing otherwise?

 

[Received]

It is entirely relevant to how you argue.

Which doesn't, so far as I can tell, have relevance to my point.

 

[variant]

So you're saying that something must be capable of ascertaining the truth -- or that it's true that something can ascertain the truth -- just because you're not capable of doing otherwise?

I am saying that you don't have a choice with belief in induction, you can not function otherwise.

 

[variant]

Which doesn't, so far as I can tell, have relevance to my point.

It's a critique of how you make points, which seems relevant to me.

If we didn't think about all the different things you meant by "faith" your muddled philosophy might seem more meaningful.

 

[AmorFati]

Faith or trust in providence (of Nature/God) and the goodness of existence makes my life a lot more bearable for sure. Love of fate is where it's at just like Nietzsche and my hommies the Stoics wrote.

 

[Received]

It's a critique of how you make points, which seems relevant to me.

If we didn't think about all the different things you meant by "faith" your muddled philosophy might seem more meaningful.

Going from the argument to the style of the arguer is a subtle ad hominem.

And all the different things I mean by faith? Where have I shifted my definitions within this thread? (Remember, it's fallacious even to appeal to other threads, but I think you'd have a hard time doing that without muddling things up even if it weren't so.)

 

[Received]

Some of you guys are really all about free thinking until it comes close to concepts that don't, for once, fit the box you put them in labeled with fundamentalist Christianity.

 

[Received]

I am saying that you don't have a choice with belief in induction, you can not function otherwise.

And appealing to "it must be true because it makes it functional" is pragmatism, not a standard involving veracity.

 

[Received]

Faith or trust in providence (of Nature/God) and the goodness of existence makes my life a lot more bearable for sure. Love of fate is where it's at just like Nietzsche and my hommies the Stoics wrote.

It's also terribly Buddhist, which I think is really cool. Amor fati with Nietzsche (per the passage in my signature from The Gay Science and in Ecce Homo) is maybe the most Buddhist thing he has written.

 

[Received]

Please note, folks, that I'm not at all equating secular faith with religious faith. I'm saying they share the same mechanism, that's all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Some of you guys are really all about free thinking until it comes close to concepts that don't, for once, fit the box you put them in labeled with fundamentalist Christianity.

Received...

If you present a premise you believe true...and someone disagrees...why not just show why they're wrong? Why start with the "close-minded" calling?

 

[Received]

Because showing them they're wrong doesn't equate with them thinking truthfully of you.

 

[variant]

Going from the argument to the style of the arguer is a subtle ad hominem.

Well it's not you I have the problem with but your argument so no.

And all the different things I mean by faith? Where have I shifted my definitions within this thread? (Remember, it's fallacious even to appeal to other threads, but I think you'd have a hard time doing that without muddling things up even if it weren't so.)

I can't think of anything (thinking wise) you don't mean by faith.

 

[variant]

And appealing to "it must be true because it makes it functional" is pragmatism, not a standard involving veracity.

If you carefully read what I said you will find that I didn't say anything about truth, just that buying into the basic assumptions of inductive reasoning is completely unavoidable.

You take an unavoidable assumption to be "faith", I say it's just the circumstance we find ourselves in.

And, more to the point, this isn't why you believe in God, that sort of "faith" is something much different, which is why I call your argument a basic equivocation.

Show me that your religious faith is basically the same thing as a completely unavoidable assumption and I will listen intently.

 

[variant]

Please note, folks, that I'm not at all equating secular faith with religious faith. I'm saying they share the same mechanism, that's all.

No they don't. Religious faith isn't an unavoidable assumption at all. It's just an unsupported one.

 

[Received]

If you carefully read what I said you will find that I didn't say anything about truth, just that buying into the basic assumptions of inductive reasoning is completely unavoidable.

Unavoidability isn't tantamount to veracity. You're making an assumption that it's so, and a good one, I think. I'm just asking that you admit that it's an assumption, and as an assumption it needs faith in being carried out, without which it's impossible for you to function or live -- exactly what I posed in the OP.

You take an unavoidable assumption to be "faith", I say it's just the circumstance we find ourselves in.

I don't equate faith with an assumption, but rather with the inclinations of the will that follow believing in this assumption. Faith is the movement, not the thought.

And the circumstance we find ourselves in doesn't make it true or capable of ascertaining truth just because we find ourselves in it. Something isn't true or capable of unveiling truth just because it's unavoidable. Therefore, you have to assume and move with it -- have faith.

And, more to the point, this isn't why you believe in God, that sort of "faith" is something much different.

The faith as a process is exactly the same; the roots of these different faiths (secular or religious) are obviously different.

 

[variant]

Some of you guys are really all about free thinking until it comes close to concepts that don't, for once, fit the box you put them in labeled with fundamentalist Christianity.

I'm for free thought, not unchallenged thought.