Really? I was fairly clear. I even used your words as much as possible.

You need to explain how you are saying something decipherable, when you tell a religious belief holder they should be arguing something they believe does not exist if they want to continue believing that same thing exists.

What is believed is expressed by a proposition, rather than a "thing", an object. — Banno

You are skipping categories too, like Anselm and Descartes.

What is believed “is expressed by a proposition not an object”?? That doesn’t move the ball at all.

We all get that a string of words, a proposition, isn’t the same thing or object as say, what those words are talking about.

Proposition: “God exists.”
It’s Talking about: X over there existing, having a cheese sandwich while walking on water or sorting the reasoning folks from the faithful folks according to you. An object, a “thing.”

We all get that.

You are proposing we tell someone who says ”God exists” that, if they want to believe that proposition is about an existing thing, they should seek out the most reasonable arguments that conclude with the proposition “God does not exist.”

That seems impossible, let alone stupid. Decipherable? Not really that either, but I’m trying to work with you.

You are moving the goal posts, between propositions and what they are about (expressing things or objects), and saying things and objects who are holding propositions (guys like Anselm), should seek to hold contradictory propositions if they want to be an object /thing called a faithful believer.

And you do so by equivocating on the notion of “belief” or “faith”, which I’ve been saying all along.

You are smarter than “indecipherable.” You can’t see the problem?

The other two of your three bolded sentences are indecipherable. — Banno

The second sentence you refer to as “indecipherable” is a quote from you. It’s now in 3 below.

1. Believing is holding that something is true.
2. In the case of a person who believes God exists, (ie, “the faithful”) believing is holding that “God exists” is true.
3.

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists. — Banno

4. Therefore, what are you talking about Banno?

The question the OP asks is, Can the sound believer hold “god exists” — Fire Ologist

That's one equivocation of it aye.

The pluralist idea that a thing has many senses, the idea that there are many things and one thing can be seen as "this and then that" is philosophy's greatest achievement, the conquest of the true concept, its maturity and not its renunciation or infancy. For the evaluation of this and that, the delicate weighing of each thing and its sense, the estimation of the forces which define the aspects of a thing and its relations with others at every instant - all this (or all that) depends on philosophy's highest art - that of interpretation — Deleuze

Sometimes it's best to leave an argument ambiguous so it brings out everyone's understandings. It allows for a multiplicity of interpretations. Doesn't mean you need to accept them all. Hell, I barely even understand who said what to me in this conversation... I'm taking what bits I find useful to deepening the nuance of my evaluations. It's not like my evaluation of faith will directly affect your life in any way. That isn't to say your evaluation is useless. But rather it's just not mine, and that's fine. There have been some interesting and productive developments within myself from the discussion here on various fronts.

If other people have gained from it, so be it, but ultimately I have, and that's mostly what matters to me. I don't care how obstinate others are...

I'm working on a response. I'm trying to put together a new thread to discuss the intuition/faith issue. I may answer it there. Otherwise I will come back here and respond directly.

Sometimes it's best to leave an argument ambiguous — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't care how obstinate others are... — DifferentiatingEgg

Sort of an impasse between the pot and the kettle.

That’s fine too, but that’s the end of the conversation again. You dont have to keep at it. But I don’t think I’m being obstinate.

I’m just saying it seems contradictory to hold that faith simply means no reason, because it allows silly statements that propositions proving something doesn’t exist provide the best support to having faith that it does exist. Seems like an abuse of reason, or faith, or “exist”. Seems like an abuse of language.

Seems the conversation you started need not end yet to me.

Are you just saying you are being obstinate and so it’s a warning that there is no use seeking further clarity from you, you are done with all the analysis and interpretation? If so, thanks for the tip. Will catch you on the next one.

Faith or intuition are valid ways of knowing—simply because inhabiting a faith or intution is a knowing. It is a knowing of a certain kind of experience. It is not, however, a propositional knowing—although it might lead to propositional beliefs, those beliefs cannot be verified by the faith or intuition. And note, this is not to say that the faith or intution cannot be convincing to the one inhabiting it, it is just to say that it cannot provide sufficient grounds for an argument intended to convince others.

If others are convinced by your intution-based conviction then it will be on account of their being convinced by your charisma, or they are sufficiently lacking in critical judgement to buy an under-determined argument, or they can relate to the experience you describe because they have had similar experiences and feel the same way. In other words, they are being convinced on the basis of rhetoric or identification, not reason.

I think this is a good distinction. One deficiency in contemporary thought is to tend to collapse all knowledge into propositional belief (and to include "justification" in the definition of knowledge). To be sure, this tendency has never been absolute, but it has been strong in some contexts.

The deficits here are most obvious when one considers "knowing that..." versus "knowing how to..." Knowing how to ride a bike does not seem to involve mere assent to certain propositions with proper justification, and this distinction seems to recover the older notion of "techne." Yet certain elements of religious life seem to involve a sort of "know how."

In terms of the bolded above, I would just note that "similar experiences that feel the same way," might undersell the strength of the arguments that can be mustered in support of a defense of intuition or noesis. After all, how does one demonstrate that reason itself is valid or has any authority, or demonstrate the Principle of Non-Contradiction, etc.? It seems quite impossible to give a non-circular argument in favor of reason, one that does not already assume the authority of reason.

So, this is a "feeling" that underpins the authority of argument itself, and one might suppose that because of this it is better known than knowledge that is achieved through rational demonstration.

This does not, however, imply that all noesis is equally easy for all people to come to. Indeed, if it is akin to dianoia, to discursive knowledge, we shouldn't expect this sort of democratization. The challenge then is that Plato, the Patristics, Eastern philosophies of Enlightenment , etc. claim that this sort of noesis or gnosis is in fact not easy to achieve, but usually quite arduous. To use the framework of the Patristics, the nous is damaged and in need of significant healing and therapy before it can properly attain to the truth.

Which is all to say that to collapse faith into assent to propositional knowledge will tend to totally miss this and will mean just talking past numerous other traditions (e.g. Neoplatonism, Orthodoxy, etc.).

All I'm saying is I don't care if others learn from this or not, I have. Ultimately, I came here to develop my evaluations by having others help fill gaps in my knowledge. Some people have, some people haven't. People came here to express a multiplicity of view points, I don't care who is necessarily saying what, I take the view points, let them all rattle around in my head in a hurricane of different thoughts, not all are left standing.

A lot of people just say stuff because they want their faith to be knowledge... I really don't care. Faith isn't knowledge. And attempting to prove faith via knowledge turns faith into knowledge. Thus now it's not faith. Faith is an absence of knowing. Just as knowing is an absence of faith. Perspective, our world view, etc etc arises from knowledge and faith.

If you want to pretend faith shares identity with a bunch of other concepts so you can cross reference them and interchange them in conversation via equivocation go for it, but I like to make my words more finite...

If I tell you how to eat and workout to lose weight, you still don't know the nutritional and dietary knowledge or even the fitness knowledge. If you act on the information I give you, you're working on faith that what I'm saying is going to actually work... because you don't know... after it works for you, you adopt the equation because you now know the equation works. Yeah you still dont know why it works, but you know it works... it's like learning applied calculus. Faith in calculus vs knowledge of applying calcus are two different things.

I take the view points, let them all rattle around in my head in a hurricane of different thoughts, not all are left standing. — DifferentiatingEgg

:up: More things for rattling:

Kierkegaard said faith is like floating in water that is 70,000 fathoms deep. He was talking about faith that's along the lines of acceptance. On the other hand, I've never quite understood what Augustine was trying to do with faith. I wish I could ask him some questions. I don't think faith is really one concept for all uses of the word. You have to try to discern what someone means by it, put yourself in their shoes and see what they're seeing. But if they're experiences are very different from your own, you may be unable to grasp what they're seeing.

All I'm saying is I don't care if others learn from this or not, I have. Ultimately, I came here to develop my evaluations by having others help fill gaps in my knowledge. Some people have, some people haven't. People came here to express a multiplicity of view points, I don't care who is necessarily saying what, I take the view points, let them all rattle around in my head in a hurricane of different thoughts, not all are left standing. — DifferentiatingEgg

That’s cool.

Once Anselm attempted to use logic to prove God exists, he was not being faithful to what faith is anymore. I’ve said it fifty different ways by now to try to shake hands here a bit.

But that’s not all you said, and the picture you create of what a person is doing when they believe something absent logical proof behind it (faith), makes it sound like, in order to believe anything without absolute proof behind it, one has to resist or be in a state of resisting all reason.

A lot of people just say stuff because they want their faith to be knowledge... I really don't care. Faith isn't knowledge. And attempting to prove faith via knowledge turns faith into knowledge. Thus now it's not faith. Faith is an absence of knowing. Just as knowing is an absence of faith. Perspective, our world view, etc etc arises from knowledge and faith. — DifferentiatingEgg

So because of things you’ve said to me, I have to hope you won’t think I’m being too dialectic in my argument form. By dialectic, I mean placing things as polar opposites. I think you are doing that just as much as me, but for some reason you’ve told me a few times that is due to my limited way of thinking. So I’m going to ignore those accusations now because I see you thinking in the same dialectical format - which in itself is useful here so I’m glad you are. And it shows why we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Just like Anselm would be wrong to say his conclusions at the end of his logical syllogisms are articles of faith (in which we agree, he was wrong), concluding from that mistaken path towards Anselm “faith” that all faith and believing is the anti-thesis of reason and knowing is wrong as well.

The main reason I think it’s wrong to make faith merely the opposite of reason is, even if that were the case, we can’t ever hold one above the other - we need both to act (will) and to speak about our actions (reason), to be a person at all. I like acting - willing, believing, reasoning - I don’t want to declare winners and losers among them. Anselm was just as reasonable and faithful as the next guy, just not in his one little syllogism he hoped (I’m sure) might change the world.

The whole picture you create of the twisting rope between faith and reason (maybe you mean willing and knowing), should be saved. I never said that picture wasn’t a useful image of things. We ARE twisting, between things, and opposites, and twisting among many more sources of tensions -including our selves as instinct versus social norms versus will versus wits. The overall picture should be saved, and I often describe things that way.

But if you put reason all on the one side of those tensions, irrationality or unreasonableness is on the other.

If faith is on one side of the pulling and twisting, and we need an opposite, indifference or maybe deterministic necessity are on the other.

Reason is not the antithesis of faith. That’s a T-shirt version of this that is actually useless once we get beyond a fear of being religious.

So I am not disagreeing with things so much as I think it’s worth clarifying things a bit to avoid saying things that can be misconstrued, casting doubt on the soundness of the whole picture of the twisting, torn, creative and tearing man.

We don’t want to mock the man of faith, the man of will, the man willing to believe and act despite knowledge, despite any mere proposition. That’s the spice in the otherwise formulaic soup.

(Paradoxically, in a way, according to a picture pitting reason against faith, because Anselm’s argument ultimately fails, he should be seen by you as one of the greatest saints among the faithful - because his arguments and conclusions are not reasonable, yet he believes them to be, and became a saint about it all, you should think he is the brilliant evil genius who gathered more and more believers to his presentation of bad reasoning! Total digression that probably confuses you. :razz: )

If you want to say fuck off to the faithful idiot, don’t do it for sake of the steadfast empirical logician. Shit on both of those guys if you need to shit on anyone. Nietzsche did all of the appropriate shitting. Very few were spared.

But don’t mock “willing”, don’t mock the process of believing itself.

I’ve said all of this 20 times. I think you have an opportunity here to say “huh, I see what you mean, never thought about that” and maybe even admit, that no really useful point about a person of faith who is also a person of reason has been made. We all trade in both reasons and beliefs, both the religious and the empirical. This post need not be focused on all religious people whenever they ever form syllogisms.

You said “Faith is an absence of knowing. Just as knowing is an absence of faith.”
I think you can tell where I agree with what you are saying in this mix.

But we can’t say faith has no knowing in it. And we can’t saying knowing has no believing in it.

Your basic point here is that, because of the difference between believing an article of faith, and knowing a conclusion of reason, Anselm and church-lovers like him, should not waste their time seeking conclusions of reason if they are satisfied with believing an article of faith. And further, if they stumble upon a conclusion of reason, that used to be held as an article of faith, then that article, that conclusion is no longer a “faith” thing, it’s a “reason” thing now, sitting at the end of a syllogism. That’s great.

But if Anselm is tearing down his own faith by building up his own reasonable arguments, isn’t he just doing science? And doesn’t that mean that science requires faith as an engine to get started - we move from faith in something that appears may be, using reason, to knowledge of something that is proven to be. This is just science, just thinking, just juggling believing/reasoning/knowing, twisting used here for religion bashing and throwing all of us who bother to think and speak at all under the bus in the process.

The real juggling, as I see it, standing on the tightrope, is acting, believing, reasoning, knowing, believing your own knowledge, and then acting again. Huge, soupy mess that easily goes off the rails, off-rope, all of the time. But I can’t see any of it without all of it.

So we don’t want to stand up the reasonable man against his enemy the faithful man, because we need both men to be reasonable, as we need both to willingly act on what they believe.

The two are different, though, insofar as everyone sees the apple but no one sees god.. — Janus

Yes they are different.

My point is we, especially empiricism, designate the info perceived from sight as "superior" to the info received from feelings.

I know why. But it is arguable that in some cases--e.g. so called God--the hierarchy doesn't fit. Besides mythology (broadly) who has seen God? And yet for millenia--even atheists by entertaing the notion--we have claimed that God exists.

Yes, there are psychological explanations etc etc.

Nevertheless maybe if God does exist, we "know/believe" this from fellings rather than the conventionally admired organic triggers of construction (perception).

You are smarter than “indecipherable.” You can’t see the problem? — Fire Ologist

Oh, I can see the problem.

Cheers.

Which is all to say that to collapse faith into assent to propositional knowledge will tend to totally miss this and will mean just talking past numerous other traditions (e.g. Neoplatonism, Orthodoxy, etc.). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yet if faith, or any belief, is to enter into our ratiocinations, it must be put in to propositional form. In particular, if it is to explain our actions, it must be able to participate in those explanations.

The alternative would be silentism. If this is what you are advocating I would be both surprised and please.

Oh, I can see the problem.

Cheers — Banno

Another almost conversation, about talking, your favorite subject, that you won’t talk about with me.

Cheers!

I would be happy to continue the conversation were I able to make sense of your position, but your thoughts rattle around in a hurricane of different words.

And others compete for my attention.

you might want to look at the process philosophy a metaphysics for our time. More relevant to your statement and question then the "leap to faith" versus "leap of faith".

But that’s not all you said, and the picture you create of what a person is doing when they believe something absent logical proof behind it (faith), makes it sound like, in order to believe anything without absolute proof behind it, one has to resist or be in a state of resisting all reason. — Fire Ologist

What I was trying to say is like instead of absolute faith, you're now in the realm of educated guess... which is a combination of faith and knowledge, and knowledge isn't faith. I have admitted to equivocating a shift from absolute faith to an educated guess as necessarily a decrease in faith. But I decides that just because someone gains knowledge doesn't mean the faith is diminished. It means their perspective is now maybe 90% faith and 10% knowledge instead of absolute faith (100% faith) only if they converted faith into knowledge would it be a decrease of faith. But gaining knowledge about about something doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in faith.

:cool:

My point is we, especially empiricism, designate the info perceived from sight as "superior" to the info received from feelings. — ENOAH

Not "superior" but just more reliable. In the context of epistemology, we are discussing what we can be justified in saying we know. That means rationally justified. It leaves untouched the question of the power of emotions, of lived experience, to convince the experiencer of anything. If I have a so-called religious experience, I know the experience in a participatory sense, but the experience cannot justify any post hoc interpretations of, or judgement about, it. Such experiences cannot yield discursive knowledge other than that I had the experience and whatever intutions or feelings that came with it.

Nevertheless maybe if God does exist, we "know/believe" this from fellings rather than the conventionally admired organic triggers of construction (perception). — ENOAH

But that "maybe" is of little use to us, since it is unknowable.

After all, how does one demonstrate that reason itself is valid or has any authority, or demonstrate the Principle of Non-Contradiction, etc.? It seems quite impossible to give a non-circular argument in favor of reason, one that does not already assume the authority of reason. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We have no other criteria other than those of reason, so there can be no point in questioning its authority—we can imagine no other reliable authority. We don't need to argue in favour of reason, because any possible argument against it would be using it, and that would be a performative contradiction.

So, this is a "feeling" that underpins the authority of argument itself, and one might suppose that because of this it is better known than knowledge that is achieved through rational demonstration. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It doesn't seem to say it is just a feeling that underpins arguments. The validity of arguments consists in their consistency. If you contradict yourself then it is impossible to determine what you are wanting to say. If you make a claim about something that can be observed, the claim can be checked and confirmed or disconfirmed. metaphysical claims in general are really undecidable because as valid as they might be they are based on premises which cannot be confirmed. In those cases, we argue for plausibility. Unfortunately, plausibility does not have a precise measure. It's a similar problem as with claims about aesthetics. One might say it is not plausible to claim that MIlls and Boon is better literature than Shakespeare, and it seems good arguments can be given against such an absurd claim, but ultimately no proof can be given.

This does not, however, imply that all noesis is equally easy for all people to come to. Indeed, if it is akin to dianoia, to discursive knowledge, we shouldn't expect this sort of democratization. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The question is whether noesis alone can justify dianoia. Noesis is personal—it cannot be definitively conveyed. Dianoia is interpersonal, and it is reliably shareable experience which gives it any basis. So it would seem that noesis cannot justify dianoia because noesis cannot be reliably shared.

And others compete for my attention. — Banno

Or you don’t have an explanation as to why it makes sense to you to say “a belief is holding a proposition to be true, but when that proposition is ‘God exists’ then a belief is holding that a proposition is not true.”

That’s what you said.

Two beliefs:
Pat believes that "god exists" is true
Pat believes that "god does not exist" is true.

In both cases, Pat holds a certain proposition to be the case.

I am not responsible for your own confusion.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Two beliefs:
Pat believes that "god exists" is true
Pat believes that "god does not exist" is true.

In both cases, Pat holds a certain proposition to be the case.

I am not responsible for your own confusion. — Banno

So the same Pat can hold both beliefs at the same time. Got it. According to non-confusing Banno.

Sounds like someone else is confused. Probably Pat. :sweat:

So the same Pat can hold both beliefs at the same time. — Fire Ologist

Where did that nonsense come from?

No.

Cheers.

Where did that nonsense come from? — Banno

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists.
— Banno — Fire Ologist

So for faithful Pat to believe God exists, he will seeking to prove the belief that God does not exist.

I’m sure you are confused again. It’s ok.

Faith is more that just holding that something is true. Faith requires that one believe even in the face of adversity. Greater faith is had by those who believe despite the arguments and the evidence.

So those with the greatest faith would be the ones convinced by logical arguments that god does not exist, and yet who believe despite this. — Banno

No. Rather, their faith would lead them to believe there's something wrong with the logical argument.

Example: William Lane Craig was asked a hypothetical: if he were taken back in time to the first century, and seen Jesus' body crucified, watched it rot for weeks on the cross and eaten as carrion, would he renounce his faith in the resurection. His response: no, he would assume he was being deceived because he "knows" Jesus was resurrected.

This is what faith looks like.

That means rationally justified. — Janus

Ok, yah. In that context, I see.

:ok: Very good example. That is what faith does, for a 'believer'.

I took a glance: interesting. Thanks.

Rather, their faith would lead them to believe there's something wrong with the logical argument. — Relativist

If you like. Your example shows the unfalsifiabilty of objects of faith, which is the crux of my post. Any arguments or evidence to the contrary are rejected using ad hoc hypothesising. This is part of the irrationality of faith.

A more charitable interpretation might be found in Wittgenstein's hinge propositions, but that's a much bigger topic.

no, he would assume he was being deceived because he "knows" Jesus was resurrected. — Relativist

shows the unfalsifiabilty of objects of faith, …. evidence to the contrary are rejected ….. ad hoc hypothesising. This is part of the irrationality of faith. — Banno

That is what faith does, for a 'believer'. — AmadeusD

Oh my God. Faith sounds terrible!
Those people must be insufferable, just real douchers.

Am I really a doucher and I just never applied my reasoning to the situation? Banno thinks I can’t even reason - now I’ll have nothing left!!

But DiffEgg, although I wouldn’t say it how he says it, sees belief as more of a presence on the game board, which I agree(d) with:

educated guess... which is a combination of faith and knowledge, and knowledge isn't faith. — DifferentiatingEgg

if they converted faith into knowledge would it be a decrease of faith. But gaining knowledge about about something doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in faith. — DifferentiatingEgg

Is believing vital to the mix?

Now I’m not so sure.

But wait. What about when you don’t know? And you have to act on what little you do know?

Are we still acting on knowledge alone?

What about taking risk? Do we need anything like faith to take risk?

Risk involves a lack of knowledge, an act despite the lack of knowledge, like belief despite any reasoning or evidence.

Personally, a lot is not being said. I think belief, reasoning, knowledge are simultaneously at work in many of our actions, and a ‘faith’ is just another ‘science’ which is just another ‘story’, because it’s just another wording, which relies on beliefs, reasoning and knowledge to happen. You choose your beliefs, but we are all slaves to believing something.

Don’t believe me if you want, but then believe only yourself if you want.

Certainly we need faith to get to know other people. You don’t trust me yet do you? I’m being sarcastic at times here, so maybe I’m a liar. What do you believe, because you certainly don’t know?

Religious faith is just the ugliest form, right? or is that the purest form of faith?

Everyone is so biased against “faith” as organized religion, they overlook how important their own beliefs have been, despite being yet unproven, untested, even unfalsifiable in any practical sense.

So if believing and beliefs and having faith are just the way for us, do we really need to place science and above art and above faith and all else, or might that just be a sort of faith in itself?

I take the view points, let them all rattle around in my head in a hurricane of different thoughts, not all are left standing. — DifferentiatingEgg

I call it all part of the gay science.

What I was trying to say is like instead of absolute faith, you're now in the realm of educated guess... which is a combination of faith and knowledge, and knowledge isn't faith — DifferentiatingEgg

Again, the picture that creates is the picture I see, but the words you use to paint it I wouldn’t use that way.

I see the educated guess as in between the realm of absolute knowledge, and zero knowledge (like unconscious or subconscious). All of that is separate from will, from believing. You can be 50% sure or 60%. But when you are asked what you believe, given what you know, belief works at either 100% or 0. When you take the guess, at the moment of actually guessing based on the little you know, you are 100% believing that is what you believe.

Like if you were only going to leap once you were fifty percent sure and your at forty, then forty two, then you hit fifty and you say, that’s enough, I believe the leap will happen and just as I am about to leap I get more info and now I’m at 75%. I know more, the guess is better educated, but I already believed and was ready to leap. I know more, but I don’t believe more.

Belief, will, drives the moment of action. It’s not the moment of knowing or the moment of reasoning.

That’s my take. Think there are overlaps in the two pictures.