RPGnet Forums - View Single Post - [RPG]: Blood Games, reviewed by Jim Bob (3/3)

2nd Level RPGnetter · 11-27-2004, 11:35 AM

Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2004-11-27 10:35:14
Converted from Phorums BB System

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
That's an awfully narrow, skewed and cynical definition of faith
-------------------------------

Pertinent. The word you're looking for is pertinent. It's an awfully pertinent definition of faith. Also accurate.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
(I notice you picked one dictionary definition and ignored the other five), and suggests that you don't really understand what faith means to those who have it.
-------------------------------

It means being absolutely certain about things without having to think about or investigate them. Faith is normally contrasted against things like reason, philosophy and proof.

And the dictionary definition I picked is the one that fits. I really don't see how notions of loyalty or the like apply. If you want to explain such a connection, please go ahead.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" - (Hebrews 11:1)

Notice that this does *not* say "regardless of evidence to the contrary."
-------------------------------

Notice it does say "certain of things we do not see." Reading "see" as extending to include other senses such as hearing, that would seem to say having certainty of things we have no sensory evidence of, which sounds pretty much like what I described.

And while I may be using only one dictionary definition -- the most pertinent one -- I notice you don't seem to be using any dictionary definition. Instead, you're quoting scripture.

Also, as I pointed out in the very post you're replying to, bringing in religion is a furphy. Like others in this thread, you're trying to change the subject to religion. It's not about religion, it's about faith. Different things. Given how many people have tried this tactic and how I failed to take the bait each time, I'd suggest you develop a new rhetorical strategy. Still, what do they say about people who keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

So, let's take a decidedly non-religious example of faith. The recent invasion of Iraq. This was justified on the grounds that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The evidence for that claim was vague and sketchy at the time and has since proven to be completely bogus. Those arguing for the invasion chose to go in because they believed the evidence. Not because it was convincing or compelling, but because they just magically knew it must be true. It was an act of faith. Of course it turned to be wrong, but those who held to the idea, like Dick Cheney and 57% of those recently polled by NBC/the Wall Street Journal, still insist that it was true. That's the nature of faith; immune to contrary evidence.

[Of course, this is the charitable interpretation of events. The alternative is that those people knew that the claim was wrong and went ahead with an invasion that has cost the lives of around 100,000 Iraqi lives (according to a recent article in the Lancet) and over 1,000 US soldiers because they are just plain evil.]

This example highlights two things about faith.

First, it's a remarkably poor guide to the real world.

Second, and slightly more importantly, it has no mechanisms for self correction. When other approaches to knowledge, such as science or the law, make a mistake -- and they can be as spectacularly wrong as faith turned out to be in this instance -- there are procedures in place for identifying the error and correcting it. As the persistence of claims that Iraq did so to have WMDs demonstrate, once an idea is lodged through faith, there's no way to dislodge it. Faith, by it's very nature, makes it impossible to change ideas supported by it. Faith actually makes it a virtue to hold on to such ideas in the face of contrary evidence and argument.

Suggesting that such a thing is anything other than a complete show-stopper in a game requiring investigation -- and the routine revision of old ideas in the light of new information that implies -- just strikes me as self-evidently absurd.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
As you rightly pointed out, religious faith is not the only kind of faith, and in this sense we all take a lot of things "on faith". When I buy a hamburger at McDonald's, I have faith that it's not poisoned. Not because I've empirically proven that it's not, but because I can reasonably expect, based on experience and logic, that it won't be. Now if someone proved to me that it *was* poisoned, I would "lose faith" -- but that doesn't mean that I didn't really have faith to start with.
-------------------------------

Actually I think what you're describing here is trust. You trust that the hamburger is not poisoned. While that usage does fit with one of the definitions of faith, what you're doing is engaging in a bit of slippage. You're assuming that if faith-as-trust can be demonstrated to be valid, then all forms of faith, including faith-as-belief, will also be vindicated. Doesn't work that way.

Still, I'll make it easy. I'll grant that faith-as-trust is important to a roleplaying game. I trust that the Gamemaster will play fair, will tell me what my character experiences as accurately as possible and will not be vindictive or abusive. Near as I can tell, that's a prerequisite for an effective and enjoyable game. Just like trust that the food isn't poisoned is a prerequisite for dining out anywhere and trust that the various people involved in putting together the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) have done a good and accurate job is a prerequisite for FBI agents to use the database.

If any of these presumptions turn out to be wrong -- the GM isn't playing fair, the food was poisoned, the CODIS is compromised -- one doesn't so much loose faith as acknowledge that one's trust was misplaced. This may make people more suspicious in future, but generally they don't begin to presume that all GMs don't play fair, all food you don't prepare yourself is poisoned and all databases are inaccurate.

Of course, sometimes it is a matter of faith. Some people will continue to insist that the GM is fair despite any and all evidence to the contrary, that the food was not poisoned despite the stomach pumps and hospital visits and that CODIS is accurate despite results saying that according to the DNA in the semen, a particular woman was raped by Abraham Lincoln and Mickey Mouse.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
So to say that faith and empirical investigation are mutually exclusive simply isn't backed up by the evidence.

-------------------------------

No, to say that faith-as-trust and empirical investigation are mutually exclusive isn't backed up the evidence. To say that faith-as-belief and empirical investigation are mutually exclusive follows directly from the definitions of the two concepts. And, as the Iraqi WMD example shows, is also most definitely backed up the evidence.

Regards,

Zoran