How can faith be valid?

[TobyBeau]

I'm a former Christian. I left Christianity because I set out to find the truth and I discovered that I didn't have it, my beliefs were founded on faith alone, and actual facts were contrary to my faith. The question I have for Christians is this:

How can faith be epistemologically valid, when it can make no distinction between true or false claims?

 

[elman]

I'm a former Christian. I left Christianity because I set out to find the truth and I discovered that I didn't have it, my beliefs were founded on faith alone, and actual facts were contrary to my faith. The question I have for Christians is this:

How can faith be epistemologically valid, when it can make no distinction between true or false claims?

What actual facts were contrary to your faith? What false claims or true claims cannot be distinguished between?

 

[TobyBeau]

Facts about science: The age of the earth, evolution
Facts about history: the reliability of the New and Old Testament through textual criticism and archeology
Facts about logic: many of my most bedrock beliefs were founded on logical fallacies. (straw-man, argument from ignorance, god of the gaps, question begging)

I don't really want to get into specific examples, that was really just to give background on myself. The question is about the validity of faith itself.

It really comes down to this. I believed Christianity was true, because the bible is the word of God. I believed that the bible is the word of God based on faith. On what grounds is our faith justified? Do not the Mormons, Jews, Muslims...etc have faith? What basis do I have for believing in one faith over another?

So, to reiterate my initial question:

How is faith epistemologically valid, if it can make no distinction between true and false claims? I can claim that the earth is 6000 years old on faith. If my belief is based on biblical faith (Hebrews 11:1) then I would believe it even though there is no evidence to support it, and even in spite of evidence against it. So, if biblical faith is beyond the principal of sufficient reason, there need not be any explanation for any claim. Thus, any claim made by faith cannot be proven one way or the other. My faith might not be proven wrong, but I also have no way of proving it's correct. Counter examples can be made using the same reasoning to show the absurdity of using blind faith to justify knowledge: e.g. I believe that the universe was created 5 seconds ago, with false memories in my head and digested food in my stomach I never ate. If I believe that with faith, it's no more wrong or right than any other claim made by faith.

 

[elman]

=TobyBeau;35992954]Facts about science: The age of the earth, evolution
Facts about history: the reliability of the New and Old Testament through textual criticism and archeology
Facts about logic: many of my most bedrock beliefs were founded on logical fallacies. (straw-man, argument from ignorance, god of the gaps, question begging)

I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old and God can use evolution to create me if He wishes. I don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, especially the Old Testament so none of these things have anything to do with my faith in a loving Creator who expects me to also be loving.

I don't really want to get into specific examples, that was really just to give background on myself. The question is about the validity of faith itself.

It really comes down to this. I believed Christianity was true, because the bible is the word of God. I believed that the bible is the word of God based on faith. On what grounds is our faith justified? Do not the Mormons, Jews, Muslims...etc have faith? What basis do I have for believing in one faith over another?

As I said Christiany predates the Bible and it is a modern idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. For hundreds of years Christians believe in Jesus, but did not have a bible to read and could not have read it if they had one.

So, to reiterate my initial question:

How is faith epistemologically valid, if it can make no distinction between true and false claims? I can claim that the earth is 6000 years old on faith. If my belief is based on biblical faith (Hebrews 11:1) then I would believe it even though there is no evidence to support it, and even in spite of evidence against it.

The Bible does not say 6000 years.

So, if biblical faith is beyond the principal of sufficient reason, there need not be any explanation for any claim. Thus, any claim made by faith cannot be proven one way or the other. My faith might not be proven wrong, but I also have no way of proving it's correct. Counter examples can be made using the same reasoning to show the absurdity of using blind faith to justify knowledge: e.g. I believe that the universe was created 5 seconds ago, with false memories in my head and digested food in my stomach I never ate. If I believe that with faith, it's no more wrong or right than any other claim made by faith.

Your faith was in what men taught. I have left that faith also long ago.

 

[SpaghettiM0nst3r]

How can faith be epistemologically valid, when it can make no distinction between true or false claims?

Oh, How often the most devastating foundation shaking questions can be the simplest. The simple answer is that it isn't, not just between claims of truth or falsity but in matters of all cognitive functions.

The popular response to this nowadays is that all people exercise a degree of faith, whether it be faith in the experts who wrote the books, or faith in believing you'll wake up in the morning, but the flaws in this line of reasoning are tortuously presumptuous, and only potentially make points through assumption.

Belief here, in our hierarchy of concepts, is the higher tiered concept. One can hold various kinds of beliefs based on different criteria, but inevitably there are two subsets of beliefs. Believing something because of evidence, a reasonable belief, or believing something without evidence, faith. Anytime you see someone claiming that all people have faith, listen to them closely and you'll be able to pick out where they smudge the line between belief as such, and faith... only to draw an invalid comparison between faith and reason.


Understand the motive and the rationale behind this comparison though. Why would a faithful person want to draw a comparison to a method of belief that he himself claims is inefficient or incomplete, for the sole purpose of validating faith? The answer is that he cannot escape the reality of reasons validity. This kind of fallacy is called the fallacy of the stolen concept, you can look up the article explaining it written by Nathaniel Branden. What this fallacy basically states, as applied to this scenario, is that if you're going to claim that reason is unreliable and incomplete and that faith is a valid means of cognition, you cannot rely on reason to validate faith, because your premise (reason is unreliable) falsifies the results of any conclusion you draw.

Drawing upon the power of reason, if he can smudge the line between faith and belief, he can latch on to reason by posturing as a cognitive peer.

James Randi, a wonderful person, has demonstrated for everyone the actual weakness and unreliability of supernaturalism and faith with scientifically controlled experiments.

This argument alone, an epistemological look at the efficacy of these two diametrically opposed methods, completely demolishes the efficiency and validity of all religions which rely on faith and supernaturalism as vehicles for truth seeking, not necessarily in their end result, but unequivocally demonstrates that the means are flawed and that the chance of reaching a positive result will be less consistent and less reliable if one were to rely on the power of reason.

An easy example of how faith has lead America into false conclusions is the belief in a spirit completely halting an area of research (stem cell research) that promises the most amazing cures and increases in the longevity of human life.

 

[Blackguard_]

How can faith be epistemologically valid, when it can make no distinction between true or false claims?

It can't. As SpaghettiMonster's post says (or at least what I think it says) is that if you set up faith in opposition to reason, you can't then have reason propping up faith. So faith can't be valid in the way an argument is valid because with faith there is no argument to be valid or not.

 

[Defcon]

How can faith be epistemologically valid, when it can make no distinction between true or false claims?

First of all, I deny that faith is the antithesis to reason.

But let me ask you, from your naturalistic perspective, what do you use to claim validity in your worldview?

 

[SpaghettiM0nst3r]

First of all, I deny that faith is the antithesis to reason.

Faith, by definition, is belief without or in spite of Reason. Attempting to mix the two only creates confusion, but thats really the point for those who attempt it.

But let me ask you, from your naturalistic perspective, what do you use to claim validity in your worldview?

Evidence.

 

[Defcon]

Faith, by definition, is belief without or in spite of Reason. Attempting to mix the two only creates confusion, but thats really the point for those who attempt it.

I appreciate that we can proceed with clarifying the definition of 'faith'. First of all, there are alternate meanings of 'faith' beyond what you propose. For example, the statement "I have faith that Jim will pay me back." Well, if Jim has paid me back in the past -that would be contrary to "without reason". Also having faith in a spouse to remain in pure relationship with you is not 'without reason' if she has not cheated before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

It is my contention that the historical Christian view on faith was not the absence of reason, but the two are hand in hand.

Evidence.

Is it your claim that all you know is from 'evidence'?

 

[SpaghettiM0nst3r]

I appreciate that we can proceed with clarifying the definition of 'faith'. First of all, there are alternate meanings of 'faith' beyond what you propose. For example, the statement "I have faith that Jim will pay me back."

I directly identified this kind of confusion in my first post. You hold a belief about the nature of Jim's likeliness to pay you a debt he owes you.

So you've asserted a belief about the nature of Jim, essentially.

The next question in determining what kind of belief this is would be to ask the question, What are you basing this belief on?

Well, if Jim has paid me back in the past -that would be contrary to "without reason".

If you believe Jim will pay you the debt because he has demonstrated this quality in the past, then this is a reason. You can now be said to hold a reasonable belief that Jim will pay you back the debt he owes.

There is no faith involved. You have allowed for the absence of complete certainty by allowing the probability that Jim might not pay you back as he has in the past, but since we learn from our past we pull knowledge we have learned about Jim's character from the past and use this past Evidence to draw likely conclusions about the present and future. This past evidence of Jim's repayment is the REASON you believe he will pay you back. You have weighed the reason's he might pay you back, (because he has in the past) against the reasons he might not, (acting unlike himself in the past because of some unknown variable). And weighed the evidence using your own personal judgment, and drawn a reasonable conclusion.

Also having faith in a spouse to remain in pure relationship with you is not 'without reason' if she has not cheated before.

Relationships are very complicated but make no mistake about it, the number one fundamental to success in any relationship is communication. In the course of living with a person you constantly accrue evidence for the nature of that persons character. This builds and builds into an every growing sum that you can use as reasons for or against the belief that a spouse will likely cheat on you or not. You might hope that your spouse will not cheat on you, but if you were to evaluate what you really thought, you would draw upon the evidence of your experience and your relationship with that person, and then using those reasons you would formulate a belief based on those reasons. This does not automatically mean that your reasoning is sound, or that the results will mirror what you've concluded, because life isn't that easy, and relationships are a deeply complex example.

Choosing the path of reason in this scenario would be to adopt the most reality oriented world view possible, only relying on observable evidence and your interactions with your spouse to make the most objective judgment you could. Believing or hoping that she will based on no evidence at all would be the equivalent of blinding yourself and severing communication with your spouse.

It is my contention that the historical Christian view on faith was not the absence of reason, but the two are hand in hand.

You have failed to demonstrate their interdependence. You have done just as I said anyone who tried to do so would, you smudged the line between faith and belief, and in this case hope as well, while ignoring your experience with Jim, and your experience with your spouse as reasons for believing one way or the other.

Another interesting point to be made here is that if you believed faithfully that Jim was the kind of person that would repay a debt, or you sincerely hoped that Jim was the kind of person that would repay a debt, this would not alter the facts about Jim's character and not make him neither more nor less likely to repay you. Through observing Jim, and relying on your past experiences with Jim, you can use those reasons to form a reliable belief that corresponds to the facts of reality (i.e. Jim's Character). In turn you can form reasonable expectations about the likelihoods in both situations. The only thing that happens as you accrue more reasons, more experience with Jim and your Spouse is that your ability to gauge their type of behavior increases, which will enable you to know whether or not to trust Jim with your money, or your Spouse with another 5 years of marriage.

Is it your claim that all you know is from 'evidence'?

Knowledge for me is not defined in any other way. I, as all human beings are, am in the life long process of rooting out ideas and claims that I hold which I cannot support and have no reason to believe. The biggest difference between me and most is that I'm doing it deliberately.

So as far as playing into your little trap (see rule 2.9), I will state that all actually knowledge that I have gained I has come from evidence. I say that in it's most fundamental epistemological sense. In addition all beliefs I hold which I cannot support, I have not gained from evidence.

As far as my explanation of what faith and reason are, and why they are diametrically opposed, this is solid factual knowledge. It is also the standard by which all other knowledge is formed and evaluated.

 

[TobyBeau]

Elman, I appreciate that you don't believe some of the wilder, biblical innerency claims but you seem to be squirming away from the point. Your belief that Jesus is the savior or all men is based on faith. The point is not what you believe, but the reasons you have to believe it. It comes down to faith.

Defcon, if you deny that faith is anti-reason, it seems you are denying the Hebrews 11:1 version of faith, which is actually closer to fideism. It is, by definition, belief in a thing for faith rather than reason. Changing the meaning of faith is sort of moving the goalpost. You can say "i have faith in this chair". But that kind of faith doesn't apply to a dying and rising savior-God, because he is not here to interact with us. The only proof we're promised is after we die.

Your question is a good one though:
"from your naturalistic perspective, what do you use to claim validity in your worldview?"
I'm going to think about that a little more, so I can explain my view in a coherent way. So, don't think I'm avoiding it. I just need a little more time and I will address it.

 

[Emmy]

Dear TobyBeau. Faith is subjective, it is in the eye of the beholder. My Faith is valid to me, because thousands of Christian men = women believe the same, and to us it is valid and proveable. Faith like a small mustard-seed, will grow into an enormous tree, which will house untold birds. Christ`s message of Good - News is true, valid and everlasting....my Truth, and all who have experienced it, it is FACT. I say this humbly and kindly, TobyBeau, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[elman]

Elman, I appreciate that you don't believe some of the wilder, biblical innerency claims but you seem to be squirming away from the point. Your belief that Jesus is the savior or all men is based on faith. The point is not what you believe, but the reasons you have to believe it. It comes down to faith.

Defcon, if you deny that faith is anti-reason, it seems you are denying the Hebrews 11:1 version of faith, which is actually closer to fideism. It is, by definition, belief in a thing for faith rather than reason. Changing the meaning of faith is sort of moving the goalpost. You can say "i have faith in this chair". But that kind of faith doesn't apply to a dying and rising savior-God, because he is not here to interact with us. The only proof we're promised is after we die.

Your question is a good one though:
"from your naturalistic perspective, what do you use to claim validity in your worldview?"
I'm going to think about that a little more, so I can explain my view in a coherent way. So, don't think I'm avoiding it. I just need a little more time and I will address it.

Faith if all it is is mental assent or belief, is worthless. Paul said that 1 Cor 13. James also said a similar thing. He said faith without works is dead.

 

[Defcon]

Defcon, if you deny that faith is anti-reason, it seems you are denying the Hebrews 11:1 version of faith, which is actually closer to fideism. It is, by definition, belief in a thing for faith rather than reason. Changing the meaning of faith is sort of moving the goalpost. You can say "i have faith in this chair". But that kind of faith doesn't apply to a dying and rising savior-God, because he is not here to interact with us. The only proof we're promised is after we die.

Two points to this comment. First, Hebrews 11 in context didn't denote these heroes of faith as 'irrational.' First, they received God's revelation to act in the way they did. Take Noah (v. 7), God commanded him to build the ark. Now, through his senses Noah did not perceive such evidences of a great flood but was warned by God. Was this void of reason? No. He had faith in God's sovereign word that He would bring to pass what He declares. He also had reason to do this act because of the character and power of God, the Creator of the universe.

Second, looking back on each of these cases - would you not have to agree that these people acted correctly and rationally, obeying God's Word? Would it not have been irrational to ignore God's command and providence? I bring this up not to assume you accept Scripture as God's Word, but to show you that the Christian faith in context does not teach irrationality and blind ignorance. The above is not intended to cover Christian faith exhaustively, but to answer directly the Scripture in question.

Finally, I'm glad you are going to answer my question concerning validity in your worldview. I often am not able to check this forum regularly, so don't read long pauses as "avoiding the question" either.