That you think "ought" must imply "obligation" is perhaps indictive of the problem I mentioned about an ethical tradition that ultimately grows out of voluntarism. — Count Timothy von Icarus
"Ought to be chosen" != "Obligatory" — Leontiskos
I am pointing out that the objections in this thread are based on no definitions at all. — Count Timothy von Icarus
And then to the question: "what is this x that real tiger possess?" the answer is: "I don't know, it probably doesn't exist" or "x exists but it is inaccessible to reason." — Count Timothy von Icarus
It's perhaps indictive of the voluntarism underpinning the ethics (and metaphysics) of command (law) and obedience (duty). I think this is why anti-realists so often claim that divine command theory is a good theory of ethics, and what any "real ethics" would look like, if only God existed. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Duty and natural law aren't situated in anything broader here — Count Timothy von Icarus
What you need to do is recognize that religious people are human beings, that human beings are not merely irrational, and then you need to generate a sincere interest in understanding why they believe the things they do. — Leontiskos
Because suppose you ask the question, "There are 2.4 billion people in the world who are Christians. Why are they Christians?" The answer, "Because they are emotional and irrational," is just plain stupid. — Leontiskos
People who think 2.4 billion humans basically form beliefs in the absence of evidence or contrary to evidence simply don't understand the first thing about human psychology. They are so biased against religion that they adopt psychologically absurd theories. They are conspiracy theorists. — Leontiskos
I have read Aquinas on faith, Avery Dulles' historical survey of faith, Pieper's essay on faith, Martin Laird's dissertation-derived book on faith, Ratzinger's treatment, and various academic encyclopedias on the topic. — Leontiskos
Psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists would get a good laugh out of that sort of intellectual unseriousness. — Leontiskos
If we have no common point of departure, then we will just talk past each other by using different definitions of 'faith'. — Leontiskos
I would just clarify that faith is about trust in the strict sense of "in an authority". I could trust in the chair in that "this chair will hold me if I sit on it" because I believe it is made of strong materials and bolts by my inspection; but this kind of 'trust' is not the same as if I were to trust the chair craftsman that made it and this is why I believe it will hold me. Of course, both of these kinds of trust are in play with most of our beliefs; but it is worth separating them out for this discussion. I would say the only legitimate, strict sense of 'trust' is this kind that is in an authority. — Bob Ross
So, at the risk of becoming boring, if I trust that a plane will fly me somewhere safely because of empirical evidence that they do, almost without fail, would it be fair to call this 'faith' in flying? How does this compare to faith that God is a real? — Tom Storm
What, in ongoing social praxis, does it even mean to "trust that a plane will fly me somewhere safely" — Dawnstorm
Similarly, the focus on "faith that god is real" seems off, too — Dawnstorm
So what are we comparing here to begin with? — Dawnstorm
Clearly, both theists and atheists don't expect to crash when they get on a plane, and clearly both can find themselves in a crashing plane, and not quite as clearly but still somewhat transparently, both know that they can find themselves in a crashing plane before they get on. — Dawnstorm
The point is you don’t need faith that planes fly; the empirical evidence of their capabilities is so strong that to doubt this would be irrational. — Tom Storm
Theists often say to atheists, “You guys live by faith too—every time you fly.” I wouldn’t have thought to compare those two ideas myself.
I raised it because it seems like an equivocation. — Tom Storm
The discussion has nothing to do with how anyone feels while on a plane or if one may crash. — Tom Storm
We are comparing faith in God with a reasonable expectation of successful airplane flight and, particualry, the role of evidence in both. — Tom Storm
My background is in sociology — Tom Storm
I am referring to AmadeusD's contention that the "good" and "ought" of most ethics is not a true "moral good" or "moral ought" (which you seemed to be agreeing with?), while nonetheless being unable to describe or give examples of what such a "moral good" or "moral ought" would even entail. — Count Timothy von Icarus
It's strange to me that someone would accept facts about values, and facts about human flourishing, but not ethics on the grounds that the aforementioned are not properly "moral." — Count Timothy von Icarus
What's the idea: "There are facts about what is good and evil, but this tells us nothing about what one ought to do?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
this seems bizarre to me. "This car is better in every way, and cheaper," doesn't provoke the response "ok, so this one is clearly better, but I don't know which I ought to pick, the better or the worse?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
Obligation and duty are one reason why it might be good to do something. That you can find no connection between "x is best" and "you should choose x," would seem to lie in this idea you have that any "ought" must be in the context of some sort of command, a "thou shalt." — Count Timothy von Icarus
One of us has a definition. The Good is "that at at which all things aim." I am not dogmatically rejecting any other definitions (indeed, I asked for them), I am pointing out that the objections in this thread are based on no definitions at all. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Tigers being "aquatic reptiles" might be "absurd," but there is certainly a dialogue to be had about why it is wrong, and why "tigers are large stripped cats" is better. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This conversation seems more to me like "tigers aren't large striped cats because real tigers are x." And then to the question: "what is this x that real tiger possess?" the answer is: "I don't know, it probably doesn't exist" or "x exists but it is inaccessible to reason." — Count Timothy von Icarus
So I have always held that faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have a good reason.
My original issue with faith is that Christians often tell me that choosing to fly in a plane is an act of faith equivalent to belief in God
…
So, at the risk of becoming boring, if I trust that a plane will fly me somewhere safely because of empirical evidence that they do, almost without fail, would it be fair to call this 'faith' in flying? How does this compare to faith that God is a real?
First, we can demonstrate that planes exist.
Second, they almost always fly safely.
Forget the New Atheists - that was a publishing gimmick. I think this definition of faith has been used by freethinkers for many decades. It was certainly the one Russell used, long before Hitchens and company were being polemicists. I was using it back in the 1980's.
I don’t recall saying religious people aren’t human beings. I thought you disliked rhetorical stunts like this. — Tom Storm
Religious faith is considered irrational because god can't be demonstrated and there is no good reason to believe in a god.
Faith in airplanes is not irrational because we can demonstrate that they exist and that people fly safely every second of the day.
Therefore, faith in airplanes is not unwarranted. — Tom Storm
I was simply asking that we consider evidence in regard to the difference between faith and belief. — Tom Storm
I was saying that atheists find 'faith' used to justify a belief in god as irrational — the concept we are discussing. I did not make the argument that, beyond this, all Christians are emotional and irrational. — Tom Storm
This may be true, but we weren’t talking about human psychology, nor have I argued what you’ve written here, so it’s a bit of a red herring. — Tom Storm
I wanted to have the conversation and not be shut down with "I know better". — Tom Storm
I'd be interested to know what a good secular philosopher would say about this discussion.
Are there any atheists you respect, or do you think the position is irredeemably unjustifiable? — Tom Storm
OK, this helps. I don't know if I've got @AmadeusD right, but I think the position you're describing would be something like: When we say "ought" in an ethical context, we mean "I ought to do this if I hold certain values and wish to achieve them." I took him to mean that asking for a further, special "moral ought" -- which would be categorical, and which would also specify the values -- is a mistake. If that's what he meant, then clearly he can't give any examples because he thinks there aren't any. Is that absurd? Or am I still not getting it?
Being moral is not rationally obligatory.
I'm afraid it's still not categorical, because you're assuming a desire for a car. What would be bizarre would be this: "I want a good car, and this car is better in every way, but I don't know which to pick." Again, the difference between a value and an "ought."
…the level of bigotry which glibly states that billions of people are foundationally irrational is not polite, respectable, or reasonable. It is problematic; it is insulting to religious people… — Leontiskos
To be fair, I do think that there is a prominent sense colloquially where confused theists will explain faith in this manner; but I think if we are iron manning the position then what they really mean is that some propositions that they believe as true they could not completely verify themselves but, rather, they trusted some authority, in this case God, to tell them — Bob Ross
If you believe, even in part, that the airplane will not crash because you trust the pilots to do their job (e.g., without drinking on the job, without making an improper turn, etc.); then that belief is in part faith-based: it has an element of faith mixed up in it. — Bob Ross
As far as self-proclaimed atheists qua atheists, Austin Dacey is the only one I have read in this vein. Dacey is not irrational enough to believe that 2.4 billion people are just believing things without evidence, but the same is true of any atheist with half a brain. — Leontiskos
This didn't come up on my notifications. Odd.What is your definition of "faith"? So far, it sounds like it is "believing something despite the evidence". — Bob Ross
I think the dogmatism -- though that may be too strong -- lies in your insistence that only "providing a definition" will further the discussion, which in turn implies that the entire subject is capable of such definitions. — J
When people on TPF and elsewhere contradict others for pages on end without giving any alternative account of their own, they are engaged in a dubious practice. — Leontiskos
I don't think 2.4 billion people are believing things without evidence. And we'd need to include other religions like 1.9 billion Muslims and 1.2 billion Hindus too. My view is that people believe in God for many reasons (faith not being the best of them), but mostly people hold the religion and values of their culture and upbringing. — Tom Storm
In short: belief, trust, duty, loyalty, God, truth, and group affiliation seem to be the most tightly recurring conceptual anchors around "faith." — ChatGPT
"Certainty" didn’t really appear much in the original definition you gave, or in the secondary terms from the standard dictionary breakdowns we just did.
Instead, terms like "belief," "trust," and "confidence" dominated — but belief and trust don't necessarily imply certainty.
In fact, if you think in an Austinian way:
— faith (in these definitions) tends to involve confidence despite lack of full proof — rather than absolute certainty.
— Faith seems to operate where certainty is absent or incomplete.
You’re catching an important gap: faith is often about commitment without certainty. — ChatGPT
Just to be clear, ChatGPT was used here in order to cut the amount of work involved in Austin's method, which he envisioned as being done by a team of nerds in the confines of a few rooms in Oxford - after his experiences during the war... — Banno
Well, your account was that faith involves trust in an authority. If this were so then we might expect to find "trust and "authority" amongst the main words found. While "trust" is there, "authority" isn't. — Banno
Good — very sharp of Tom.
Actually, "evidence" was present, but not as frequently repeated across the whole set.
Let’s double-check:
"evidence" appeared clearly in the definitions of:
proof ("evidence or argument establishing fact")
hypothesis ("proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence")
It also indirectly relates to "proof," "truth," and "fact" — but "evidence" as a word didn’t show up much elsewhere.
Summary:
Evidence is important when faith is defined against proof — that is, faith as belief without direct evidence.
But once the definition of faith shifts toward loyalty, duty, trust, or group belonging, "evidence" falls away and isn't part of the conceptual structure anymore.
That absence itself is meaningful.
Austin would definitely note that faith talk often refuses or moves away from the domain where "evidence" operates — depending on the act being performed (e.g., declaring loyalty, expressing religious belonging). — ChatGPT
But why stop at your precious 2.4 billion folks? — Tom Storm
I think faithath is a bad pathway to truth. — Tom Storm
That’s the problem with an appeal to faith – there is nothing that can't be justified using an appeal to faith, since it is not about evidence. As per Hebrews 11: 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' — Tom Storm
I recall talking to some apartheid-era South Africans who had it on faith that black people were inferior to white people. That’s the problem with an appeal to faith – there is nothing that can't be justified using an appeal to faith, since it is not about evidence. As per Hebrews 11: 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' — Tom Storm
Maybe consider the idea that your whole approach to this topic is absurd, and that this is why you are being insulted. — Leontiskos
This is ironic, Tom. "Conviction" is here translating elenchos, which in many translations is rendered as 'evidence.'
For example, the King James Version, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." — Leontiskos
Notice the "But once the definition of faith shifts toward loyalty, duty, trust, or group belonging, "evidence" falls away and isn't part of the conceptual structure anymore"? This begins to show our differences in emphasis with the theists hereabouts. This is probably what causes Leon such indigestion. — Banno
But you're not being very philosophical, are you? It's just insults and ad hominems, presumably because you hate atheism and see everyone in the image of Dawkins or Hitchens. — Tom Storm
You haven’t attempted to respond to this — Tom Storm
Well, you're the only one doing the insulting. I wonder why you feel this is necessary? — Tom Storm
Good that's better - I got this off the Revised Standard Version. But no doubt there are arguments about which translations are correct, ect. — Tom Storm
This is an unaddressed aspect, worthy of some contemplation. Faith is about community, about "us" and "them"... as can be seen in this very thread. And community links to identity, going towards the defensive offensiveness seen in the posts on this page....group belonging... — ChatGPT
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.