Post originally by Wyvern at 2004-11-29 02:38:17
Converted from Phorums BB System

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

Telling someone they didn't really mean the things they said is not going to win you any points in a debate. As for as the accuracy of the definition, the fact that it's the definition you favor does not make it accurate.

<i>It means being absolutely certain about things without having to think about or investigate them.</i>

Even the definition you cited ("Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence") doesn't preclude <i>thinking</i> about things. Most thoughts are <i>not</i> founded on logical proof or material evidence; that doesn't necessarily make them invalid thoughts. Furthermore, believing something <i>without</i> evidence and believing something <i>contrary</i> to evidence are not the same thing. Even logic makes a distinction between 'or' and 'exclusive or'.

<i>And the dictionary definition I picked is the one that fits.</i>

Again, according to you. But you are not the final authority on the definition of faith, as much as you would like to be. In fact, in this context, the definition you picked is <i>not</i> the one that fits. As used in the review ("It gives a description of several religious faiths, and the powers they give the faithful relative to the evil beasties: Catholic, Zoroastrian, and Judaism"), the word "faith" clearly refers to definition #5 ("The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith") or #6 ("A set of principles or beliefs"). Given this, I can't help wondering why you felt it necessary to bring up an entirely different definition of faith.

<i>I really don't see how notions of loyalty or the like apply.</i>

I don't recall bringing loyalty into the discussion. If you're referring to dictionary definition #3, it's made quite explicit in the definition itself; "faith" is used to mean loyalty in the expression "keeping faith with [someone]".

<i>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.</i>

I don't have sensory evidence for the existence of electrons, but I believe they exist. I don't have sensory evidence for the existence of Napoleon, either, but I believe he existed. Now, there's scientific evidence for the existence of electrons, and there's documentary evidence for the existence of Napoleon, though I haven't personally seen either. On the other hand, I've had personal experiential evidence of the existence of God (though not in a direct sensory fashion); thus, I believe in the existence of something I cannot see, just as I believe in electrons and Napoleon. So while it's true to say that I have no "logical proof or material evidence" to back up my beliefs, there are other valid forms of proof and evidence. It's not the dictionary definition that I take issue with; it's your assertion that my faith is "not based on any input from reality" and "cannot be affected by reason or contrary evidence".

<i>I notice you don't seem to be using any dictionary definition. Instead, you're quoting scripture.</i>

I quoted that scripture because it's my working definition of faith. Obviously, you have a different definition, and I'm not going to claim that my definition is superior "just because", as you seem intent on doing. A complete definition of faith should ideally accommodate both viewpoints. Fortunately, I already have a way of incorporating your definition of faith into my viewpoint; I call it <i>blind</i> faith. You, on the other hand, seem adamantly opposed to admitting the validity of any other definition but your own, which is why I said you have a narrow definition. I suspect that trying to persuade you to accept my definition as valid is a waste of time; however, I'll continue to point out the limitations of your arguments for the sake of others who may read this thread.

<i>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.</i>

Given that the use of the word "faith" in the review clearly and specifically referred to religious faith, and given that religion is the context in which the word "faith" is most commonly used, I think that using a definition of faith from a religious source is a perfectly valid way of making my point, provided I acknowledge that there are other kinds of faith than religious faith (which I did).

<i>So, let's take a decidedly non-religious example of faith.</i> [snip example] <i>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.</i>

No, that's the nature of <i>blind</i> faith. There are some in the U.S. government (don't ask me to name names; I don't have much use for politics) who admitted that they might have been wrong about Iraq's WMD. They had faith to start out with, but their faith was shaken by the (lack of) evidence. It was <i>not</i> impervious to reason or reality.

<i>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.</i>

Even if someone <i>did</i> have the kind of irrational faith you're talking about, it doesn't necessarily follow that they'd be completely incapable of carrying out an investigation. Even if I have absolute, unreasoning faith in the belief that NASA faked the moon-landings, it isn't likely to interfere with my ability to hunt vampires.

<i>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.</i>

Considering that the very definition of faith that you favor mentions "trust" as a synonym, I don't see how this is an invalid usage of the word.

<i>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.</i>

I'm not trying to "vindicate" anything. I'm trying to point out that your definition of the word "faith" is too narrow.

<i>one doesn't so much lose faith as acknowledge that one's trust was misplaced.</i>

What's the difference? As far as I can see, that's what "losing faith" means -- coming to the conclusion that what you thought you knew, what you trusted to be true, is not so.

<i>To say that faith-as-belief and empirical investigation are mutually exclusive follows directly from the definitions of the two concepts.</i>

Only from <i>your</i> definitions, which I rejected as inadequate at the very outset. If you said "Christians believe that shooting abortionists is morally justified," and I objected that I didn't believe any such thing, telling me "You're not really a Christian then," would hardly prove your point. By narrowly defining faith as "blind belief", you've created a straw-man argument.

Wyvern


"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- William Shakespeare, "Hamlet"