I can't help it either. — Tom Storm

:smile:

There's the argument that such talk provides broad maps of where we are in the intellectual and cultural landscape. As such it's not true or false so much as useful or indicative, and justifiable on those grounds, perhaps.

OK, then the Priest provided an ad hom, and you responded to my comment about an ad hom with another ad hom, suggesting it wasn't that it was an ad hom, but that i was just sour. Like I'm at all upset. — Hanover

Seems a sour reaction. I'm not concerned if you're not upset, or are.

Is it an unintended ad hom? Ok then. I also think it may sometimes be correct.

My suggestion is that we stop being so concerned for each other's differing views. I trust wholly in the sincerity of your atheism, have no desire to modify it, and don't believe that but for some unfortunate circumstance you'd be different. — Hanover

I'm here primarily because I'm interested in what people believe and why. I've never claimed that any of my occasional psychologizing represents the final truth about anyone here. Frank raised a question about motivation and I simply wanted to introduce another possible perspective.

There's the argument that such talk provides broad maps of where we are in the intellectual and cultural landscape. As such it's not true or false so much as useful or indicative, and justifiable on those grounds, perhaps. — Banno

Fair point. Given this is a discussion forum, we are bound to speculate, not just about metaphysics but also about what kinds of situations or emotional states lead to certain views. As long as we don't use this to settle an argument or determine that it's true for everyone, I don't find it overly problematic.

The irony is that theists justify their judgment upon others based upon concern for their souls. You offered a similar concern for the souls of theists but from an atheist perspective. — Hanover

We were talking about why theists might develop a negative tone when arguing with atheists, thinking it might be because of afflicted faith. Tom suggested it might be from pent up frustration about the state of the world and imagining that atheists are responsible.

Yes, and it's clear that currently immensely popular thinkers like Jordan Peterson, Iain McGilchrist, and John Vervaeke hold views along these lines. That our secular era and it's bereft metaphysics has resulted in a disenchanted world of scientism and transactional relationships.

As long as we don't use this to settle an argument or determine that it's true for everyone — Tom Storm

Yep! That seems to be the key.

It occures to me that, were one to suppose that there is exactly one truth, then those who disagree are indeed wrong, even if you can't say why; and as such the psychology as to why they accept such wrong views might seem more important than the reasons that those views are wrong - allowing one to dismiss views contrary to one's own becasue of who proffers them.

Enter Jordan Peterson, Iain McGilchrist, and John Vervaeke.

Or even.....

Having watched Christians in palliative care (an aspect of my work) it is not unusual to find people having no confidence in God at the end, often to the surprise of relatives and friends. — Tom Storm

Ever read about A J Ayer's near death experience?

My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. They have not weakened my conviction that there is no God.

complain that there are too many atheists — Banno

I’m not angry or complaining.

I don't mind — Tom Storm

I think you do better than that. Not only do you not mind theists, you bring up God or religious faith yourself. Which is certainly fine with me, but it’s worth noting who is raising these subjects.

Quite honestly, (and that is the real issue - we need to trust each other), but quite honestly, I like my science straight, no ice, and no chaser. That’s the only kind of science there is.

I like philosophy as a blend of physics with the metaphysical/logical/linguistic. I don’t really like philosophy of religion, or shoehorning God into science. Science is specifically about using my own reason to judge everything for myself, so there is no desire in me to go beyond testable evidence when talking philosophy.

The expertise here on TPF is epistemology and logic (language/math) and metaphysics and mind, and anthropology and science generally, and theories of our shared, physical world.

Philosophic conversations particularly about mind and language often then bump into conceptualization and intention, and even immaterial substance, and then it completely crashes into God and the mystical One which is nothingness…and maybe we’ve all gone astray again.

I have no problem making the goal discussions of more falsifiable science here on TPF. We won’t nail this goal, because of the temptations of mind stuff and conceptual non-physical stuff, but “God” is almost always a stretch, a deus ex machina, in philosophy.

I’m good with that here on TPF.

Can’t avoid “God” in a “what is faith” thread, but then maybe this subject is tough for this forum.

Why would I be okay not discussing God so much on this forum?

Let’s say this thread is not what is faith, but what is my wife? “What is Fire’s wife?”

We could talk about her chemistry for hours, and and theorize about where the specific atoms that make up her body today were one billion years ago, and the path those atoms took, etc. We could spend hours talking about my wife and, never get to how she falls asleep on the couch most nights exhausted from taking care of everyone around her, and how she’s got a great sense of humor and is a people person, etc.

Here, on the forum, a conversation about the chemistry of my wife is, let’s say, less open to attack. But when I personally talk about God, like when I talk about my wife, I’d rather talk about the lived experiences, the particulars as I know them. That’s the good stuff in that topic, to me - the only really interesting stuff. Logic itself might seem trivial when discussing my wife’s habits. I am perfectly happy to admit that conversations like those, about God or my wife, are not philosophy, not scientific, and less fitting on this forum.

Speculating: I think some theists believe they have read all the right philosophy and theology and have many of the answers and that modern secular culture is debased and decadent. They're probably angry about the state of the world, and when they encounter people with views they've identified as the cause of contemporary troubles, they lash out.
— Tom Storm — Banno

I am not angry. Just so you know.

Like many here, I have read and otherwise studied hundreds of thinkers.

I do believe there are answers (i believe this partly because of faith in what reason is).
I believe I have some of these answers, but not many. I believe there are many more answers to be had by reading more and listening to more people.

To me there is wisdom in Wittgenstein - the gaming that is human mental activity is an important insight worth studying.
And there is wisdom in Aristotle - just trying to say the law of non-contradiction out loud for the first time in history is someone to read - he was one of if not the the first expressly empirical scientist.
Like Descartes just stopping everything - left with nothing but, his existing.
Or Kant clarifying where the thing in itself lies.

None of these discussions need say “God” and I’m fine with that. Descartes best work was when he was alone, not fooled by any God be they evil or beneficial geniuses.

I will admit that sometimes I see people talking about God, and it sounds nothing like God to me, like chemistry sounds nothing like my wife, and because so many seem interested in posting “God” and “faith” as words/concepts, I can’t help but want to try and redirect things and stop the bleeding, but I only hope I don’t make matters worse.

Here is the problem:

But I find it difficult not to see many of their comments as disingenuous, in bad faith. — Banno

Scientists don’t seem to trust theists even when they are not talking about God.

Banno, is it possible you are a little biased against me?
Maybe I’m just not who you seem to think I am because of your own constructions and prejudices?

Not bad faith, but just, not enough experience of me to distinguish me from the biased sense of “theist” you see in your reading of my posts?

Does this post really seem disingenuous or in bad faith to you?

How about you, Tom? Don’t I seem like I am just speaking my mind? No anger. No reason to lash out or seek to judge the cause of decadence.

But in any event, I have said nothing in bad faith. Nothing in this post need be doubted for its sincerity.

I do believe “culture is debased and decadent.” Although I would say “adrift” and not “debased and decadent”, but I see a basic point in your words, and I have a skeptical view of what people do with their culture.

There is no reason, theists and atheists can’t discuss many things as equals - as individual thinking beings making their way sharing their views on anything.

If the opinion is “theists think they know it all and lash out at those who they say don’t know it all”, it is certainly one way to look at these things, but when I disagree, I hope you recognize that there is a whole person, just like you, acting in good faith, trusting your good faith, as I give you my opinion; we are vulnerable together in these conversations. That is because of trust. There is no bad faith over here. (That actually feels like an insult.)

Maybe I hurled some wise ass remarks myself, but no bad faith.

Saying “their comments are disingenuous, in bad faith” didn’t seem like a wise ass remark - just an honest judgement, probably against me.

So I respond - does anything I’ve said here, which is all from my heart, resonate with you?

If the answer is no, please explain because I don’t see how that is possible.

1. Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence
Premise: Faith, particularly religious or blind faith, is often characterized by belief in something without (or beyond) empirical or rational justification.
Banno frequently targets faith that forgoes critical evaluation, emphasizing that such belief is often sustained despite contrary evidence or lack of evidence. — ChatGPT

This is a ton of content. Just to see if I can pass an entrance exam, can I re-write the premise summary to strengthen it bit:
“Faith is belief in something without (or beyond) empirical or rational justification.”

Even the “or beyond” could be removed and we’d still get the basic gist.

And You/chatGPT add “such belief is often sustained despite contrary evidence” but that sounds like a species of “belief without justification” so have I got the first premise right?

P1: “Faith is belief in something without empirical or rational justification.”

I think you do better than that. Not only do you not mind theists, you bring up God or religious faith yourself. Which is certainly fine with me, but it’s worth noting who is raising these subjects.

Quite honestly, (and that is the real issue - we need to trust each other), but quite honestly, I like my science straight, no ice, and no chaser. That’s the only kind of science there is.

I like philosophy as a blend of physics with the metaphysical/logical/linguistic. I don’t really like philosophy of religion, or shoehorning God into science. Science is specifically about using my own reason to judge everything for myself, so there is no desire in me to go beyond testable evidence when talking philosophy.

The expertise here on TPF is epistemology and logic (language/math) and metaphysics and mind, and anthropology and science generally, and theories of our shared, physical world. — Fire Ologist

Nice. And generous. I have no expertise, just curiosity.

How about you, Tom? Don’t I seem like I am just speaking my mind? No anger. No reason to lash out or seek to judge the cause of decadence.

But in any event, I have said nothing in bad faith. Nothing in this post need be doubted for its sincerity.

I do believe “culture is debased and decadent.” Although I would say “adrift” and not “debased and decadent”, but I see a basic point in your words, and I have a skeptical view of what people do with their culture.

There is no reason, theists and atheists can’t discuss many things as equals - as individual thinking beings making their way sharing their views on anything. — Fire Ologist

I think this is all very reasonable and nicely put.

I like the word "adrift" and perhaps I should have used it. "Lost our way" is the other phrase which comes up in this discourse.

On the weekend, I saw a father teaching his young son how to do long division. The son wasn’t understanding it. The father eventually got angry and intoned something like, “I’ve shown you this four times now and been very clear, and you can see how it works on the paper. What are you not getting?”

Moral of the story? People get annoyed when others don’t see the things they do, especially when they’ve been patient and tried to demonstrate the reasoning. And it doesn’t have to be about philosophy or God. Perhaps any irritation expressed on these pages has just been frustration at others not understanding.

Banno, is it possible you are a little biased against me? — Fire Ologist

Of course that's possible. But on thinking about it, early on I didn't give much attention to your views simply becasue what you were attempting to say was way off. You commenced misrepresenting me from very early in this conversation. Look at . And this:

You sound to me like you have no idea what faith is. And no curiosity. — Fire Ologist

I'm offering this not as part of a "you hit me back first" argument, but to point out that sometimes biases are learned.

And I have very little time for Leon, who certainly posts in bad faith. That you fell in with him in my opinion shows poor judgement.

41 pages. The topic is not that interesting.

Why should I engage further?

But I'm addicted, so I will.

And you will just say... what was it? That I treat every comment as a linguistic trap? Goes with the territory.

So you want to change "1. Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence" to "P1: “Faith is belief in something without empirical or rational justification.” Can you see how this turns the characterisation of faith into a stipulated definition? Instead of "faith includes this" you have "faith is this". Can you see how your edit changes the emphasis to belief, and from action? But the point here is to bring out the immoral acts that are sometimes the result of faith unfettered.

So no, that's not a reasonable alteration.

Ok good, so we are just talking.

So you want to change "1. Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence" to "P1: “Faith is belief in something without empirical or rational justification.” — Banno

I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

So the premise is: “Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence"

I think “without sufficient evidence” is fairly close to “without empirical or rational justification” so that isn’t too difficult.

I think “faith involves” is somewhat different than “faith is” but it’s a distinction that isn’t really at the heart of this particular discussion. I think we can say “faith is or involves…” and not get hung up on definition versus faith uses/anecdotes.

But “acting on belief” - huge difference. And I like it better. Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence.

So the act involved in faith is not merely believing without sufficient evidence. Believing isn’t the key act. Faith involves some other act, like leaping off a cliff, based on an unsubstantiated belief. Faith involves acting on belief, but that belief is formed despite insufficient evidence.

Is that the gist then?

Your point?

Who me- my point?
I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing before I critique it.

So the premise is: “Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence" — Fire Ologist

And nothing else I said misunderstood that premise, correct or not? Are we on the same page, talking with each other here or what?

Edit added.

My restatement made to show I understand: “Faith involves acting on belief, but that belief is formed despite insufficient evidence.”

You agree?

I do fear divine judgement
— Wayfarer

Really? Why? — frank

Karma - means the same. In Buddhism, there's no Supreme Deity handing out rewards and punishment but there are hell realms all the same.

Divine judgment implies a conscious, willful decision by a deity. Perhaps you fear that Buddhism is wrong and theistic religions are true?

...

Divine judgment implies a conscious, willful decision by a deity. Perhaps you fear that Buddhism is wrong and theistic religions are true? — praxis

I'm saying that in effect, karma and 'divine judgement' add up to something similar. Christianity has God's judgement, in Buddhism, the consequences of one's actions are due to karma. But depictions of hell are similar.

incidentally, about this dogma that 'faith is belief without evidence'. The believer will say that the world itself evidences divine providence. There may not be evidence in the sense of double-blind experimental data across sample populations of X thousand persons. But the testimony of sages, the proper interpretation of religious texts, and the varieties of religious experience all constitute evidence, although of course all of that may equally be disregarded. The will not to believe is just as strong as the will to believe.

incidentally, about this dogma that 'faith is belief without evidence'. The believer will say that the world itself evidences divine providence. There may not be evidence in the sense of double-blind experimental data across sample populations of X thousand persons. But the testimony of sages, the proper interpretation of religious texts, and the varieties of religious experience all constitute evidence, although of course all of that may equally be disregarded. The will not to believe is just as strong as the will to believe. — Wayfarer

I don't disagree. Except that what is to count as evidence ought to be available for public scrutiny. If anything - or indeed, as some suggest, everything - can count as evidence, then evidence loses any capacity to inform our decisions, becoming irrelevant. We must differentiate conviction from justification. The testimony of sages, private interpretations of scripture, or subjective religious experience may be meaningful to the believer but fails as evidence in a public or epistemically shared sense.

So those who believe in divine providence will see it everywhere. Is that evidence, or is it projection, wishful thinking, and confirmation bias?

Resisting an unjustified belief is not "The will not to believe", it's accepting epistemic responsibility - as is believing when there is justification.

And seeing faith as involving belief without evidence is not a dogma, but a description of how faith functions in many religious contexts, where The Faithful are encouraged - indeed, extolled - to maintain their belief in the face of doubt, uncertainty, or counter-evidence.

And this last is the clincher here. It would be extraordinary to see the faithful deny this.

I'll go back to what I said here:

Were I writing in opposition to myself here, I might be pointing out that faith is one amongst at least a trinity, and that when set in the context of hope and love it shines, and my arguments fall away. — Banno

Were I in your shoes, oh devout one, I'd be agreeing with Banno that faith might by itself be corrupted, and so it must not be left on it's own, but kept as a part of the whole lived experience of... whatever your pet religion is this week.

Jesus, now I'm arguing both sides. :roll:

Treating faith as a part of a "form of life", lived fully and freely, may be enough to prevent the faithful from crashing into crowds, wearing bombs in public or praying over children while denying them the medicine they need to live.

Maybe.

what is to count as evidence ought to be available for public scrutiny — Banno

But the evidence, in this case, is by its nature first-person. I might have a genuine insight, but unless I’m a brilliant artist or novelist, then not be able to convey it for public scrutiny. Or I might try to convey it, but the public might be unable to interpret it.

You yourself profess to resist ‘scientism’ - yet the insistence that truth claims ought to be subjected to third-party validation is one of its principle dogmas. And that’s because whatever evidence it admits needs to be measurable. And as you and I both know and agree on what a meter is, and what a kilogram is - then we can present evidence amenable to ‘public scrutiny’. Whereas, a vital part of religious philosophy is the realisation of ‘the immeasurable’ (although again it is only Buddhism that makes it explicit, and in line with their love of lists, they name four.)

And go back to the source texts of philosophy. Socrates wandering the public square, asking questions of all and sundry. All of his enquires were made in the open, yet many of those he questioned were not able to answer them. Does that mean his questions ought not to have been considered?

I think Plato’s philosophy assumes that the answers to the kinds of questions that Socrates was posing, would not be able to be answered by the hoi polloi. Isn’t that why Popper declared Plato an enemy of ‘the open society’? And yet, that might be saying something significant about the quest for philosophical wisdom.

The tension with Christianity, in particular, is that it removes this need for philosophical discernment. ‘Foolishness to the Greeks’. Even so, Christ himself was quite a stern master: offering salvation to ‘all who would believe’ but then, believing turns out not to be so easy after all.

seeing faith as involving belief without evidence is not a dogma, but a description of how faith functions in many religious contexts, where The Faithful are encouraged - indeed, extolled - to maintain their belief in the face of doubt, uncertainty, or counter-evidence. — Banno

I think it is part of faith that it must be severely tested. For some reason, that countercultural classic film The Game, Michael Douglas, comes to mind. Faith comes with all kinds of trials, and with the real possibility of failure. Part of the game!

But the evidence, in this case, is by its nature first-person. — Wayfarer

Then by that alone, it ain't evidence. It's opinion.

Perfect statement of modern moral relativism (and/or the ‘Cartesian anxiety).

Unfortunately for you, you’re not actually a bystander.

Come on Way. That first person might still be convinced, and become a True Believer, and spend the rest of their life chanting, but they can't bring out their private experience so that it can be challenged, revised, discussed and all that other stuff we do to decide if a proposal is true or not.

And as for ‘Cartesian anxiety’—it’s not anxiety to ask for public reasons, so much as intellectual hygiene. Assertions grounded solely in subjective conviction can't demand assent from others.

So it's not evidence, it's opinion.

And note that "Perfect statement of modern moral relativism" does not address the actual argument, but instead labels it. Defensive reasoning on your part - "That's just what a heathen would say".

You're better that that.

That first person might still be convinced, and become a True Believer, and spend the rest of their life chanting, but they can't bring out their private experience so that it can be challenged, revised, discussed and all that other stuff we do to decide if a proposal is true or not. — Banno

Misinterpreting again. It’s not that it’s solely a ‘matter of personal opinion’. It’s that levels of reality correspond with levels of being and knowing. What do you think was taught in Plato’s Academy? The aspirant had to prepare themselves to understand. So it was subjective in one sense - has to be known first-person - but in another sense, relies on detachment, which is precisely *not* subjective, in that it depends on self abnegation (subject of my essay Objectivity and Detachment).

Misinterpreting again. — Wayfarer

Then write more clearly. You said "But the evidence, in this case, is by its nature first-person", then that it might be "genuine insight", now it's levels of reality, and levels of being, whatever they are. And how do you share your "self abnegation" without getting arrested for assault?

And how do you share your "self abnegation" without getting arrested? — Banno

I can't claim to be adept at it, but at least I think I understand the point.

levels of reality — Banno

The divided line

Yeah. Sad, really, that you have bought in to Platonism. Oh well. Cheers.

Edit: A Guide for the Perplexed by E. F. Schumacher, author of Small is beautiful - I think we talked about him previously - has a pleasing and more modern account of such things. You might enjoy it.