Jackson, I never mentioned God. I'm just saying that it's insane to imagine oneself as a purely rational being who must verify everything.... I'm saying faith is a necessary part of life just in the sense of action. No mention of God here. — Moses

Ok, I thought there was some point.

The point is that worldviews which seek to completely discount the role of faith and instead advocate for a dogmatic narrow-minded commitment to empiricism or using one's own reason to follow up on everything are bullshit.

The point is that worldviews which seek to completely discount the role of faith and instead advocate for a dogmatic narrow-minded commitment to "evidence" or using one's own reason to follow up on everything are bullshit. — Moses

Can you give an example?

You'll see rhetoric which discounts the role of faith all the time. I could dig up quotes from the new atheist movement of the 2010s or with many atheists today. There are tons of quotes which discount the role of faith. I just don't see where we're going with this. It's an epistemological matter. I'm sure I could dig up some quote from Dawkins or Penn Jillette or Ricky Gervais... it's a constant theme.

I could dig up quotes from the new atheist movement of the 2010s or with many atheists today — Moses

I thought you were not talking about God?

"Jackson, I never mentioned God."

I'm not explicitly talking about God. The new atheists may or may not be talking about God when they denigrate the role of faith. The topic of faith is a matter of epistemology; it doesn't necessarily relate to God.

Example: Trusting the bible (or any ancient text) on matters not involving God.

I'm not explicitly talking about God. The new atheists may or may not be talking about God when they denigrate the role of faith. The topic of faith is a matter of epistemology; it doesn't necessarily relate to God. — Moses

You are not talking about God and talking about God. Got it.

I'm not explicitly talking about God. The new atheists may or may not be talking about God when they denigrate the role of faith. The topic of faith is a matter of epistemology; it doesn't necessarily relate to God. — Moses

There is such a thing as faith in epistemology, a faith that the new atheists don’t recognize in themselves.

You'll see rhetoric which discounts the role of faith all the time. I could dig up quotes from the new atheist movement of the 2010s or with many atheists today. There are tons of quotes which discount the role of faith. I just don't see where we're going with this. It's an epistemological matter. I'm sure I could dig up some quote from Dawkins or Penn Jillette or Ricky Gervais... it's a constant theme. — Moses

People are dismissive of faith because they see it as a meaningless placeholder term, with no real value except to avoid accountability for a belief in god that has no other defense.
Maybe they are wrong though…what is the value of faith?

I'm not sure what your point is here. How would you define philosophical optimism? — Tate

In cults people often radiate happiness as a consequence of 'knowing' that god's will is being fulfilled and that they are part of a system of transcendent meaning that will deliver a great destiny and reward. The world they know is exactly as it is meant to be, all has been provided for. I suppose my overarching point is that perhaps not all optimism is worth having.

You are not talking about God and talking about God. Got it. — Jackson

We can talk about faith in God, or we can talk about faith in other matters such as biblical historical that does not involved God, e.g. the Babylonian exile or the Assyrian take over of Israel in antiquity. Neither of these events need God to explain them, but since they happened so long ago are we only to trust the bible? how much evidence is enough?

You just want to talk about religion. Count me out.

Maybe they are wrong though…what is the value of faith? — DingoJones

utility is the value. it's necessary unless you want to remain a very serious skeptic your entire life. you will have to make jumps if you want to believe e.g. that certain historical events happened or that the news you read is accurate.

thank you for the productive discussion.

There is such a thing as faith in epistemology, a faith that the new atheists don’t recognize in themselves. — Joshs

I see faith as a necessary part of epistemology. lets say we're trying to determine if a historical event happened in antiquity so we have no personal witnesses but we have the bible and a few tablets from ancient rulers indicating a conflict. is that enough to believe? when do you make that jump into belief that the event happened? when is enough?

Maybe they are wrong though…what is the value of faith? — DingoJones

The value of faith is value itself. Logic, empiricism and reason depend on a foundation of values, which are the essence of faith.

I see faith as a necessary part of epistemology. lets say we're trying to determine if a historical event happened in antiquity so we have no personal witnesses but we have the bible and a few tablets from ancient rulers indicating a conflict. is that enough to believe? when you make that jump into belief that the event happened? — Moses

Let’s say there are plenty of personal witnesses and we’re talking about something all of us can observe at the same time. Is a kind of faith not also operative here ?

As in Hebrews 11: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If one has evidence, one doesn't require faith. — Tom Storm

As I read it, the meaning of the quoted passage is the opposite of what you are saying, though: it says that faith itself is the evidence of :things unseen". As I've often said, I disagree with the idea that faith is belief despite the lack of evidence or even more strongly belief despite the evidence, because people have different ideas about what constitutes evidence. I doubt that anyone believes anything without thinking they have evidence to support that belief.

if we're talking about events in history all we have our records of witnesses. no one is still alive. we also have archaeology.

if we can observe it and there are plenty of witnesses then we could still doubt, but we'd be into some kind of cartesian doubt where we doubt our senses or our own perceptions. faith plays a role in either.

While the subject of faith is pretty vast and be approached in various ways, an elementary observation is one doesn't need faith when it comes to facts or 'what is'. Though the word and its associated meaning has been distorted by its association with religion, but one questions if faith is any different than any well reasoned observation. Perhaps the completion of reason is faith? Course then it won't be the christian faith or some other kind of religious/material faith.

But one of the things this thread immediately has me wondering about is the relationship between pessimism and atheism. — Tate

here

I doubt that anyone believes anything without thinking they have evidence to support that belief. — Janus

Good point, I forgot a word, I should have said without 'good' evidence.

Good point, I forgot a word, I should have said without 'good' evidence. — Tom Storm

Yes, but what constitutes "good" evidence is also a matter of opinion. In fact I would hazard to say that I doubt that anyone considers something evidence without simultaneously considering it to be good evidence (in kind at least if not in quantity).

Yes, but what constitutes :good" evidence is also a matter of opinion. In fact I would hazard to say that I doubt that anyone considers something evidence without simultaneously considering it to be good evidence (in kind at least if not in quantity). — Janus

No question they think this. But we have to make judgements, and I argue the 'faith' camp inhabits a dubious space and have provided my reasons. If people want to say that faith is a reliable pathway to truth and then use this faith to justify homophobia and racism and misogyny, we probably shouldn't accept that. The fact is everyone has their reasons for doing things. Some of those reasons seem to me to be less reliable than others. But I make no proclamations about absolute truth.

f we can observe it and there are plenty of witnesses then we could still doubt, but we'd be into some kind of cartesian doubt where we doubt our senses or our own perceptions. faith plays a role in either. — Moses

Im not talking about rational doubt , which Cartesian doubt is referring to, but pragmatic faith and doubt , which is a very different thing. The perceptual world we experience changes every moment. We use a kind of pragmatic perceptual faith to create and then recognize a certain constancy and stability within what is actually a turbulent flux. This works more or less , but we are also using the same sort of pragmatic faith to assume that our social world, our friends and acquaintances, will behavior in ways that are recognizably predictable and intelligible to us. This is a shakier proposition, which is why on a day to day basis we experience stress , anxiety and disappointment as our faith in others is confounded. This pragmatic anticipatory faith is different from truth-falsity factuality that you’re taking about, The latter is a narrow and artificially worked up practice, whereas the former is how we live most of our lives.

I agree. I think the simple fact is that since the "evidence" that faith provides cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated, it ultimately reduces to mere personal opinion and thus cannot be used to rationally support such things as discrimination against gay people, other cultures or women.

utility is the value. it's necessary unless you want to remain a very serious skeptic your entire life. you will have to make jumps if you want to believe e.g. that certain historical events happened or that the news you read is accurate. — Moses

I don’t think this is true. Those are not leaps of faith, or faith based conclusions. Just because you trust the reliability of something doesnt mean you are taking it in faith. The opposite in fact is true, you have specific reasons for believing certain historical events happened or if the news is accurate. Not faith based at all, but based in the past reliability of historical research or news program.
Anyway, you said the value of faith is its utility. Its utility doesnt make it true or false, and when faith is given as a reason for belief it is a matter of whether its true or false not whether or not it is useful. Lies have utility too, but that doesnt mean they are true.
So I think you have made a false equivalence.

That doesnt really make sense. Its like saying “the reason for me walking to the store is reason itself”.
You gave a non-answer to my question.

That doesnt really make sense. Its like saying “the reason for me walking to the store is reason itself”.
You gave a non-answer to my question. — DingoJones

You asked what is the value of faith. I believe that faith and value are inextricable. Faith in its most fundamental form is an expectation, a hope, an anticipation, a question which assumes a certain kind of answer, a space of possibilities to be realized. Faith can be rewarded or disappointed. When we value, we are also asking a question that expects a certain kind of answer. A value can be violated or confirmed. So faith is intrinsic to valuation. What is the value of having a particular faith? What is the value of having a particular value? These seem to be the same questions to me.

:up:

but we are also using the same sort of pragmatic faith to assume that our social world, our friends and acquaintances, will behavior in ways that are recognizably predictable and intelligible to us. This is a shakier proposition, which is why on a day to day basis we experience stress , anxiety and disappointment as our faith in others is confounded. — Joshs

Yeah, I agree and understand. We can recognize patterns or common behaviors in our friends or social circle, but these are hardly immutable. I think of myself as multipartite and certainly changeable depending on age or influences so I always assume a bit of uncertainty even when talking with old friends and certainly acquaintances. I just try to remember that just because someone acts e.g. negatively it's not necessarily, and often isn't, a reflection of me. People are weird. There's actually a philosophy of friendship and I remember reading in undergrad an exegesis of Aristotle's idea of friends as "second selves."

We need to narrow down our discussion if we want it to be more fruitful: Do you wish to discuss faith in the context of believing whether a historical event occurred or reliability of a news story? These are separate and I don't want our discussion to get too convoluted.

In any case when it comes to history it's about what we consider good reasons/evidence to accept that an event happened. In other words whether you place faith in your sources.

Anyway, you said the value of faith is its utility. Its utility doesnt make it true or false, and when faith is given as a reason for belief — DingoJones

I was talking about utility in the realm of praxeology, i.e. human action - it allows us to basically cut off our thinking at a certain point and invites action. I agree that utility has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false, nor should faith be a reason. I think another benefit to faith, if used correctly, is that it acknowledges our own very limited knowledge of this world.