Logic and faith

[Colter]

"The certainties of science proceed entirely from the intellect; the certitudes of religion spring from the very foundations of the entire personality. Science appeals to the understanding of the mind; religion appeals to the loyalty and devotion of the body, mind, and spirit, even to the whole personality.

God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality." UB 1955

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you know what "compels" means? You can't just fish around for certain words, you have to actually read things and try to understand what they are saying.

Unless "proof" is synonymous with "evidence" and provides a definition showing it to be so, your reading is a superficial word-search for "evidence" while ignoring the actual definition. Just because "evidence" appears in the definition of "proof" does not mean that it is itself the definition. Your claim that one of the definitions for "proof" is "evidence" is flatly false according to the definition you gave. Do you see why it is so tiresome to talk to aggressive atheists? They are not concerned with truth, they just want to bash Christianity and they pull fallacious arguments from the left and right to do so. Concern yourself with truth and leave your anti-Christian bias behind.



It doesn't, but you were waving your Christian schtick again. If the terms employed in your anti-Christian arguments don't make sense according to dictionaries, they would hopefully make sense according to Christian tradition. In fact it's just the opposite.



Craig isn't a fideist. You're misreading him the way you do everything else.

Here's a list of synonyms for proof you'll find in the dictionary entry I used...

"Synonyms
attestation, confirmation,corroboration, documentation,evidence, substantiation, testament,testimonial, testimony, validation,voucher, witness"

You may notice the fifth one is "evidence". Here's a link to that page in case you don't have faith that I'm telling you the truth...

http://i.word.com/idictionary/proof

So let's recap...

The OP was about (in part) how faith isn't logical. The definition for faith being the common usage of "belief without evidence". You've been fighting against the fact that this is the common usage since you first posted here.

I've given you dictionary definitions when asked for them, and now I've even broken down the definition of words within that definition since you argued against those too. What else would you like at this point? You can still deny that the common usage of faith is "belief without evidence"...but at this point it looks more like you just don't want that to be the definition instead of actually having a reason to believe it isn't.

 

[zippy2006]

Unless "proof" is synonymous with "evidence" and provides a definition showing it to be so...

Here's a list of synonyms for proof you'll find in the dictionary entry I used...

It's not surprising that you didn't find a definition showing it to be so, is it? That's because proof and evidence do not mean the same thing. Your argument is invalid due to equivocation. If proof were the same thing as evidence, then your argument would be valid. Proof is not the same thing as evidence. Your argument is invalid.

You can dance around with sophistry and definitions all day, but it won't make proof equivalent to evidence. There is a reason why that dictionary uses the word "proof" rather than "evidence" in describing faith. The same reason can be found in the long exposition from St. Thomas that I pointed to in one of my first posts in this thread.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not surprising that you didn't find a definition showing it to be so, is it? That's because proof and evidence do not mean the same thing. Your argument is invalid due to equivocation. If proof were the same thing as evidence, then your argument would be valid. Proof is not the same thing as evidence. Your argument is invalid.

You can dance around with sophistry and definitions all day, but it won't make proof equivalent to evidence. There is a reason why that dictionary uses the word "proof" rather than "evidence" in describing faith. The same reason can be found in the long exposition from St. Thomas that I pointed to in one of my first posts in this thread.

What would you consider a "definition that shows them to be synonymous"? That's a rather ridiculous request. Are you asking me to find definitions for both words that are practically the same? Or are you asking me to find a definition for proof that actually uses the word evidence?

Lol they're listed as synonyms...and you want me to show they're synonyms? How exactly?

Maybe this would help you out...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synonym

noun
1.
a word having the same or nearly the samemeaning as another in the language, ashappy, joyful, elated.

 

[zippy2006]

What would you consider a "definition that shows them to be synonymous"? That's a rather ridiculous request. Are you asking me to find definitions for both words that are practically the same? Or are you asking me to find a definition for proof that actually uses the word evidence?

I am asking you to find definitions showing them to be synonymous in the strict sense (i.e. meaning the same thing). But you're too wrapped up in semantics. Here is your argument:

1. Faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam-Webster, secondary definition).
2. Proof is equivalent to evidence.
3. Therefore faith is firm belief in something for which there is no evidence.​

The most glaring problem with this argument is that (2) is false. Neither is proof equivalent to "a reason." Your dictionary attempt has failed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am asking you to find definitions showing them to be synonymous in the strict sense (i.e. meaning the same thing). But you're too wrapped up in semantics. Here is your argument:

1. Faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam-Webster, secondary definition).
2. Proof is equivalent to evidence.
3. Therefore faith is firm belief in something for which there is no evidence.​

The most glaring problem with this argument is that (2) is false. Neither is proof equivalent to "a reason." Your dictionary attempt has failed.

Lol you're really only kidding yourself here. Some dictionaries use the word "evidence" to define "proof".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

In different contexts they might have differing definitions...but in this context they're exactly the same. I've shown you that they're considered synonyms (you know ..two words with the same meaning) and now I've shown you that some dictionaries actually define proof as evidence.

I understand why you're upset. You really want faith to mean something else...but I'm really being nice about this. At any time I could've pointed out that no dictionary defines "faith" in the way you do. Your personal definition of "faith" is entirely baseless.

 

[zippy2006]

You're repeating yourself. I can respond with my own quotes:

Lol you're really only kidding yourself here. Some dictionaries use the word "evidence" to define "proof".

Just because "evidence" appears in the definition of "proof" does not mean that it is itself the definition. Your claim that one of the definitions for "proof" is "evidence" is flatly false according to the definition you gave.

In different contexts they might have differing definitions...but in this context they're exactly the same. I've shown you that they're considered synonyms (you know ..two words with the same meaning) and now I've shown you that some dictionaries actually define proof as evidence.

I didn't ask for a thesaurus. Thesaurus' give similar and same, and thus include words that would lead to equivocation. Here's what I asked for:

Unless "proof" is synonymous with "evidence" and provides a definition showing it to be so, your reading is a superficial word-search for "evidence" while ignoring the actual definition.

I understand why you're upset. You really want faith to mean something else...but I'm really being nice about this. At any time I could've pointed out that no dictionary defines "faith" in the way you do. Your personal definition of "faith" is entirely baseless.

Do you see why it is so tiresome to talk to aggressive atheists? They are not concerned with truth, they just want to bash Christianity and they pull fallacious arguments from the left and right to do so. Concern yourself with truth and leave your anti-Christian bias behind.

It's not surprising that you didn't find a definition showing it to be so, is it? That's because proof and evidence do not mean the same thing. Your argument is invalid due to equivocation. If proof were the same thing as evidence, then your argument would be valid. Proof is not the same thing as evidence. Your argument is invalid.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It doesn't, but you were waving your Christian schtick again. If the terms employed in your anti-Christian arguments don't make sense according to dictionaries,

They do, as I've shown you.

they would hopefully make sense according to Christian tradition. In fact it's just the opposite.

Again, why should we care about what Christian tradition has to say? I'm talking about faith as it is actually practiced, not how Christian tradition says it should be practiced.

Craig isn't a fideist. You're misreading him the way you do everything else.

Show me where I have supposedly misread him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am asking you to find definitions showing them to be synonymous in the strict sense (i.e. meaning the same thing). But you're too wrapped up in semantics. Here is your argument:

1. Faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam-Webster, secondary definition).
2. Proof is equivalent to evidence.
3. Therefore faith is firm belief in something for which there is no evidence.​

The most glaring problem with this argument is that (2) is false. Neither is proof equivalent to "a reason." Your dictionary attempt has failed.

It seems that you're too wrapped in semantics, not Ana the Ist. As you admitted earlier, dictionary definitions are rarely precise. Given that 'proof' is the domain of mathematics, it would have been better for the dictionary to use the word 'evidence' instead. Instead, the writers have ignored the technical definition of proof in favour of a more colloquial usage in which 'proof' and 'evidence' are synonymous. You've missed the forest for the trees.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're repeating yourself. I can respond with my own quotes:







I didn't ask for a thesaurus. Thesaurus' give similar and same, and thus include words that would lead to equivocation. Here's what I asked for:

I didn't give you a thesaurus...I gave you a different dictionary definition. Go ahead and click the link in my last post and you'll see this...

"
noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing astrue, or to produce belief in its truth."

"Evidence"...then it goes on to describe what kind of evidence, but evidence regardless. What more would you like? Do you want me to break down the etymology of these words? Maybe I can find a linguist who's tackled the mind-boggling topic of proof vs evidence?

Also, you've misunderstood what an equivocation fallacy is. There has to be an element of ambiguity that gets taken advantage of. There's no ambiguity here...the context provides all the clarity needed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Some people argue you need faith in logic. It's said to be a primary assumption, you cant use logic to justify logic, that would be circular reasoning.

I'ld say you can test your logic against the real world.
You don't need to 'just' accept it.

The laws of logic weren't invented out of thin air either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When a little girl is told by her father that it is dangerous to play in the forest, she believes that it is dangerous. She doesn't know why, she doesn't have sight of the danger, but she does have faith.

1. children's brains are wired to obbey their perceived authorities. Usually, humans grow out of that once they mature a bit
2. TRUST (= reasonable expactation based on past experiences) is not the same as "faith" in the religious sense.

This faith is not the opposite of reason, it is reasonable

It's also not the same kind of "faith" as theistic faith.
Unlike gods, the girl's dad demonstrably exists. And if the girl asks why she can't go in the forrest alone, this dad will have a whole series of justifiable and reasonable arguments concerning wild animals, rough terrain and the chance of getting lost.

In theism, it's all about "just believing". There is no justification or solid argument. There is no demonstrable existence of the supernatural bits that need to be just believed.

It goes hand in hand with acknowledging her father's superior knowledge and submitting to his will.

....based on past experience with the dude.
And also, still, we have that little detail of children's brains being wired to accept the authority of adults. Which is a thing they grow out of as they mature.

You are talking child psychology and are suggesting that we adults should still behave like that.

To fail in this acknowledgement would be unreasonable and would lead to harm in the forest.

Perhaps.
Would not acknowledging Viking gods mean that you won't be dining with Thor in the great halls of Whalhalla?

 

[lumberjohn]

That's because proof and evidence do not mean the same thing. Your argument is invalid due to equivocation. If proof were the same thing as evidence, then your argument would be valid. Proof is not the same thing as evidence. Your argument is invalid.

I have been a trial lawyer for over twenty years. My profession requires a thorough understanding of evidence. I have given numerous talks to groups both within and outside the legal profession regarding evidence and proof. I have served on committees that drafted and revised standards regarding these issues. And I can tell you definitively – you are wrong. Your premise is absurd. Proof and evidence do mean the same thing. Evidence is proof. Several definitions have already been given that you have promptly ignored or dismissed out of hand, but I can assure you that this is how these terms are used in the real world. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise, which is because you can't. If this is the foundation of your argument, I don't think there is anywhere to go. You are simply denying reality.

 

[lumberjohn]

I said:
Contrast this with belief in God. God is invisible and incorporeal. He is not directly observable and there is no objective evidence supporting even his existence, much less that he has humanity’s best interests at heart and should be trusted. Humans lack the very thing that made the little girl’s trust in her father reasonable – good intersubjectively verifiable evidence. If one chooses to submit to God as the child submitted to her father, it must be on a different basis altogether.

Apart from the fact that I disagree with about everything you wrote there, you are conflating faith with belief in God's existence.

With what exactly do you disagree? Do you maintain that God is visible and corporeal? That God is directly observable by all? That there is objective intersubjectively verifiable evidence of his existence and intentions toward mankind? Then by all means, what is it? And how have we all been so obtuse as to miss it? Christians ultimately rely on faith specifically because these things are unavailable. Once again, your position is simply dismissive of the reality in which the rest of us live.

And as the quotes I've provided demonstrate (and there are many more where those came from) Christians do use faith to support their belief in God's existence. All. The. Time.

 

[lumberjohn]

Zippy, if you didn't think any of the previous quotes I cited supported the idea that faith and reason have long been recognized as mutually exclusive concepts, how about this one by Blaise Pascal: "It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. That is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason." If these were not entirely distinct concepts, then what was Pascal talking about? If Pascal was using faith in a completely novel way that went against all Christian tradition, why was he held in such esteem by theologians of the day and why has he garnered such reverence among theologians ever since? Why was he not roundly condemned as a heretic who had no idea what he was talking about? The obvious answer is that this is what a great many people understood faith to be, and what they still consider it to be today.

 

[lumberjohn]

How about this one from Thomas Jefferson, one of the American founding fathers: “He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such person, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." Jefferson was using "faith" as it was generally understood in his day, a century after Pascal's death. How many nails must we drive into this coffin?

 

[zippy2006]

I didn't give you a thesaurus...I gave you a different dictionary definition. Go ahead and click the link in my last post and you'll see this...

"
noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing astrue, or to produce belief in its truth."

"Evidence"...then it goes on to describe what kind of evidence, but evidence regardless.

It doesn't say "evidence." Evidence is merely a word in the definition. If you were consistent in your reasoning then you would have to admit that "yellow" is the definition of sun. Not all evidence is sufficient to establish a thing as true or to produce belief in its truth. If it were then the definition would just be "evidence" and the synonymity that I asked for would actually exist in real life. As is it only exists in your head.

Even if the distinctions I am making are too hard for you to comprehend, they are perfectly true. Faith is incompatible with proof and is not blind. If you read Augustine, Aquinas, or any doctor of the Church this is obvious.

"Secondly, [faith can be considered] in general, that is, under the common aspect of credibility; and in this way they are seen by the believer. For he would not believe unless, on the evidence of signs, or of something similar, he saw that they ought to be believed" (ST).​

In the very next article he affirms that the object of faith is not an object of demonstration.

The contrary of your claim about Christianity is so well-established that your attempt takes on the image of some strange chimera. The obviousness of its falsity is self-evident to a Christian.

 

[zippy2006]

I have been a trial lawyer for over twenty years...

Once you recognize what we're talking about and acknowledge your bias you'll be halfway there. This is a different context than a courtroom, and the dictionary definitions don't jibe with your assertions. If you can't recognize the difference between evidence and proof then you're living under your courtroom rock.

...not that I think the dictionary is the final authority, but if an argument can't even reasonably proceed from common usage, it is doomed to fail when placed under greater scrutiny.

I said:
...there is no objective evidence supporting even his existence, much less that he has humanity’s best interests at heart and should be trusted. Humans lack the very thing that made the little girl’s trust in her father reasonable – good intersubjectively verifiable evidence. If one chooses to submit to God as the child submitted to her father, it must be on a different basis altogether.


With what exactly do you disagree?

I trimmed what I agree with.

And as the quotes I've provided demonstrate (and there are many more where those came from) Christians do use faith to support their belief in God's existence. All. The. Time.

I never said otherwise. But God's existence is not restricted to the domain of faith in the way that things like the Trinity are. That is to say, things that are strictly of faith do not admit of scientific certainty and demonstration, yet God's existence does.

Show me where I have supposedly misread him.

I don't spend my time addressing every claim of atheists who misrepresent left and right. If you're interested, you can show why you think Craig is a fideist.

 

[zippy2006]

Zippy, if you didn't think any of the previous quotes I cited supported the idea that faith and reason have long been recognized as mutually exclusive concepts...

But where have I claimed that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive concepts? Go back and read the sentences I originally took issue with in your post. You posited contrariety, not exclusivity.

And yet a more foundational problem is the ambiguity in your use of "reason." In the traditional sense the reason that is different from faith is scientifically demonstrable reason (e.g. ST II II, Q1, A5). Faith is incompatible with proof, and is thus incompatible with this kind of reason. Yet when you use "reason" you seem to want to broaden it to evidence, sufficient reason, or motive of belief, such that faith can in no way depend on any kind of evidence, sufficient reason, or motive of belief. This is obviously false, as St. Thomas points out:

"Secondly, [faith can be considered] in general, that is, under the common aspect of credibility; and in this way they are seen by the believer. For he would not believe unless, on the evidence of signs, or of something similar, he saw that they ought to be believed" (ST II II, Q1, A4, ad2).​

Faith and reason are mutually exclusive insofar as "reason" is understood as a strict demonstration. Christian tradition reflects this. This doesn't mean that faith is belief absent evidence. If "reason" is taken more generally, then they are not mutually exclusive. Indeed no human acts without a cause; ex nihilo, nihil fit.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It doesn't say "evidence." Evidence is merely a word in the definition. If you were consistent in your reasoning then you would have to admit that "yellow" is the definition of sun. Not all evidence is sufficient to establish a thing as true or to produce belief in its truth. If it were then the definition would just be "evidence" and the synonymity that I asked for would actually exist in real life. As is it only exists in your head.

Even if the distinctions I am making are too hard for you to comprehend, they are perfectly true. Faith is incompatible with proof and is not blind. If you read Augustine, Aquinas, or any doctor of the Church this is obvious.

"Secondly, [faith can be considered] in general, that is, under the common aspect of credibility; and in this way they are seen by the believer. For he would not believe unless, on the evidence of signs, or of something similar, he saw that they ought to be believed" (ST).​

In the very next article he affirms that the object of faith is not an object of demonstration.

The contrary of your claim about Christianity is so well-established that your attempt takes on the image of some strange chimera. The obviousness of its falsity is self-evident to a Christian.

Wow lol the mental gymnastics you're using to avoid admitting you're wrong is astounding. I had to give myself about five minutes to stop laughing when I read this...

"It doesn't say "evidence." Evidence is merely a word in the definition."

Thank you, this made my day. You're right that it's a word in the definition...but it's the only word in that definition that defines "proof". All the other words go on to describe what kind of evidence we're speaking about when we talk of proof. The irony in this is that you told me you didn't want a synonym from a thesaurus...but now you're saying that you wanted a one-word definition? They have those, they're called synonyms and they're found in a thesaurus. I'm glad you pointed out that you understand there are many types of evidence...that way I shouldn't have to explain the rest of the definition to you (but apparently I do anyway).

The OP described faith as belief without evidence. The dictionary defined proof as evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true or to produce belief in its truth. Therefore, when we substitute the OP's description of faith as "belief without evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true or to produce belief in its truth." (Aka "proof").

We're right back at the beginning aren't we? Everything makes sense according to common usage of the terms involved. Proof and evidence are the same in this context and completely interchangeable.

Thanks for the laughs though.

Edit: Just for giggles, if you can take that last definition of proof and interpret it in a way that doesn't equate it with some type of evidence, I'll let the whole thing go.