Faith and how much we depend on it.

[Archaeopteryx]

But what you fail to acknowledge is what this experience at bottom is...

The experience of, for example, gravity is in an entirely different league then the experience of, for example, the effect or praying.

One can be independently verified. The other must be "just believed".

In relation to scientific discoveries, a rational consideration of the evidence may necessitate conceptual revision. Faith obstructs this process by protecting cherished beliefs from criticism.

 

[Locutus]

Religious faith precisely is synonymous with "confidence" or "trust" and faith in God is based on His track record. It does not refer to a baseless belief, which is not actually humanly possible. Beliefs don't spontaneously pop into someone's head uncaused, and even if they did, they aren't maintained uncaused.

So worshippers of Zeus and Odin have faith based on the track records of these gods? How about alien abductees and chasers of bigfoot? Is there a track record of these creatures upon which such people base their faith? How about palmists - who can determine the future by reading your palm?

 

[Soyeong]

So worshippers of Zeus and Odin have faith based on the track records of these gods? How about alien abductees and chasers of bigfoot? Is there a track record of these creatures upon which such people base their faith? How about palmists - who can determine the future by reading your palm?

Having faith in someone is not the same as believing that they exist. It does not make sense to trust someone to exist, so you would first need to have reason to think that they exist and that they are trustworthy before you could trust them about something. If someone thought that aliens had a track record of keeping their promises, then they could have faith that aliens would keep their promises in the future. Or if someone thought that a palmist had a track record of accurately predicting the future, then they could have faith that something else that they predicted will come to pass by acting in a way that demonstrates their confidence in the prediction.

 

[Locutus]

If they considered contrary evidence to be overwhelming, then they would no longer believe. if they continue to believe, then it is precisely because they don't consider the contrary evidence to be overwhelming.

my highlight. when you deliberately avoid thinking about challenges to an item of faith, you're not likely to be overwhelmed. when retaining a cherished idea is more important than truth, this is easily done.

 

[Locutus]

Having faith in someone is not the same as believing that they exist. It does not make sense to trust someone to exist, so you would first need to have reason to think that they exist and that they are trustworthy before you could trust them about something. If someone thought that aliens had a track record of keeping their promises, then they could have faith that aliens would keep their promises in the future. Or if someone thought that a palmist had a track record of accurately predicting the future, then they could have faith that something else that they predicted will come to pass by acting in a way that demonstrates their confidence in the prediction.

you claimed that no articles of faith are baseless. that is, without base. without foundation. without reason. of course believers in these things will convince themselves there is a base (track record), but we both know that the particular articles of faith mentioned are baseless.

 

[Locutus]

You were wrong. There is no difference. Religious faith is based upon the exact same sort of trust through experience as any other faith is. If you wish to discount the experiences of others and only credit the experiences of those that are like minded to yourself you can do so, but do not expect the rest of humanity to be dictated to in that way. You have no authority to insist upon that.

who is insisting on it? no one. it's not personal opinion, it's reality. the tangibly evidential. and we are already 'dictated to' by reality.

 

[Soyeong]

my highlight. when you deliberately avoid thinking about challenges to an item of faith, you're not likely to be overwhelmed. when retaining a cherished idea is more important than truth, this is easily done.

I was talking about someone who considered the evidence against their position, not someone who didn't examine the evidence against their position. Someone who considers the evidence against their position to be overwhelming will no longer believe, while someone who considers the evidence against their position to be underwhelming will continue to believe. Someone who doesn't even examine the evidence against their position does not do so because they consider their cherished idea to be more important than the truth, but because they are already thoroughly convinced that their position is the truth.

you claimed that no articles of faith are baseless. that is, without base. without foundation. without reason. of course believers in these things will convince themselves there is a base (track record), but we both know that the particular articles of faith mentioned are baseless.

Again, you're confusing thinking that someone exists with trusting them about something in the future. However, it is not possible for someone to have a baseless belief that someone exists because if they didn't have a reason to believe that they exist, then they wouldn't have had the belief formed in the first place. Someone has the belief that aliens exists only because something indicated to them that it is true, and whatever that is, it is the foundation of their belief. You're welcome to think that they have a poor foundation for their belief, but to deny that they have a foundation is to claim that their belief is uncaused.

 

[Locutus]

I was talking about someone who considered the evidence against their position, not someone who didn't examine the evidence against their position. Someone who considers the evidence against their position to be overwhelming will no longer believe, while someone who considers the evidence against their position to be underwhelming will continue to believe. Someone who doesn't even examine the evidence against their position does not do so because they consider their cherished idea to be more important than the truth, but because they are already thoroughly convinced that their position is the truth.



Again, you're confusing thinking that someone exists with trusting them about something in the future. However, it is not possible for someone to have a baseless belief that someone exists because if they didn't have a reason to believe that they exist, then they wouldn't have had the belief formed in the first place. Someone has the belief that aliens exists only because something indicated to them that it is true, and whatever that is, it is the foundation of their belief. You're welcome to think that they have a poor foundation for their belief, but to deny that they have a foundation is to claim that their belief is uncaused.

No, YOU said no one makes faith decisions on baseless grounds. YOU know that isn't true. That's the point at issue here.

 

[Soyeong]

No, YOU said no one makes faith decisions on baseless grounds. YOU know that isn't true. That's the point at issue here.

No one makes faith decisions on baseless grounds and I know that it is true because it is impossible for someone to have faith that is uncaused. The closest thing here to a baseless belief is your belief that people can have baseless beliefs, but I'm confident that you have at least one reason for that belief, otherwise it wouldn't have been formed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Having faith in someone is not the same as believing that they exist. It does not make sense to trust someone to exist, so you would first need to have reason to think that they exist and that they are trustworthy before you could trust them about something. If someone thought that aliens had a track record of keeping their promises, then they could have faith that aliens would keep their promises in the future. Or if someone thought that a palmist had a track record of accurately predicting the future, then they could have faith that something else that they predicted will come to pass by acting in a way that demonstrates their confidence in the prediction.

And if their confidence in the efficacy of palmistry is based on bad reasons and remains just as strong even when shown evidence to the contrary?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No one makes faith decisions on baseless grounds and I know that it is true because it is impossible for someone to have faith that is uncaused. The closest thing here to a baseless belief is your belief that people can have baseless beliefs, but I'm confident that you have at least one reason for that belief, otherwise it wouldn't have been formed.

No one is talking about beliefs being "uncaused." You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Soyeong]

And if their confidence in the efficacy of palmistry is based on bad reasons and remains just as strong even when shown evidence to the contrary?

It is up to their opinion how good they think the evidence in favor and against palmistry and to act accordingly. If they thought they evidence against it was stronger than the evidence in favor of it, then they would change their belief, if they thought the evidence against it was weaker than the evidence in favor of it, then they would continue to hold their belief, and if they refused to examine evidence against it, then they would continue to hold their belief. Whether anyone else has a the subjective opinion that the evidence in favor or against is good or bad is relevant.

No one is talking about beliefs being "uncaused." You're barking up the wrong tree.

A reason or foundation is the cause of belief, so without a reason or foundation, a belief would be uncaused.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is up to their opinion how good they think the evidence in favor and against palmistry and to act accordingly. If they thought they evidence against it was stronger than the evidence in favor of it, then they would change their belief, if they thought the evidence against it was weaker than the evidence in favor of it, then they would continue to hold their belief, and if they refused to examine evidence against it, then they would continue to hold their belief.

And if they dismiss evidence to the contrary, insisting that they are right regardless?

Whether anyone else has a the subjective opinion that the evidence in favor or against is good or bad is relevant.

For the second time, we aren't talking about opinions, but evidence, which is objective.

A reason or foundation is the cause of belief, so without a reason or foundation, a belief would be uncaused.

But I never said that they lacked a reason. More specifically, they lack a good reason. Even more precisely, the reasons they are able to give are not sufficient to justify the level of confidence they have.

 

[Soyeong]

It's not up to opinion; it's up to the evidence. On examination, is there sufficient reason to justify that level of confidence in the claim?

The interpretation of evidence is a subjective processes. In a court case, a everyone on the jury receives the same evidence, but they have different opinions about whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon examination of the evidence, we all have different opinions about what level of confidence is appropriate, so again, whose subjective opinion gets to decide what the objectively appropriate confidence level is?

Not if they dismiss reasons against it out of hand.

Someone is free to not examine evidence if they don't want to, but I'm talking about someone who examines the evidence and concludes that they have sufficiently better reason not to maintain their belief. If you remove the cause of their belief and they continue to believe, then the belief is maintained uncaused.

I never implied this.

If a person has reasons to hold belief A, but has been convinced that there are better reason to hold a mutually exclusive belief B, then in order to maintain belief A, they would need to believe that it is true and false at the same time. True because they maintain it and false because they have been convinced that it is false.

I don't think I ever implied that they were agreeing with me.

If they agreed with your position that the contrary evidence was overwhelming, then they would be agree with you, which is not something they can do at the same time as maintaining their belief.

And if they dismiss evidence to the contrary, insisting that they are right regardless?

The vast majority of people have not looked at the evidence for the existence of aliens or other conspiracy theories, yet we dismiss them out of hand and insist that we are right. People are free to think that it would be a waste of time to look at contrary evidence.

For the second time, we aren't talking about opinions, but evidence, which is objective.

Evidence is any information that indicates to someone that something is true, so it is inherently subjectively interpreted. Two people can examine the same evidence and one conclude that there is sufficient reason to justify a very high level of confidence that a claim is true, while the other can conclude that there is sufficient reason to justify a very low level of confidence that it is true. Who is to say which one is objectively correct? All someone else can do is just add their own subjective opinion into the mix.

But I never said that they lacked a reason. More specifically, they lack a good reason. Even more precisely, the reasons they are able to give are not sufficient to justify the level of confidence they have.

That was a reply to someone who does hold that view, not to you.

 

[Soyeong]

I can show you my diploma and my report cards. You can go to the university of antwerp and double check that I didn't forge it.

You can go to all the companies I worked at and ask them to show me the code as well as the software that was written by the team that I was leading. You an ask them about my performances.

You don't need to believe me. You can verify it for yourself.

This is not a different type of thing from verifying the events in the Bible.

In the sense of "confidence and trust" based on a verifiable track record, yes.
It's not "faith" as in religious faith. Rather, it's a reasonable expectation based on evidence that I will be trustworthy going forward with new projects.

"A reasonable expectation based on evidence" is a good definition of religious faith.

My claims are verifiable. You don't need to "just believe" me. You can go to my school and the companies on my resumé and ask them directly as well as look at the code that I've actually written.

Thanks to things like subversion (a source control code repository), you can actually see line by line which was done by me and which wasn't.

Again, there's no need to "just believe me".
The bible? Not so much. Not even remotely.

Again, this is not a different type of thing from verifying the events in the Bible. Whether you think I can have stronger verification of your record than of the Biblical record is a matter of scale, not of type.

1. you can actually talk to my former coworkers, my clients, my project managers, my teachers

2. you can actually read my code - you don't need to depend on testimony

3. as for the bible, no... you need, again, to "just believe" that it was actually written by the people that were there AND that their testimonials were accurate. Funnily enough, we actually know that this wasn't the case.

If "just believe" was the only reason to believe that Christianity was true, then there wouldn't be any Christians, so it's not clear to me why you are pretending like that's the only reason. We have good reason to think that the Gospels are high quality eyewitness accounts because of many of the things in the accounts that we have been able to verify.

For example, if you were creating a story to took place in France 100 year ago that used over 100 of personal names, the chances that you would pick the right sort of names in the right frequencies to be an historically accurate representation would be very slim. This pattern of names changes over time and geography, so for instance, the pattern of names of Jews in 1st century Palestine is very different from the pattern of names of Jews in 1st century Egypt. Someone who was removed from the events that they were narrating by writing from outside the land and by 100 years would not have been able to make up names that correctly fit the right pattern, and names are one of the hardest things to remember, so the fact that the Gospels get this pattern right strongly suggests that the events that they report were remembered to a high degree of accuracy.

There are many other details that can and have been independently verified, so someone could reasonably take these testimonies to be accurate even if they can't question them like they can question your coworkers. Even if it's not the same type of evidence, they can still have reasonable expectations based on the evidence. Eyewitness evidence still qualifies as evidence.

Once more, my trackrecord as a programmer is objectively verifiable. All my code is out there. You don't need to rely on people's opinions and testimonies.
Having said that... even if you could only rely on people, you can actually go and talk to these people - you don't need to rely on books that are copies of copies of translations of copies that are claimed to be originally told by so-called witnesses. None of that can be verified. My work can be verified.

Next to that, you can also actually TEST my programmer skills by giving me an assignment. So regardless of my track record and the verifiability thereof, you can directly test me as well.

To say that this is the same as the claims of the bible is beyond ridiculous.

Everything that is verifiable is subjectively verifiable. In order to objectively verify, you would have to demonstrate that it is impossible for it to be false, which would be impossible. You could demonstrate that it is highly unlikely that your track record is false, but not impossible for it to be so. Testing your programmer skills could show that you were capable of writing the code, but not that it is impossible that you didn't. Verifying something is just doing something that increase your confidence that it is true, and there are all sorts of things that people can test to increase their confidence that the Bible is true, hence why there are people who have increased confidence that the Bible is true. To say that they are a different sort of thing is beyond ridiculous.

No. It really, really hasn't.

You have yet to demonstrate how your idea of religious faith is even possible.

You want me to demonstrate to you that people are perfectly able to hold baseless beliefs? Really? I hope you are joking.

Someone who didn't have a base for their belief would never have their belief formed in the first place. A belief that was formed without having a reason to form it would be uncaused, which is absurd, so I am not at all joking.

I count them as such. Astrology, homeopathy, alien abductions, annunaki reptilians, scientology... all baseless beliefs.

Feel free to explain how it is possible for someone to form any of those beliefs without appealing to a reason for forming them.

No. For example, a gullible person might believe that some medium is talking to a loved one that died. Not because of any kind of track record, but for purely emotional reasons.

Emotional reasons still qualify as reasons. They don't get demoted from counting as reasons because you don't think they are good reasons.

 

[Soyeong]

No. It's something that can be verified.

No matter how much verification you do, it is still something to be believed.

They are tied together. Something becomes trustworthy based on its verifiable trackrecord.

Absent that, the word "trustworhty" is completely meaningless.

Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to talk about something as being trustworthy without a verifiable track record, so you should discard your meaningless concept of religious faith.

But it's not verifiable... which means it is "just believed". And that's when we get into the realm of religious faith.

But it is verifiable and not something that is "just believed". And that's when we get to discarding your meaningless concept of religious faith.

And none of what can actually be verified adds any kind of credibility to all the supernatural bits that cannot be verified.

Very clearly everyone who believes the supernatural bits are true would disagree, or else they wouldn't believe those bits in the first place.

Yes. Which makes it different from religious faith. One doesn't have to take ones "word" for it that gravity does what it does. Nore does anyone have to just "believe" whatever some book says about it.

Gravity can be independently verified.

In the same way that someone who thinks gravity has a consistent track record can have faith that it will continue to do so, someone who thinks that God has a consistent track record can have faith that God will continue to do so. There reasons for thinking there is a consistent track record is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they think there is a consistent track record and their faith is based off of that, so faith has the same meaning.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The interpretation of evidence is a subjective processes. In a court case, a everyone on the jury receives the same evidence, but they have different opinions about whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon examination of the evidence, we all have different opinions about what level of confidence is appropriate, so again, whose subjective opinion gets to decide what the objectively appropriate confidence level is?

That's why we don't rely on opinions, but on evidence, which is objective. Not all assessments are equal in this regard either, since they vary in the extent to which they are supported by the evidence.

Someone is free to not examine evidence if they don't want to, but I'm talking about someone who examines the evidence and concludes that they have sufficiently better reason not to maintain their belief. If you remove the cause of their belief and they continue to believe, then the belief is maintained uncaused.

You can't remove the cause of their belief if they dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary.

If a person has reasons to hold belief A, but has been convinced that there are better reason to hold a mutually exclusive belief B, then in order to maintain belief A, they would need to believe that it is true and false at the same time. True because they maintain it and false because they have been convinced that it is false.

You are confused. I never implied this. I never said that they could both hold belief A and yet also be convinced that belief B, which is mutually exclusive, is also true.

If they agreed with your position that the contrary evidence was overwhelming, then they would be agree with you, which is not something they can do at the same time as maintaining their belief.

But I never said that they agreed.

The vast majority of people have not looked at the evidence for the existence of aliens or other conspiracy theories, yet we dismiss them out of hand and insist that we are right. People are free to think that it would be a waste of time to look at contrary evidence.

We don't dismiss them out of hand. We dismiss them due to a paucity of evidence. We would be compelled to reconsider if evidence were presented.

Evidence is any information that indicates to someone that something is true, so it is inherently subjectively interpreted. Two people can examine the same evidence and one conclude that there is sufficient reason to justify a very high level of confidence that a claim is true, while the other can conclude that there is sufficient reason to justify a very low level of confidence that it is true. Who is to say which one is objectively correct? All someone else can do is just add their own subjective opinion into the mix.

No, you are confusing data with evidence. Two people can examine the data and conclude that it supports their mutually exclusive positions. But how can it be evidence for either if it points in opposite directions? In that case, the data is equivocal, not evidential.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"A reasonable expectation based on evidence" is a good definition of religious faith.

No, that's practically the opposite of faith.

Everything that is verifiable is subjectively verifiable. In order to objectively verify, you would have to demonstrate that it is impossible for it to be false, which would be impossible.

That's a really bizarre idea. The implication is that homeopathy has just as much an "objective" basis as modern medicine. I can see why purveyors of pseudoscience would like your thinking in this regard.

Someone who didn't have a base for their belief would never have their belief formed in the first place. A belief that was formed without having a reason to form it would be uncaused, which is absurd, so I am not at all joking.

For the third time now, it's not just about having "a reason."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In the same way that someone who thinks gravity has a consistent track record can have faith that it will continue to do so, someone who thinks that God has a consistent track record can have faith that God will continue to do so. There reasons for thinking there is a consistent track record is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they think there is a consistent track record and their faith is based off of that, so faith has the same meaning.

Their reasons for thinking that there is a consistent track record are relevant. As before, you are fixated on the fact that they are able to give some reason for their belief. But we already acknowledged that this is the case. The issue is not whether they are able to give some reason for thinking the way they do, but whether those reasons justify that thinking.

 

[Soyeong]

Some definitions of evidence:

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

2. something that makes plain or clear ; an indication or sign:

: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something

1 a : an outward sign : indication

a. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:

b. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications:
----

I put these definitions together and say that evidence at its most basic level is something that indicates that something is true. Whether you think that some information indicates that something is true or how strongly you think it indicates that something is true is a matter of opinion. Two people can look at the same information and draw different conclusion about they think it indicates to be true.

That's why we don't rely on opinions, but on evidence, which is objective. Not all assessments are equal in this regard either, since they vary in the extent to which they are supported by the evidence.

You keep avoiding my question: who gets to decide what is supported by the evidence? We can all have different opinions about to what extent various assessments are indicated by the evidence.

You can't remove the cause of their belief if they dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary.

Indeed, but again, I'm talking about someone who examines the evidence and concludes that they have sufficiently better reason not to maintain their belief. In that case, their reason to continue holding the belief would be removed and a belief that is maintained without a reason to maintain it would be maintained uncaused.

You are confused. I never implied this. I never said that they could both hold belief A and yet also be convinced that belief B, which is mutually exclusive, is also true.

You said they considered the contrary evidence and found it to be overwhelming, so they can't continue to hold that the belief is true and think that the evidence overwhelmingly shows their belief to be false at the same time.

But I never said that they agreed.

If they examine the evidence in favor of your position and consider it to be overwhelming, then they agree with your position, or else they wouldn't consider it to be overwhelming.

We don't dismiss them out of hand. We dismiss them due to a paucity of evidence. We would be compelled to reconsider if evidence were presented.

That's exactly it. The people who believe those things don't consider it to have a paucity of evidence. If you consider it to be a paucity of evidence without even looking at it, then you are dismissing it out of hand.

No, you are confusing data with evidence. You need evidence for inferences made in your assessment. That's what makes an assessment objective. Two people can examine the data and conclude that it supports their mutually exclusive positions. But how can it be evidence for either if it points in opposite directions? In that case, the data is equivocal, not evidential.

Data is something that indicates that something is true, so data is evidence. Assessments require interpreting data, which is what makes them inherently subjective. The same data can be interpreted by differently people to indicate two mutually exclusive positions, so it is evidence for both positions by definition. Both people think that their position is justified by the evidence. So, again, who gets to decide which person, if either, is objectively right? A 3rd person who comes in to judge who is right would only be adding their own subjective opinion.

No, that's practically the opposite of faith.

That's a really bizarre idea. The implication is that homeopathy has just as much an "objective" basis as modern medicine. I can see why purveyors of pseudoscience would like your thinking in this regard.

For the third time now, it's not just about having "a reason."

Their reasons for thinking that there is a consistent track record are relevant. As before, you are fixated on the fact that they are able to give some reason for their belief. But we already acknowledged that this is the case. The issue is not whether they are able to give some reason for thinking the way they do, but whether those reasons justify that thinking.

I think that the reasons I have for holding all of my beliefs justify holding them, or else I wouldn't hold them, and the same goes for you, and for everyone else. My beliefs are according to my opinion, your beliefs are according your opinion, and everyone else's beliefs are according to their opinion. If someone is of the opinion that none of your reasons justify thinking the way that you do, then what does that matter to you? If you continue to refuse to say who gets to decide whether someone's reasons justify thinking the way they do, then it is a moot point. People have faith in someone because they have reason to think that they have a trustworthy track record, and everyone else's opinion about the existence or trustworthiness of that track doesn't change the meaning of "faith".