No, that's where you seem to misunderstand.
I don't have faith that computer won't explode in my face. I have knowledge that my boss will pay me on time, because I am the boss
. The same about the paycheck, because I know how much I have in the account. And I don't merely have faith in any of these things. I actually have a high degree of certainty that it will not happen based on my PRIOR EXPERIENCE. That's not what faith is. You are attempting to relable the semantics of faith to something that we have certainty for through actual experience of these things.
You do have faith in those things - which you erroneously call "certainty" - because
even though you cannot be surethose things wont happen, you believe they will not. Ask the people who got swallowed into sinkholes how many of them were sure that would never happen. As your own boss, you still
believe your dollar (or pound, or even your commodities you exchange in business) will be worth something tomorrow. That is based on faith in market trends - it has worked so far. And, you are erroneously equating that with knowledge.
You don't seem to understand the difference. You equate your own measure of certainty with knowledge, when in fact it is an illusion of knowledge. It isn't semantics; as I said intellectuals often have the hardest time understanding faith, and understanding separating what they
think faith is from what it really is.
Again, why would that be virtuous? You make it out to be a good thing, but you trust things because you have some reason and experience that these are reliable.... otherwise the word trust is meaningless.
For example, if I'm thrown out of the plane without parachute... it doesn't matter how much I trust or have faith in circumstances of me pulling through, it doesn't change the likely outcome. I may claim all the faith in the world, but faith is only as good as one's relative certainty in context of understanding. That's all it is.
Faith is not a magic 8-ball, it is not about probability manipulation. It is trust. It is not only as good as one's relative certainty in the context of understanding -
that is the intellectual's argument.
For example, would you put your life on a bet that a person would make or miss a basketball shot. Let's say you have a choice between Michael Jordan or some random dude from the street. Faith/trust is directly proportional to our experience.
Faith is not about foolishness. You are talking about folly here. Again, it is hard for the intellectual mind to understand faith as separate from an ignorant, foolish thing.
When experience is lacking, then mere faith is ignorance and gullibility.
When experience is lacking, there is a lack of exerience. Just because you lack experience doesn't mean you are ignorant or gullible. And, certainly if you lack experience but have faith that does not make you ignorant and gullible. Again, you keep equating faith with ignorance and gullibility. This is your thesis; the basis of every argument against faith you make ends with some form of faith being ignorance and gullibility.
So far you don't make a good case as to why faith is a virtue that we should accept as better than experience itself.
I said that I likely wouldn't be able to make a good case on faith to the intellectual - indeed it is almost impossible. Logic, reason and experience is all they understand; they cannot operate outside of a concrete apparatus with which to measure things. It is actually a handicap that is extolled in this culture as something to be desired.
And that's why we teach them not to take candy from strangers. Again... there's nothing virtuous about that state. Children will believe 2 + 2 = chair, does that make them better than adults who won't?
We have to teach them to stay away from strangers because people are evil - intelligent people, gullible people, and ignorant people alike. Just because you do not see virtue in something does not mean it is not virtuous. It just doesnt. And, you are still intimating that faith = ignorance + gullibility. Your very basis is doggedly incorrect concerning faith, which is why you arent convinced now and likely will never be convinced, or persuaded.
So, a child doesn't understand that a kidnapper with a fun toy isn't really there to entertain them. Should they trust in something beyond their understanding, or should they go with common experience taught to them by adults who KNOW better?
...
Now, you are assuming faith means stupidity - even the stupidity a child can understand. Common experience is not common to everyone, by the way. That is why there are different cultures.
Again, and your answer seems to be ... well because you trust in something that you don't understand. How is that virtuous? Buddhist philosophy is something I can't understand... should I have faith in it, and then it be ascribed to me as virtue?
That isnt my answer at all.
Yes, and it worked out well for characters in a book... which you first have to accept as historical reality.
I'm asking you why reading and believing a story in a book better than actual experience. You don't seem to understand the difference.
You didn't say that explicitly before. You were focused on the paradigm of faith becoming, or existing as ignorance and gullibility. We haven't even begun to couple faith
and experience to the life of a believer. That kind of testimony, in my opinion, you are nowhere near ready to hear, accept or even entertain. Faith, as it were, still confounds your mind into compartmentalized options limited by you, and determined by you. You need to get out of yourself; if you remember I said faith is about something beyond yourself. You are still focusing on
the self - as evident with the intellectual struggle you have between faith and everything else you hold mentally dead.
I don’t really know what you are truly trying to accomplish, but I think I will end here. I don’t want to be trolled, or lead into an endless back and forth about minutia without an understanding of the substance.
- Nah! (see below)
