Personal Knowledge

[roach]

Not sure if anyone's heard of Michael Polanyi or his book 'Personal Knowledge' (I think Dumski, of Discovery Institute fame, ran a Polanyi Institute for something or other) but I was asked to read it before I got into a discussion about science and religion with a guy from Moody's Church. It's a really fun book (dense), but to sum it up, he talks about a modern conception of objectivity (especially that of the scientific community). In short, he asserts that objectivity is an unrealistic goal and intrinsically flawed by the fact that reality is understood only by subjective consciousness. I found this assertion absolutely relevant to any discussion on the merits of reason or faith. While it makes a great point about scientific 'dogma', I wouldn't say that I'm convinced belief at the level of faith is any more significant for 'goals worth striving for': namely, goals that increase the well-being of conscious beings (If you think there are more important goals, please let me know... I'd love to hear an argument to the contrary which make any sense, whatsoever) Along with Kuhn's 'SSR', I can already see an interesting conversation about the merits of scientific knowledge and religious knowledge.

I've stayed away from this forum lately, as posts about science are rarely open-minded and 'debates' are generally train-wrecks in slow motion, but this topic seems appropriate to the various views which are prolific here on the nature of reality from the perspectives of science and religion. Or, to put it another way, since the range of religious perspectives on science are so varied in proportion to those of non-religious perspectives on science (in my opinion, especially those concerning the relevance each have upon conscious-beings), I think a brief discussion regarding the root of this discrepancy would be supremely interesting (to me, anyway).

So anyway, what makes faith more relevant than reason to well-being?

What significant aspect of conscious existence is faith more suited to address than reason, if both are merely ways of interpreting conscious experience?

If you value knowledge gleaned from faith more than knowledge from reason, why?

(FYI, had a few, so apologies in advance)

 

[Geologist]

Not sure if anyone's heard of Michael Polanyi or his book 'Personal Knowledge' (I think Dumski, of Discovery Institute fame, ran a Polanyi Institute for something or other) but I was asked to read it before I got into a discussion about science and religion with a guy from Moody's Church. It's a really fun book (dense), but to sum it up, he talks about a modern conception of objectivity (especially that of the scientific community). In short, he asserts that objectivity is an unrealistic goal and intrinsically flawed by the fact that reality is understood only by subjective consciousness. I found this assertion absolutely relevant to any discussion on the merits of reason or faith. While it makes a great point about scientific 'dogma', I wouldn't say that I'm convinced belief at the level of faith is any more significant for 'goals worth striving for': namely, goals that increase the well-being of conscious beings (If you think there are more important goals, please let me know... I'd love to hear an argument to the contrary which make any sense, whatsoever) Along with Kuhn's 'SSR', I can already see an interesting conversation about the merits of scientific knowledge and religious knowledge.

I've stayed away from this forum lately, as posts about science are rarely open-minded and 'debates' are generally train-wrecks in slow motion, but this topic seems appropriate to the various views which are prolific here on the nature of reality from the perspectives of science and religion. Or, to put it another way, since the range of religious perspectives on science are so varied in proportion to those of non-religious perspectives on science (in my opinion, especially those concerning the relevance each have upon conscious-beings), I think a brief discussion regarding the root of this discrepancy would be supremely interesting (to me, anyway).

So anyway, what makes faith more relevant than reason to well-being?

What significant aspect of conscious existence is faith more suited to address than reason, if both are merely ways of interpreting conscious experience?

If you value knowledge gleaned from faith more than knowledge from reason, why?

(FYI, had a few, so apologies in advance)

Faith brings the (false?) security of certainty, knowledge from reason brings the (real) certainty of doubt. Having said that, the progress of skeptical doubt will eventually bring you closer to truth that the certainty of faith. Just MHO.

 

[roach]

Faith brings the (false?) security of certainty, knowledge from reason brings the (real) certainty of doubt. Having said that, the progress of skeptical doubt will eventually bring you closer to truth that the certainty of faith. Just MHO.

For the most part, I totally agree. But I also think that human consciousness is a characteristic of living things which is bounded by it's subjectivity. Again, I'm kind of playing devils advocate because I essentially value critical analysis, scientific method and reason... I don't think faith has anywhere near the predictive power or utility, nor does it allow minds to transcend ignorance or effectively make strides toward uplifting the well-being of man. Still, I see a very important problem with a scientific prejudice against any hint of subjective bias. No, I don't believe personal bias is a good thing in science, per se, but it would be unrealistic to attempt to completely remove it. Personally, I think a goal of accurately quantifying it (rather than embrace it as Polanyi seems to suggest) would be a laudable goal.


I'll give an example of how the subjective experience is intrinsic to any kind of knowledge worth knowing: If you look at this equation "1+1=2", how do you comprehend that it is correct and the equation "1+1=4" is incorrect? At the most fundamental level of consciousness, one equation 'feels' correct and the other doesn't. This is because you have accepted certain propositions (numbers, laws of mthematics, etc.) and the consequences which they necessarily entail. Even doing that is an example of how your mind 'decides' what is true. The subjective mind is final judge of what IT feels is worth knowing, and how. The underlying 'feeling' you get judging the truth of either equation is the mechanism by which consciousness categorizes fact from fiction, and truth from falsehood.

Before I continue, I should say that I am not referring to the idea of free will or that the events in the brain are necessarily 'controlled' by anything in particular (certainly not some non-physical 'soul', more likely environmental stimuli affecting the computational systems 'hard-wired' in our brains). The emotions and mental processes that allow minds to make true/false judgments are probably adaptive evolutionary traits.

Regardless, agree? disagree? any other thoughts?

 

[Geologist]

I'll give an example of how the subjective experience is intrinsic to any kind of knowledge worth knowing: If you look at this equation "1+1=2", how do you comprehend that it is correct and the equation "1+1=4" is incorrect? At the most fundamental level of consciousness, one equation 'feels' correct and the other doesn't.

We could accept the argument that both equations are correct depending on the 'feeling' of the person making the conclusion. In this case all answers would be considered equally valid. 1+1= 100,000 should then be considered equally valid. I would argue that with a backdrop of completely arbitrary system of knowledge we could never be secure in any knowledge and society would be an absolute mess. Imagine that I come to your store to buy a loaf of bread. You list the price at $2.00 and I hand you two dimes and make the claim that 0.10 + .10 is $2.00. I would argue that no matter how 'correct' I feel my argument is, I am unlikely to walk away with the bread (in any store).

 

[roach]

We could accept the argument that both equations are correct depending on the 'feeling' of the person making the conclusion. In this case all answers would be considered equally valid. 1+1= 100,000 should then be considered equally valid. I would argue that with a backdrop of completely arbitrary system of knowledge we could never be secure in any knowledge and society would be an absolute mess. Imagine that I come to your store to buy a loaf of bread. You list the price at $2.00 and I hand you two dimes and make the claim that 0.10 + .10 is $2.00. I would argue that no matter how 'correct' I feel my argument is, I am unlikely to walk away with the bread (in any store).

Now what would happen once a society becomes convinced of your arbitrary assignment of value to the two dimes? Maybe not the greatest example but my point is that science is system of values in our society, rooted in a perspective shared by religion. I don't mean values in the strict moral sense, but arbitrary assignments (evaluations) we unconsciously give to things and ideas which are contingent upon the needs and wants of human beings. In some sense, it has taken over the role that religion once monopolized; It provides a reasonable means of evaluating reality with the aim of satisfying the deepest desires of the mind.

Appreciate the reply, didn't really expect this would be all that interesting to many and for me, it's mostly just cathartic to get stuff like this out of my head...

 

[Naraoia]

For the most part, I totally agree. But I also think that human consciousness is a characteristic of living things which is bounded by it's subjectivity. Again, I'm kind of playing devils advocate because I essentially value critical analysis, scientific method and reason... I don't think faith has anywhere near the predictive power or utility, nor does it allow minds to transcend ignorance or effectively make strides toward uplifting the well-being of man. Still, I see a very important problem with a scientific prejudice against any hint of subjective bias. No, I don't believe personal bias is a good thing in science, per se, but it would be unrealistic to attempt to completely remove it. Personally, I think a goal of accurately quantifying it (rather than embrace it as Polanyi seems to suggest) would be a laudable goal.

How do you accurately quantify personal bias if all of your interpretations are subject to personal bias?

I'll give an example of how the subjective experience is intrinsic to any kind of knowledge worth knowing: If you look at this equation "1+1=2", how do you comprehend that it is correct and the equation "1+1=4" is incorrect? At the most fundamental level of consciousness, one equation 'feels' correct and the other doesn't. This is because you have accepted certain propositions (numbers, laws of mthematics, etc.) and the consequences which they necessarily entail. Even doing that is an example of how your mind 'decides' what is true. The subjective mind is final judge of what IT feels is worth knowing, and how. The underlying 'feeling' you get judging the truth of either equation is the mechanism by which consciousness categorizes fact from fiction, and truth from falsehood.

Interesting thoughts. I guess what we should think about is why particular statements elicit the feeling of correctness. "Why" here can mean a number of things - evolutionary advantages, individual mental environments, social environments, anything else you can think of.

I don't think we should ask whether science or reason or anything else is objective, per se. IMO the real question - the question we can perhaps meaningfully answer - is whether conclusions arrived at through various methods of inquiry behave as if they corresponded to an objective reality.

(My brain always feels a bit mushy when I get into philosophy. I think I need a rest now )

 

[roach]

(My brain always feels a bit mushy when I get into philosophy. I think I need a rest now )

Haha, I know what you mean, I guess I shoulda posted this on the philosophy forum.

 

[Resha Caner]

Not sure if anyone's heard of Michael Polanyi ...

I have an elementary familiarity with him, and I've always liked what I read.

So anyway, what makes faith more relevant than reason to well-being?

What significant aspect of conscious existence is faith more suited to address than reason, if both are merely ways of interpreting conscious experience?

If you value knowledge gleaned from faith more than knowledge from reason, why?

Starting off simplistically, I'd say faith is important because reality is too complex for the human mind to simultaneously grasp all it would need to if reason were the only guide. As much as one may want to argue to the contrary, "reason" and "individualism" are closely tied, whereas "faith" and "community" are closely tied. So, the beginning of faith is an admission that one must look outside oneself for the answers. After that, the next question is: Who or what can I trust?

 

[fenix144]

Of course personal bias is a problem in science. Einstein himself favored the steady state universe to the big bang-esque. He disregarded his own conclusions. In the end he still had to admit it.

Nothing is objective. The best we can do is describe our reality in the best way we can. It doesn't matter if we were in a matrix( like the movie) or not.

''According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether
it agrees with observation. If there are two models that both agree with observation, like the
goldfish’s picture and ours, then one cannot say that one is more real than another. One can use
whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration. For example, if one were
inside the bowl, the goldfish’s picture would be useful, but for those outside, it would be very
awkward to describe events from a distant galaxy in the frame of a bowl on earth, especially
because the bowl would be moving as the earth orbits the sun and spins on its axis.''

Taken from The grand design, of Stephen Hawking.

 

[sandwiches]

I have an elementary familiarity with him, and I've always liked what I read.



Starting off simplistically, I'd say faith is important because reality is too complex for the human mind to simultaneously grasp all it would need to if reason were the only guide. As much as one may want to argue to the contrary, "reason" and "individualism" are closely tied, whereas "faith" and "community" are closely tied. So, the beginning of faith is an admission that one must look outside oneself for the answers. After that, the next question is: Who or what can I trust?

I disagree. Reason (that is the logical dissemination of evidence) will allow anyone and everyone to arrive to the conclusion that they cannot grow their food, provide their own water, run their own internet service, build their own cars, repair their own TVs, etc. That they are dependent on others. Reason is the very... well, reason why we act the way we do in our every day lives. Reason is how we understand that animals and other humans can feel pain and suffering like we do. Reason is how we have increased our compassion, empathy, and ability to decrease suffering and increase happiness.

Faith, on the hand will make humans act CONTRARY to reason. That is, contrary to the logical dissemination of evidence. It is the reason why people believe in things unseen and cause harm to themselves and others to achieve glory and happiness for the unseen. Faith is why people reject evidence of the pain of others and dehumanize them to allow them to cause further harm with little to no empathy.

 

[Resha Caner]

I disagree.

I'm not surprised.

At the same time, I'm willing to admit that trust can be misplaced. Are you willing to admit that reason is useless if it advances from a false premise?

Reason is how we have increased our compassion, empathy, and ability to decrease suffering and increase happiness.

I can offer anecdotal evidence to the contrary. When I had cancer, my family doctor shipped me around to several different specialists who all recommended different things. It seems like the oddest thing, but they let me choose who would treat me. They were all 3 doctors - all men of science. So what "reason" could I have for choosing between them? I made my choice based on the one in whom I had the most faith. I can't know what would have happened if I had chosen differently, but it seems I made the right choice.

But empathy? Not a smidge. That doctor was the coldest individual I've ever known. The things that cancer ... and the treatment ... did to my body ... not good memories. Not once did he offer the slightest bit of sympathy. Yeah, maybe he was just burying it. But there was also my family and friends. I got lots of advice and lots of stories about a distant relative who also had cancer. I know they were trying, but it was obvious they didn't have a clue what to do. Reason was not helping them.

It was those who shared my experience who were able to empathize with me. It was the guy who dragged himself in with me each morning to share the same treatment. We talked about throwing up and how we couldn't control our bodily functions anymore and what the pain was like. That's where the empathy came from - shared experience - not reason. Support groups are not made up of scientists and those who can reason. They are made of those who share similar experiences, and those are the people it's easiest to trust because they know what it's like.

If you've got an anecdote about reason that competes with that, it would be interesting to hear.

 

[Naraoia]

Reason is how we understand that animals and other humans can feel pain and suffering like we do.

I wouldn't call empathy "reason". 'Specially when you can feel it towards fictional characters, whose pain and suffering is also completely fictional. I don't think you read about a character in a story and start reasoning out how the author intended said character to imitate a person and so you're supposed to empathise with them. You just read about them and feel for them. Heck, people attribute intentions to simple geometric shapes moving on a TV screen.

 

[sandwiches]

I'm not surprised.

Unsurprising.

At the same time, I'm willing to admit that trust can be misplaced. Are you willing to admit that reason is useless if it advances from a false premise?

Absolutely. 100% agree with that. Reason can let you figure out the most likely, demonstrable correct premise, while faith can make you accept an incorrect premise, DESPITE evidence to the contrary.

I can offer anecdotal evidence to the contrary. When I had cancer, my family doctor shipped me around to several different specialists who all recommended different things. It seems like the oddest thing, but they let me choose who would treat me. They were all 3 doctors - all men of science. So what "reason" could I have for choosing between them? I made my choice based on the one in whom I had the most faith. I can't know what would have happened if I had chosen differently, but it seems I made the right choice.

So, you picked randomly. Now, if you picked the one you had the most trust in, then there must have been a reason. If you picked someone without reason, then you are correct, you picked someone on faith. So?

But empathy? Not a smidge. That doctor was the coldest individual I've ever known. The things that cancer ... and the treatment ... did to my body ... not good memories. Not once did he offer the slightest bit of sympathy. Yeah, maybe he was just burying it. But there was also my family and friends. I got lots of advice and lots of stories about a distant relative who also had cancer. I know they were trying, but it was obvious they didn't have a clue what to do. Reason was not helping them.

It was those who shared my experience who were able to empathize with me. It was the guy who dragged himself in with me each morning to share the same treatment. We talked about throwing up and how we couldn't control our bodily functions anymore and what the pain was like. That's where the empathy came from - shared experience - not reason. Support groups are not made up of scientists and those who can reason. They are made of those who share similar experiences, and those are the people it's easiest to trust because they know what it's like.

Reason ISN'T science. Reason is USED in science along with evidence but as you yourself have said "It was those who shared my experience who were able to empathize with me." Those who have had the experience and reasoned others probably could feel the same way. Those people used their own observation, experience, state of mind, and reasoning to help others.

If you've got an anecdote about reason that competes with that, it would be interesting to hear.

Every anecdote I can think of or I've been told uses experience, observations, and reason for empathy. I've never heard of someone who felt empathic without reason to or contrary to evidence (aka by faith.)

If you can tell me of a story where you or someone has felt bad for someone despite the fact that you shouldn't or you have no reason to, I'd be glad to hear them. For instance, if you can tell me of this one time when you felt bad for a wealthy executive and gave him 10 bucks so he could buy some food or that time when you saw a random person and gave him some aspirin for no apparent reason, then I'll be very interested.

 

[sandwiches]

I wouldn't call empathy "reason". 'Specially when you can feel it towards fictional characters, whose pain and suffering is also completely fictional. I don't think you read about a character in a story and start reasoning out how the author intended said character to imitate a person and so you're supposed to empathise with them. You just read about them and feel for them. Heck, people attribute intentions to simple geometric shapes moving on a TV screen.

Empathy only takes us so far. Reason is why we're becoming more moral as humans. Reason is why we now have laws against animal abuse and cruelty.

Civil rights, animal rights, environmentalism, child protection, better access to health and safety, etc. All this thanks to better understanding of the world, humans, animals, the mind, and the universe, in general.

 

[Resha Caner]

Absolutely. 100% agree with that. Reason can let you figure out the most likely, demonstrable correct premise, while faith can make you accept an incorrect premise, DESPITE evidence to the contrary.

I don't think you understood what I said because your response contradicts it. Therefore, it seems you don't agree.

I think we've been over this before. That one can somehow believe their assumptions are "reasoned" just blows my mind ... unless our difference is a semantic one that I'll mention in a bit.

Every anecdote I can think of or I've been told uses experience, observations, and reason for empathy. I've never heard of someone who felt empathic without reason to or contrary to evidence (aka by faith.)

Your definition of faith begs the question. You define faith as contrary and then fault it for violating the law of non-contradiction - at least that would be my paraphrase of what you have done.

I find the above quote interesting. You state that all your anecdotes of empathy require 3 things (experience, observation, reason).

We seem to agree on the first - experience (though I qualify it as shared experience). I disagree with the second. Observation can produce sympathy, but not empathy. It's one of those things students always struggle with in English class - such as when to use affect vs. effect. Finally, there is a subtle shifting of meaning in the various uses to which the word "reason" has been put. There is the noun synonomous with "cause" and there is the verb synonomous with "deliberate."

I have never said my faith has no cause (and that is the word I prefer over "reason" to avoid the very confusion we seem to be having). The difference between faith and reason might be better said to be the difference between a meditated cause and a deliberated cause.

Faith is not action in the face of contrary evidence, but faith is action in the absence of evidence (or maybe one could say the evidence is not sufficient). To further elaborate, faith might also be action when one's personal evidence appears to produce a contradiction, but there is someone outside you saying: trust me and after this is over you will have expanded your experience to understand this is not a contradiction.

Maybe I should elaborate my personal experience with cancer to explain more. The 3 doctors were a surgeon, a chemotherapist, and a radiologist (that sounds like the beginning of a bad joke). Originally my family doctor sent me to the surgeon and he removed the main tumor. However, the surgery uncovered that the cancer had spread. The doctors were surprised at how fast it was moving, and the surgeon gave me a life expectancy of 6 months.

That is when the 2 other doctors were brought in. So, I had 3 choices. I could try surgery again, or I could try chemotherapy or radiology. It was actually pretty easy to eliminate surgery as an option. In fact, later, after the cancer had been stopped, the surgeon told me my case had really shaken his self-confidence - dare I say he had lost "faith" in the ability of surgery to treat cancer despite medical evidence to the contrary? Hmm. Is that a contradiction or isn't it?

The chemotherapist and the radiologist both gave me odds of success, and they weren't good. But what they did agree on was urgency. We had our final consultation on a Friday and they told me I had to begin treatment the following Monday. My wife was the only other person present. I didn't have time to do extensive research and call around for advice. And who could give me advice better than the doctors? I had to make a quick decision in the absence of convincing evidence.

There was a "cause" for my final decision, but it was not "reasoned," because the evidence for reasoning was not sufficient. And there is no evidence that my decision didn't matter - that either would have worked. It will forever remain unknown. I guess a 4th option would have been hospice. Maybe it was selfish and unreasonable for me to spend money on more treatment. Maybe I was going to die anyway, or maybe I would come out the other end as a non-productive burden on my family.

It was a situation that could not be "reasoned" given the experience I had to that point in time. I had to place my trust (my faith) in someone and move forward without knowing what the consequences would be.

If you object and call my situation "reasoned", then I think your definition is too broad and essentially useless. We might as well add randomness to "reasoned" decisions ... which is sort of what I was trying to get at in my other thread.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't think you understood what I said because your response contradicts it. Therefore, it seems you don't agree.

I think we've been over this before. That one can somehow believe their assumptions are "reasoned" just blows my mind ... unless our difference is a semantic one that I'll mention in a bit.

Your definition of faith begs the question. You define faith as contrary and then fault it for violating the law of non-contradiction - at least that would be my paraphrase of what you have done.

I find the above quote interesting. You state that all your anecdotes of empathy require 3 things (experience, observation, reason).

We seem to agree on the first - experience (though I qualify it as shared experience). I disagree with the second. Observation can produce sympathy, but not empathy. It's one of those things students always struggle with in English class - such as when to use affect vs. effect. Finally, there is a subtle shifting of meaning in the various uses to which the word "reason" has been put. There is the noun synonomous with "cause" and there is the verb synonomous with "deliberate."

I have never said my faith has no cause (and that is the word I prefer over "reason" to avoid the very confusion we seem to be having). The difference between faith and reason might be better said to be the difference between a meditated cause and a deliberated cause.

Faith is not action in the face of contrary evidence, but faith is action in the absence of evidence (or maybe one could say the evidence is not sufficient). To further elaborate, faith might also be action when one's personal evidence appears to produce a contradiction, but there is someone outside you saying: trust me and after this is over you will have expanded your experience to understand this is not a contradiction.

I'd like to go into the good ol' route of having you explain to me then, what faith is exactly because I'm seeing the usual shift I've experienced when debating with theists from "Faith is believing in something without evidence or despite evidence" to "Faith is essentially just believing" which turns it into a useless, extraneous word with no theological meaning whatsoever.

However, from your description there, am I correct in understanding that 'faith' to you is what you believe BECAUSE of internal evidence (e.g. dreams, thoughts, hallucinations, flashbacks, etc) despite lack of external evidence or in opposition of external evidence?

Maybe I should elaborate my personal experience with cancer to explain more. The 3 doctors were a surgeon, a chemotherapist, and a radiologist (that sounds like the beginning of a bad joke). Originally my family doctor sent me to the surgeon and he removed the main tumor. However, the surgery uncovered that the cancer had spread. The doctors were surprised at how fast it was moving, and the surgeon gave me a life expectancy of 6 months.

That is when the 2 other doctors were brought in. So, I had 3 choices. I could try surgery again, or I could try chemotherapy or radiology. It was actually pretty easy to eliminate surgery as an option. In fact, later, after the cancer had been stopped, the surgeon told me my case had really shaken his self-confidence - dare I say he had lost "faith" in the ability of surgery to treat cancer despite medical evidence to the contrary? Hmm. Is that a contradiction or isn't it?

The chemotherapist and the radiologist both gave me odds of success, and they weren't good. But what they did agree on was urgency. We had our final consultation on a Friday and they told me I had to begin treatment the following Monday. My wife was the only other person present. I didn't have time to do extensive research and call around for advice. And who could give me advice better than the doctors? I had to make a quick decision in the absence of convincing evidence.

There was a "cause" for my final decision, but it was not "reasoned," because the evidence for reasoning was not sufficient. And there is no evidence that my decision didn't matter - that either would have worked. It will forever remain unknown. I guess a 4th option would have been hospice. Maybe it was selfish and unreasonable for me to spend money on more treatment. Maybe I was going to die anyway, or maybe I would come out the other end as a non-productive burden on my family.

It was a situation that could not be "reasoned" given the experience I had to that point in time. I had to place my trust (my faith) in someone and move forward without knowing what the consequences would be.

If you object and call my situation "reasoned", then I think your definition is too broad and essentially useless. We might as well add randomness to "reasoned" decisions ... which is sort of what I was trying to get at in my other thread.

I guess I should explained what I mean by reasoned, then, and go from there. Reasoned to me means COMPUTED or THOUGHT OUT. In the specific case of humans, I mean processed by the brain consciously. I specified consciously as I don't see a reflex such as moving your hand from fire or yelling in pain "reasoned" or "thought out."

So, when I say that reason and evidence (including past experiences) produce empathy, I mean that through the knowledge and understanding we've acquired we have been able to work out in our heads that suffering may be a universal feeling for all conscious beings. That our actions may bring about harm and pain to them.

I will paraphrase something an atheist said when asked where he got his morals. He answered something to the effect of:
"I get my morals from a rational consideration of the consequences of my actions."

Using evidence (that is external intersubjective evidence) and our brains to work out the effects of our actions, we are more capable of arriving at not only empathy (being able to share in the feelings of others) but better morality. For instance, I've never been burnt alive, but the thought alone is so horrifying and scary to me that I would never wish that on anyone. Another example would be imagining what it would be like if it were illegal to marry another consenting adult I loved. I feel it would be devastatingly lonely and marginalizing.

Faith, if I understood you properly, is the belief of your internal evidence over that of external evidence. How can internal evidence lead you wrong way? Well, if you think God revealed to you that homosexuals should die or simply do not share in the same rights as heterosexuals, then your reasoning is corrupt and incapable of understanding the state of mind of those people, aka of being empathic. It makes people come up with internal excuses to dehumanize and lower their feelings to things like lust, depravity, insanity, etc IN SPITE of the contrary evidence.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'd like to go into the good ol' route of having you explain to me then, what faith is exactly because I'm seeing the usual shift I've experienced when debating with theists

Cool. Then I can apply my new rules for the “definition game” – namely that it is a trap to ask for broad definitions. Open any introductory text on debate and it will warn against taking on general topics. As such, let me be clear that faith has multiple facets and the definition I give only pertains to the facet of trust. Even further, it only pertains to trust in living beings. We can add more later if necessary.

In that context, faith is a confident expectation that a subject being can successfully put a statement into action.

For example, if a mechanic says, “I will change the oil in your car,” I have faith that he will do it. I have never asked for evidence that the oil change was actually completed. I could, and we can both imagine what that evidence would be, but I never have. Asking for evidence would be a lack of faith. However, my faith is not without cause. I don’t ask my neighbor to change the oil (even though I’ve seen him working on his car). I don’t ask my eleven-year-old son, who would probably respond with something like, “How do I get the hood open?” I go to the place that declares car maintenance is its business, the place with the Mr. Goodwrench promise on the wall. Even so, the promise does not guarantee success. I proceed in faith without an absolute guarantee of success (The truth is, I don’t think anyone ever has that guarantee about anything, so there is always some amount of faith involved in everything we do. There is a matter of degree, though). If my car repeatedly has problems that are traced to the oil change – he lied and didn’t do it, or he dropped a nut into the engine while filling it, etc. – then I will lose faith. I will look for something else. Faith only continues so long as it sees fulfillment of the promise.

... the usual shift … from "Faith is believing in something without evidence or despite evidence" to "Faith is essentially just believing" which turns it into a useless, extraneous word with no theological meaning whatsoever.

No, not a shift. We just don’t understand each other. The way you present faith comes across to me as someone who continues to go back to the same mechanic even though he has never successfully done an oil change and messes up their car every time. That’s not faith, that’s stupidity. But now suppose the engine starts stalling. I take it to this same mechanic who has successfully changed my oil a hundred times and he promises to fix it. However, he doesn’t. Does that mean my faith was misplaced? I don’t think so. I complain that he didn’t fix the problem. He says, “I promised to fix it and I will.” If it takes him ten tries, was my faith misplaced? No. He kept his promise. He fixed it. I suppose the ten tries may shake my faith a bit. But I can’t know that some other mechanic would have done it in only five tries. There’s still not really a good reason to switch mechanics. He never promised he would fix it on the first try. He kept his promise.

Now I decide my car should be blue instead of red. I ask my mechanic to paint it. He says, “I don’t paint cars.” Again, is my faith misplaced? No. He has made clear the boundaries of what he will do and what he won’t do. He doesn’t paint cars. Should I respond, “Well, by my definition, mechanics paint cars. Since you don’t, that means you are not a mechanic and I should look elsewhere.” I find that attitude absurd, and a misunderstanding of faith.

However, from your description there, am I correct in understanding that 'faith' to you is what you believe BECAUSE of internal evidence (e.g. dreams, thoughts, hallucinations, flashbacks, etc) despite lack of external evidence or in opposition of external evidence?

No. Maybe you are confusing “internal evidence” with “personal knowledge.” So, two things. First, faith is not based on something internal (unless it’s faith in myself). I associate looking inward for faith with “eastern” religions (e.g. Buddhism). Second, this is the same disagreement about the meaning of “evidence” that I think we’ve had since our very first discussion. I thought I stated quite clearly in my earlier post that faith comes in the absence of evidence, or possibly due to insufficient evidence. That you think faith is contrary to evidence is only your opinion, and an opinion I don’t share. So, evidence (internal, external, or whatever) can become personal knowledge, but they do not equate.

As a side comment, I will add that “reason” is just the western version of eastern mysticism. Rather than contemplating my navel and waiting for a revelation, I’m supposed to experiment on my navel to get the answers. It will never work because reason can never overcome the infinite regress. I admire that Hofstadter at least acknowledges the problem (even if his attempted solution does trail off into platitudes at the end). It seems many refuse to see the problem.

I guess I should explained what I mean by reasoned, then, and go from there. Reasoned to me means COMPUTED or THOUGHT OUT. In the specific case of humans, I mean processed by the brain consciously. I specified consciously as I don't see a reflex such as moving your hand from fire or yelling in pain "reasoned" or "thought out."

So, when I say that reason and evidence (including past experiences) produce empathy, I mean that through the knowledge and understanding we've acquired we have been able to work out in our heads that suffering may be a universal feeling for all conscious beings. That our actions may bring about harm and pain to them.

I think you’ve only got part of the equation due to an unnecessary application of categories. A dog once went after one of my kids. I tackled the dog to prevent that from happening. The danger was pretty apparent. I didn’t have to “reason” about it to know what to do. I hadn’t “reasoned” before hand in preparation for that event – to be certain it would cause pain. It all happened so fast that I would have to call it instinctive. But there was certainly an understanding – an empathy – for the pain my kid would experience if I didn’t do anything. In this case I don’t see that we need to artificially separate reason and instinct and assign to each of them their capacity to comprehend the pain of others. It’s a spectrum. And I continue to maintain that you can think about cancer all you want, have all the experiences you want, but unless you’ve shared the experience you don’t understand. I will further maintain that such lack of understanding (fueled by a belief that “reason” has led to understanding) can cause inappropriate action no matter how much you reason about it. Your atheist friend is wrong.

Well, if you think God revealed to you that homosexuals should die or simply do not share in the same rights as heterosexuals, then your reasoning is corrupt and incapable of understanding the state of mind of those people, aka of being empathic.

Where did that come from? You have no idea what my experience with homosexuals has been. I can sympathize with their pain because I was once single. I am well aware, however, that I can’t empathize with their problem. Regardless, it is still a sin. It’s not as if I have never committed a sexual sin of my own. The difference is, I’m not trying to justify what I did. It was wrong. I asked for forgiveness. God forgives me. End of story.

It makes people come up with internal excuses to dehumanize and lower their feelings to things like lust, depravity, insanity, etc IN SPITE of the contrary evidence.

Evidence has nothing to do with persecution of homosexuals. In fact, if it wasn’t homosexuals, those people would just find someone else. There is a deeper problem here. Dehumanizing them and any physical or emotional abuse is wrong. Whatever people may claim, Christianity doesn’t justify such things. But, yeah, lust is a real thing and a wrong thing. If you want to shout back at me for saying that denying lust is a slippery slope, have at it. Denial has never worked very well and never will.