Post originally by Wyvern at 2004-11-30 23:52:22
Converted from Phorums BB System

<i>I didn't make it up, I took it from dictionary.com. That's why I included the URL, so people like you could go check it independently. If you don't like the definition, take it up with them, not me.</i>

As I <i>already said</i>, I have no problem with that definition. But the definition you gave originally is one step removed from that definition. There <i>is</i> a difference between belief that "does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" and belief that is "not based on any input from reality" and "cannot be affected by reason or contrary evidence". You may not think that's an important distinction; I do.

<i>As far as I can tell, the definition I'm using is the core of the idea</i>

That's your opinion. But even if I accepted that definition as the core definition on which all other definitions rest, that's still not the same as the definition which you used originally and which I objected to. If your definition was the only valid definition of faith, then "blind faith" would be a tautology and "losing faith" would be an impossibility.

<i>If you think one of the other definitions is more pertinent, then please nominate which one it is and why you think it's a better fit.</i>

Pertinent, as defined by Merriam-Webster's online dictionary (dictionary.com doesn't seem to be working at the moment), means "having a clear decisive relevance to the matter in hand". I don't see that your definition of faith has any clear decisive relevance to the context in which the word "faith" was used in the review.

<i>Again, you're right, but once someone has elected to ignore evidence, it's a short step from one to the other.</i>

I'm not talking about "ignoring" evidence. I'm talking about accepting something as true even though you don't have clear, indisuptable evidence to prove it. That's the crux of my disagreement with you. You say that if a belief is influenced at all by evidence, then it's not really faith. I say that you don't have the right to define faith for everyone else.

<i>As such, Kyle Schuant, the reviewer, could have easily said "it puts the Religion back in horror gaming" and left faith out of it entirely.</i>

Yes, he could have. But he chose to use the word "faith" as a metonym for religion because that's an accepted definition of the word. You chose to voice an objection based on a quite different definition of the word. I fail to see why you have a problem with what he wrote. That's one reason why I said you're using a straw-man argument; because you're arguing against something he never said.

<i>I have no objection to religion in a horror game, I just don't see why it need be faith-based. Or, indeed, why faith need be involved at all.</i>

Can you give me an example of a (non-fictional) religion which does <i>not</i> have a faith component?

<i>I just pointed out that I didn't see how that particular definition applied and invited you to explain how you thought it did.</i>

Applies to what? If you mean do I think it's relevant in the context of the review, no. But neither is your definition. If you mean, do I think it's a legitimate definition of the word "faith", I've already answered that: it is, in the context of the particular idiom cited in the definition.

<i>You have sensory evidence for the effects of electrons -- the very internet you receiving this reply through for a start -- and a series of rigorously tested scientific theories connecting that evidence to the idea of electrons, so accepting the existence of electrons is a belief that rests quite solidly on logical proof and material evidence. Same with Napoleon. In neither instance are you acting on faith.</i>

Yes, I am, because I've never personally examined the logical proof or material evidence for either one, so I'm placing faith in the scientists and historians who tell me that such things exist. (Yes, I'm using "faith" as a synonym for "trust". You haven't given me any reason why that's an invalid use of the word.)

<i>Actually, if your beliefs are based on "personal experiential evidence", then I'd say you do have "material evidence" -- depending on how pernickety you want to be about the word "material". With a basis in experiential evidence, your beliefs certainly seemed to based on input from something, most likely reality.</i>

And here we come back to the issue yet again. You're arguing that if my beliefs are based on input from reality, then that's not faith, because faith by definition is not based on input from reality. I'm saying that I don't accept your definition as the only definition of faith. If you said:

1) Role-players are fat, socially-inept losers.
2) Bob is not a fat, socially-inept loser.
3) Ergo, Bob is not a role-player.

The argument is logically sound, but it's based on a faulty premise. "Faith" <i>as you define it</i> may inhibit investigation, but there are other definitions which you're ignoring. That's the other reason I called it a straw-man argument; you're only accepting the definition of faith which supports your argument.

<i>It's not my definition, it's from <u>The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition</u> as quoted on dictionary.com. And I prefer it because dictionaries represent a neutral resource that everyone involved in a discussion can consult so as to understand each other.

I assumed that I was demonstrating a willingness to be reasonable by not going with some personal definition, but instead using the one from the American Heritage Dictionary which presumably would be familiar with the majority of users of this site. If you don't like that definition, then your argument is with them, not me.</i>

First, you're selectively choosing definition #3 as the most "accurate" definition of faith and disregarding the others as less relevant, despite the fact that definition #5 is the one closest to the way the word was used in the review.

Second, as I stated previously, I am <i>not</i> objecting to that definition. I am objecting to your <i>personal</i> definition of faith, which I quoted in my first post, and my second one, and again above. And I'm not even saying that it's not a <i>legitimate</i> definition of faith, I'm saying it's an <i>incomplete</i> and <i>one-sided</i> definition of faith, hence my use of the words "narrow" and "skewed".

<i>However, trying to turn the discussion into one where you portray yourself as a martyr with me challenging your personal beliefs is not.</i>

I've tried to avoid making accusations about your motives, so please don't make accusations about mine. Since the crux of my disagreement with you is over your definition of faith, I think it's legitimate to offer alternative definitions, regardless of whether they're religious in origin or not.

<i>Still, given that you're distinguishing between "faith" and "blind faith", please explain to me how you differentiate the two. As far as I can tell, since faith involves "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" it cannot be anything other than blind because that would mean allowing logical proof or material evidence to influence the belief, and if that happens, it's justified belief, not faith.</i>

That presumes that "faith" and "justified belief" are mutually exclusive concepts, which is the very presumption that I'm arguing against. As for the difference between "faith" and "blind faith", I have a story to illustrate that, but it's rather long so I'll save it for the end.

<i>I didn't say it was invalid, I said you were engaging in slippage.</i> [snip illustration] <i>Same here. If you establish that roleplaying games require faith in one sense (definition 3 in this case), it doesn't follow that you have demonstrated that they need it in another sense (any of the other definitions, but particularly definition 2).</i>

First, I'm not switching between definitions; the word "trust" is cited as a synonym for faith in the very definition you fixed on as the most "accurate" one.

Second, if we're going to talk about slippage, why are you basing your argument on definition #2 when the reviewer was operating on definition #5?

<i>Also, I will point out that above you wrote "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]'". Yet here you are arguing that very definition. You shouldn't try to have it both ways.</i>

What are you talking about? I thought we were discussing faith-as-trust, not faith-as-loyalty. Your slip is showing.

<i>Maybe this is a usage thing, but in my part of the world "losing faith" indicates a much greater personal crisis than acknowledging that one had misplaced one's trust. Losing faith is what happens when people decide to leave the priesthood or go through some similarly dramatic change of life. Acknowledging that one's trust was misplaced, on the other hand, is a routine part of life and involves no more than deciding to never use that particular supplier again, or discovering that just because someone talks a good game doesn't mean they can deliver.</i>

What you're describing is difference in degree.

<i>On the other hand, I'm not likely to make sweeping statements like that unless the condition were part of the definition of the term.</i>

And yet you said that "cannot be affected by reason or contrary evidence" is part of the definition of faith, despite the fact that you have yet to offer any evidence for this statement. Yes, you cited <i>a</i> definition from dictionary.com which says that faith does not rest on logic or material evidence, but that does <i>not</i> mean that faith is <i>impervious</i> to logic or material evidence.

<i>See how you can avoid all sorts of pitfalls when you stop thinking in absolutes and certainties and adopt a more contingent approach?</i>

Why not take your own advice, then, and acknowledge that faith is not, by definition, absolutely impervious to reason or reality?

Anyhow, I've said everything I have to say on the subject, and I'm just repeating myself now. If I haven't managed to get my point across by now, then I'm clearly not going to. Thank you for being civil, at least.

Here's that illustration I promised you:

"One must analyze the word <i>faith</i> and see that it can mean two completely opposite things.

Suppose we are climbing in the Alps and are very high on the bare rock, and suddenly the fog shuts down. The guide turns to us and says that the ice is forming and that there is no hope; before morning we will all freeze to death here on the shoulder of the mountain. Simply to keep warm the guide keeps us moving in the dense fog further out on the shoulder until none of us have any idea where we are. After an hour or so, someone says to the guide, 'Suppose I dropped and hit a ledge ten feet down in the fog. What would happen then?' The guide would say that you might make it until the morning and thus live. So, with absolutely no knowledge or any reason to support his action, one of the group hangs and drops into the fog. This would be one kind of faith, a leap of faith.

Suppose, however, after we have worked out on the shoulder in the midst of the fog and the growing ice on the rock, we had stopped and heard a voice which said, 'You cannot see me, but I know exactly where you are from your voices. I am on another ridge. I have lived in these mountains, man and boy, for over sixty years and I know every foot of them. I assure you that ten feet below you there is a ledge. If you hang and drop, you can make it through the night and I will get you in the morning.'

I would not hang and drop at once, but would ask questions to try to ascertain if the man knew what he was talking about and if he was not my enemy. In the Alps, for example, I would ask him his name. If the name he gave me was the name of a family from that part of the mountains, that would count a great deal to me. In the Swiss Alps there are certain family names that indicate mountain families of that area. In my desparate situation, even though time would be running out, I would ask him what to me would be the adequate and sufficient questions, and when I became convinced by his answers, then I would hang and drop.

This is faith, but obviously it has no relationship to the other use of the word."

- Francis Schaeffer, <i>He Is There And He Is Not Silent</i>