• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How does one know anything via faith?

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Some have posited faith as an epistemology here; that you can know something through faith in it.

For those making that claim, I have a simple question.

If you hold on faith that a particular god exists, and I hold on faith that your particular god does not exist, how do we determine which one of us is right? We cannot both be right; one of us must be wrong. But how, using faith, can we determine which of the two of us is in the wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006

True Scotsman

Objectivist
Jul 26, 2014
962
78
✟24,057.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Some have posited faith as an epistemology here; that you can know something through faith in it.

For those making that claim, I have a simple question.

If you hold on faith that a particular god exists, and I hold on faith that your particular god does not exist, how do we determine which one of us is right? We cannot both be right; one of us must be wrong. But how, using faith, can we determine which of the two of us is in the wrong?
The only way I can see is with a club, you know, like the inquisition or with a gun like ISIS.
 
Upvote 0

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟30,379.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Some have posited faith as an epistemology here...

Also, nitpick moment. Epistemology is a field of study- the study of knowledge, hence the "ology" part at the end. To say that someone has an epistemology is like saying someone has a biology, a psychology, or a physics.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I never saw "Peters pence" (a catholic charity for the poor) issued with a government health warning. Does that make a belief in seeing Christ in the poor man unreasonable? No thats "logic", which of course leads to shoplifting, revoution and the general "hardening of hearts"...
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Also, nitpick moment. Epistemology is a field of study- the study of knowledge, hence the "ology" part at the end. To say that someone has an epistemology is like saying someone has a biology, a psychology, or a physics.

Having an epistemology means having a personal view about how knowledge is justified. I don't think that there is any need to nitpick word usage.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

JJM

Senior Veteran
Apr 4, 2004
1,940
54
36
Northern Indiana
✟21,881.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wow Cadet this all got real ugly real quick sorry to see that.


Some have posited faith as an epistemology here; that you can know something through faith in it.

For those making that claim, I have a simple question.

If you hold on faith that a particular god exists, and I hold on faith that your particular god does not exist, how do we determine which one of us is right? We cannot both be right; one of us must be wrong. But how, using faith, can we determine which of the two of us is in the wrong?


Faith is at the very least involved in the acquisition of belief and is therefore an epistemological term. Epistemology is more than simply giving an account of the acquisition of episteme or scientific knowledge (here science is used in it proper sense not to simply refer to the modern methodology of much of natural "science", but something more like what Descartes meant by "certain and indubitable" knowledge). But when people speak of knowledge as a result of faith they usually mean a number of different things. I don't necessarily agree with all of them but I can try to present them to you if you're really trying to understand.


Let's just go with the definition provided in Hebrews, that faith is belief in the unseen.

First we have to understand that "πιστις" in Greek has a slightly wider valence that "faith". There is no other word for "belief" or "trust" in Greek, so we have to allow four our use of of the word to be slightly wider that we are used to it. I think, however, allowing this gives us a better understanding of the term as it is used in English. This is of course why your definition won't do, because it is not the definition given in Hebrews. It would be difficult to make it a coherent sentence in Greek: "Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις . . . πραγμάτων πίστις οὐ βλεπομένων". Or "but faith is . . . the faith in things unseen". Instead of second "πίστις" Hebrews uses the word, "ἔλεγχος" or "evidence", though some translations use a more subjective word like "conviction". Faith is the evidence of things unseen and before that "the substance of things hoped for", again some translations say something more subjective like "realization" rather than "substance". In this sense faith functions not as a complete epistemology, but as an epistemological tool with which to determine beliefs. It is clear then that it is not the propositional faith which is commonly spoken of in modern parlance.

With that cleared up, I'd say there are essentially four categories by which faith is said to amount to knowledge.

1. Some times we speak of knowing something because we believe an authority who we conclude knows it. Here we have reason for believing that (we have "seen") that the authority is trustworthy and we have understood ("seen" the meaning of) the authority's relation of its knowledge, but we have not seen the thing itself. As a result of this we have sufficient epsitemic warrant to consider our proposition known. You or I might for example say that we know the gravitational constant to be G = 6.673 x 10-11 N m2/kg2, but I suspect neither of us has done Cavendish's experiments by which he discovered it. Either this meant to be proper scientific knowledge, in the sense that we have scientific knowledge of the trustworthiness of the authority and the meaning of the authority's relation, and thus know with the same certainty that what he says it true. Of course some times we mean knowledge in a lesser sense than scientific knowledge. I and most modern philosophers would go so far as to claim that scientific knowledge never occurs naturally and thus if we use the word "knowledge" of this or anything but the soon to be gotten to third sense in which faith can result in knowledge, we must be using it in some lesser sense. Typically this lesser sense is understood to be the knowledge resulting from "moral certainty", which is often defined variously as either the certainty necessary to justify actions, which is basically how Descartes defines it in his Principles of Philosophy, or that highest level of certainty as is possible regarding particulars, which particulars contain that which "concern[s ] human character and conduct”.


2. Sometimes "knowledge" does not refer to questions concern questions of certainty. Sometimes it just means retention of some information. In that case, insofar as revelation can result in the acquisition/acceptance of this information, one could say that knowledge is gained by means of faith. By trusting in the authority or if the word faith is meant in the broader sense of a system of religion. In a related manner, one might be said to have knowledge regarding the faith, both regarding certainty and simple retention/acquisition, because one knows things about the faith.


3. Propositional faith can be said to result in knowledge because a) we can use those propositions as principals from which to draw other propositions, b) our intellectual effort and time can be directed away from lines of thought which will not be fruitful, c) directing our minds to consider the proposition of faith can result in greater understanding and indeed sometimes something can only be really grasped by living it out which one would not do without some level of faith in it, d) some times our incapacity to see is a result of intellectual or moral weakness. If Christian faith is truly regenerative then the holding and/or living out of the faith could strengthen these intellectual or moral faculties.


4. Some times faith is meant to be understood as a capacity for ascertaining truth enlivened/enlightened by the Holy Spirit. This is principally what is meant by the "gift of faith". Essential the idea is that the Holy Spirit is in some sense manipulating out epistemic apparatus in order for guide us into truth. Sometimes this is understood as a guiding or strengthening of our normal epistemological faculties. Other times it is understood as the implanting or overhauling of our intuitive faculty such that something is seen to be clearly the case based on what would other otherwise be no or insufficient evidence.


I hope that helps and that it can spur additional worthwhile discussion if that is helpful.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
4. Some times faith is meant to be understood as a capacity for ascertaining truth enlivened/enlightened by the Holy Spirit. This is principally what is meant by the "gift of faith". Essential the idea is that the Holy Spirit is in some sense manipulating out epistemic apparatus in order for guide us into truth. Sometimes this is understood as a guiding or strengthening of our normal epistemological faculties. Other times it is understood as the implanting or overhauling of our intuitive faculty such that something is seen to be clearly the case based on what would other otherwise be no or insufficient evidence.
I think this is the closest to the religious sense of the word 'faith,' and therefore what The Cadet is referring to. In relation to the OP, the question is whether this "epistemic manipulation" actually guides one toward truth or whether it is an attempt to merely maintain belief when there are no good reasons to do so.
 
Upvote 0

JJM

Senior Veteran
Apr 4, 2004
1,940
54
36
Northern Indiana
✟21,881.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you hold on faith that a particular god exists, and I hold on faith that your particular god does not exist, how do we determine which one of us is right? We cannot both be right; one of us must be wrong. But how, using faith, can we determine which of the two of us is in the wrong?

I just realized that in the light of the confused hostility which preceded I failed to directly answer your question.

With regard to 1. I think that we can clearly argue about the legitimacy of both the authority and our various interpretations of what it says.

2 and 3 do not to some extent apply to the situation, but they will variously effect our epistemic situations.

4 cannot really be used as a mediator between people, but presuming the veracity of this claim, the fact that you lack an epistemic capacity which I have does not nullify the validity of my capacity. The best I can hope to do is to cultivate this capacity within you. The same thing would happen considering another capacity which one person might have and another lack. A logician who understands the functioning of the logical calculus and can see how conclusions ought to be drawn within it may not be able to argue with someone who is not as logically inclined, but it doesn't make him any less correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Holoman
Upvote 0

JJM

Senior Veteran
Apr 4, 2004
1,940
54
36
Northern Indiana
✟21,881.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think this is the closest to the religious sense of the word 'faith,' and therefore what The Cadet is referring to. In relation to the OP, the question is whether this "epistemic manipulation" actually guides one toward truth or whether it is an attempt to merely maintain belief when there are no good reasons to do so.
Please forgive me if this is overly blunt, but I don't think that you are qualified to determine the "religious sense" of the word. Christians have been using the words in these various ways for over a millennium.
Still my reply above I think answers your objection. Though I'll add to it that I entirely agree that that is the question, but I want to stress that one who denies the existence of this epsitemic manipulation is in virtually no better spot within the context of the justifications of unaided human reason that one who denies it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Please forgive me if this is overly blunt, but I don't think that you are qualified to determine the "religious sense" of the word. Christians have been using the words in these various ways for over a millennium.
Please forgive me for being blunt, but Christians don't own the word 'faith'. I am as qualified as you are.

Still my reply above I think answers your objection.
In what way?
 
Upvote 0

JJM

Senior Veteran
Apr 4, 2004
1,940
54
36
Northern Indiana
✟21,881.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Please forgive me for being blunt, but the religious don't own the word 'faith'.

That's fair. My real objection was your defining "religious faith". It seems to me it is for the religious to decided how they use the word "faith". And you of course as a nonbeliever could still grasp to some degree the words as the religious use them and make legitimate claims about them, including the claim that we aren't using them the way we think we are. I guess my real objections is that the word is being used this way within religious contexts and for many (hundreds of thousands, if not millions or billions of people) this is what they principally mean by faith (or at least faith resulting in knowledge), but you dismissed the uses out of hand as though they don't qualify.

In what way?

Perhaps it wasn't clear that I didn't mean the post you were referring to but rather the one that directly preceded the post you are currently replying to:
4 cannot really be used as a mediator between people, but presuming the veracity of this claim, the fact that you lack an epistemic capacity which I have does not nullify the validity of my capacity. The best I can hope to do is to cultivate this capacity within you. The same thing would happen considering another capacity which one person might have and another lack. A logician who understands the functioning of the logical calculus and can see how conclusions ought to be drawn within it may not be able to argue with someone who is not as logically inclined, but it doesn't make him any less correct.
This I think is the best response to the question in relation to faith as you have suggested we use it. Do you find something about it insufficient?
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That's fair. My real objection was your defining "religious faith". It seems to me it is for the religious to decided how they use the word "faith". And you of course as a nonbeliever could still grasp to some degree the words as the religious use them and make legitimate claims about them, including the claim that we aren't using them the way we think we are. I guess my real objections is that the word is being used this way within religious contexts and for many (hundreds of thousands, if not millions or billions of people) this is what they principally mean by faith (or at least faith resulting in knowledge), but you dismissed the uses out of hand as though they don't qualify.
The religious can use the word however they wish within their own communities. But if we are to discuss religious faith more generally, an agreed upon definition is needed which doesn't merely conflate faith with confidence, trust, or hope.

4 cannot really be used as a mediator between people, but presuming the veracity of this claim, the fact that you lack an epistemic capacity which I have does not nullify the validity of my capacity.
Neither does it validate the claims you make on the basis of it. Many people claim to possess such a capacity. Yet they hold theological commitments that differ, often significantly, from your own.

The best I can hope to do is to cultivate this capacity within you. The same thing would happen considering another capacity which one person might have and another lack.
The presumption here is that you have a capacity that others lack. What reason do you have to believe this to be the case?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
Some have posited faith as an epistemology here; that you can know something through faith in it.

For those making that claim, I have a simple question.

If you hold on faith that a particular god exists, and I hold on faith that your particular god does not exist, how do we determine which one of us is right? We cannot both be right; one of us must be wrong. But how, using faith, can we determine which of the two of us is in the wrong?
This is under the assumption that there is an objective reality. I don't believe there is such a thing.
 
Upvote 0

JJM

Senior Veteran
Apr 4, 2004
1,940
54
36
Northern Indiana
✟21,881.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's fine. The religious can use the word however they wish within their own communities. But if we are to discuss religious faith more generally, an agreed upon definition is needed which doesn't merely conflate faith with confidence, trust, or hope.

But faith and trust are the same thing, and again confidence is essentially faith if not simply so. The point I was trying to make is that faith within a religious context especially as it results in knowledge is far more than simply the completely arational assertion that something is true. Perhaps the OP failed to grasp this. It was not clear from the OP that he had any clear notion of faith other that mere propositional faith on no evidence. Additionally the first sentence of the OP was principally about how we use it within the context of our own religious communities. "How can you possibly reasonably connect these two terms?" seemed to be the point of the OP.

Neither does it validate the claims you make on the basis of it. Many people claim to possess such a capacity. Yet they hold theological commitments that differ, often significantly, from your own.

The presumption here is that you have a capacity that others lack. What reason do you have to believe this to be the case? Is your capacity more reliable than that of others who also claim to possess this capacity?

No it doesn't validate them. The point I was making is that there is no middle ground between two people one of whom has a capacity and the other of whom doesn't. The level of epistemic confidence with which atheists often claim to know that the other lacks this capacity is not warranted. Assuming the position is correct, their actions are akin to someone who lacks any logical capacity considering the logician a fool because the intricacies of logic confuse him. I can make that claim without any claim to supernatural manipulation of my epistemic apparatus. I can also make that claim and assert that faith functions as an epsitemic tool principally in categories 1-3.

Still I do believe that I have this capacity to some degree. I admit that the situation is not so simply obvious to me which was part of the reason I was inclined toward this thread. If the manipulation is nothing more than a strengthening of this capacity then it seems there is little or no reason to assume that some people are "smarter" in this regard than others. This may result in different opinions, the same way that unguided difference in capacity would. I might say simply the same thing to you when you believe yourself to have correctly intuited the truth when someone else believes the same thing about themselves but differs from you also by the aid of unguided reason.

Otherwise one might be forced to say that God guides us on occasion into differing beliefs because it is beneficial for one but not the other or because their epistemic circumstances dictate that the only moral possibility for their belief is something false. Additionally, it is possible that a person is guided by this principal in some regards and not in others. A difficulty only results when two people both claiming this capacity claim differing views on the basis of this capacity.

More extreme views of it might also have to admit that the other is simply lying to themselves because they are inclined to sin.

In any regard, I want to assert that in all of these cases unaided reason falls into the same traps. The only difference the religious have to deal with is the activity of God.

I would admit that I believe myself to have this capacity largely because I have what seems to be legitimate reasons to believe in a particularly provident God and it seems to me I have cultivated a relationship with Him to the extent that this sort of guidance is inevitable, especially given the dictates of the Christian religion. This may not be sufficient for yourself or the OP, but I never claimed scientific knowledge for any of us. Another individual might claim that they know this precisely through the capacity, and that others who claim to have it but disagree are lying to themselves or others. A nonlogical capacity cannot be criticized for circularity. This would not allow for middle ground but as I think I've pointed out this is a problem all epistemic capacities have. I could go into more detail about how this capacity, in its most extreme sense, would have to function, but I've not the time at the moment.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But faith and trust are the same thing, and again confidence is essentially faith if not simply so.
If that's what you want 'faith' to mean, then we all have 'faith.' But of course that is not what is typically meant when we refer to faith in the religious sense.

No it doesn't validate them. The point I was making is that there is no middle ground between two people one of whom has a capacity and the other of whom doesn't. The level of epistemic confidence with which atheists often claim to know that the other lacks this capacity is not warranted.
No atheist I know of claims to know that theists lack this capacity. But perhaps they could make such a claim on the basis of their own capacity?

Assuming the position is correct, their actions are akin to someone who lacks any logical capacity considering the logician a fool because the intricacies of logic confuse him.
Again, you presuming to possess a capacity that others do not. On what do you base this conclusion?

Still I do believe that I have this capacity to some degree. I admit that the situation is not so simply obvious to me which was part of the reason I was inclined toward this thread. If the manipulation is nothing more than a strengthening of this capacity then it seems there is little or no reason to assume that some people are "smarter" in this regard than others. This may result in different opinions, the same way that unguided difference in capacity would. I might say simply the same thing to you when you believe yourself to have correctly intuited the truth when someone else believes the same thing about themselves but differs from you also by the aid of unguided reason. Otherwise one might be forced to say that God guides us on occasion into differing beliefs because it is beneficial for one but not the other or because their epistemic circumstances dictate that the only moral possibility for their belief is something false. Additionally, it is possible that a person is guided by this principal in some regards and not in others. A difficulty only results when two people both claiming this capacity claim differing views on the basis of this capacity.
Which happens often. How is this resolved?

More extreme views of it might also have to admit that the other is simply lying to themselves because they are inclined to sin.
This is a cop out.

In any regard, I want to assert that in all of these cases unaided reason falls into the same traps. The only difference the religious have to deal with is the activity of God.
Yes, "unaided reason" does, which is why we have developed methods for sorting out conflicting claims. What methods can be used to sort out claims made on the basis of capacity?
 
Upvote 0

JJM

Senior Veteran
Apr 4, 2004
1,940
54
36
Northern Indiana
✟21,881.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I hope to draft a reply later tonight after I get home from work. However, It would be helpful if you could answer two questions for me.

If that's what you want 'faith' to mean, then we all have 'faith.' But of course that is not what is typically meant when we refer to faith in the religious sense.
Could you in your own words tell me what you believe is typically meant by "faith" in the religious sense?

This is a cop out.
Why?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.