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

2nd Level RPGnetter · 12-03-2004, 11:07 PM

Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2004-12-03 22:07:48
Converted from Phorums BB System

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
As I already said, I have no problem with that definition.
-------------------------------

Then why do you keep arguing with it?

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
But the definition you gave originally is one step removed from that definition. There is 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.
-------------------------------

If a belief does not rest on logical proof, then it cannot be affected by reason because that's what logical proof is and its already rejected reason as a basis. If a belief does not rest on material evidence, then it cannot be affected by contrary evidence because it's already rejected evidence as a basis. Therefore a belief that "does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" is necessarily one that "cannot be affected by reason or contrary evidence". If it can be affected by them, then it would have to rest to some degree on logical proof or material evidence.

The only inputs we have from reality is sensory data which constitutes material evidence and the reasoning and inferences that we derive from that sensory data that constitute logical proofs. If a belief isn't based on either material evidence and/or logical proof, then it isn't based on any input from reality.

You keep saying that's not the case, but that's all you do. How about explaining how it's possible for a belief to have input from reality while simultaneously not being based on logical proof or material evidence. Exactly what form does this input from reality take? Please explain that.

Instead of just saying that you don't accept something, try demonstrating that it's wrong. Or, more simply, put up or shut up.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

The reason the word "tautology" exists is because tautologies exist. So, yes, you're right, "blind faith" is a tautology. To remind you of the bit of scripture you quoted in your initial post to this thread, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1). "Not see" suggests "blind" as in "none so blind as those that will not see" (Matthew Henry, 1662 - 1714), so even you preferred "definition" of faith suggests blind faith.

And why would "losing faith" be impossible? Or, at least, any more impossible than gaining faith? Someone arbitrarily decides one day that they are going to start believing something without any basis in logical proofs or material evidence. On some other day they decide, equally arbitrarily, that they will stop believing that something. In one instance they've gained faith, in the other they've lost it. Perhaps the psychological processes involved are different, but the material evidence is that human beings experience both.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

You're avoiding the question. Which definition do you think is the most pertinent? And why doesn't that definition fold back into the definition I used?

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
I'm not talking about "ignoring" evidence.
-------------------------------

But the definition is. "Does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". If a belief takes evidence into account, then it is to some extent resting on that evidence; if it does not rest on the evidence, then it is ignoring evidence.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

And you don't have the right to try and impose some eccentric personal definition of "faith" on everyone else just because you don't like the generally accepted one. As I keep telling you, but you keep ignoring, it's not my definition. And it doesn't matter how often you attribute it to me, it's not going to magically become my definition. It's from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as quoted on dictionary.com. If you don't like it, take it up with them.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

But not the primary definition of the word. Or the most commonly used one.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

The most commonly used definition of faith is the one I used. It is also the core definition since, as I explained and as you have yet to disprove, all the other definitions can be derived from it. Thus, when someone says faith, the natural presumption is that they mean a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".

If he meant "religion" with no connotations of "faith", then he should have said "religion". But, no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise, he didn't. He said "It puts the Faith back in horror gaming".

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Can you give me an example of a (non-fictional) religion which does not have a faith component?
-------------------------------

Various branches of Hinduism (in India) and Shintoism (in Japan). Also, if the writings of the early Church Fathers are accurate rather than hyperbole, many of the cults in Imperial Rome.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

How is my definition not relevant? It's the essence of faith. To the extent that Blood Games is a game of investigation, faith has no place in it.

So far, you're entire argument consists of saying "I don't accept [that] definition" while trying to pretend that it's somehow my definition rather than one from an accepted dictionary. How about actually engaging with the topic?

If faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence", then anything that does rest on logical proof and/or material evidence is not, by definition, faith. You may not like it, but that's the definition and the logical consequence of that definition.

Of course, if you're ignoring logical proofs, then you're obviously not going to accept anything you don't already agree with.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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 never said it was invalid, I said you were engaging in slippage. You're shifting between different usages as it suits you, while presuming that if you can demonstrate that if one usage is valid in a particular context, then they must all be equally valid in that context.

So, do you accept the existence of electrons and Napoleon because others tell that there is material evidence and logical proofs for their existence and you trust them? Or do you believe in the existence of electrons and Napoleon irregardless of any material evidence and/or logical proofs that may or may not exist? Which definition of faith are you using? I'm not saying either usage is invalid, I'd just like to know which one you are employing.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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
-------------------------------

You have yet to offer an alternate definition. You were quite happy to quote from the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary above, why not quote their definition of faith?

Here, I'll do it for you:

      Main Entry: faith
      Pronunciation: 'fAth
      Function: noun
      Inflected Form(s): plural faiths  /'fAths, sometimes
       'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi,
       from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
          1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
            b (1) : fidelity to one's promises
              (2) : sincerity of intentions
          2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
              (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
            b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
              (2) : complete trust
          3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
              especially : a system of religious beliefs

I can't help but notice that it has that pesky "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Odd how that keeps cropping up. Well, maybe you wonder consider it odd, since you seem to have your own private definition of faith that doesn't match that.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

Actually, it's not logically sound. To be logically sound, you'd have to change the first line to "All role-players are fat, socially-inept losers". As it is, it's not clear whether the first line means "all role-players" or "some role-players". If it only means "some role-players", then the conclusion does not follow. At least not if you were attempting to produce a syllogism.

Beyond that, you're confusing a synthetical statement with an analytical one.

A synthetical statement is one that brings together separate elements that do not automatically suggest each other. For example "white" and "rose", as in "it was a white rose". I'm bringing together two separate bits of data, since there's nothing in "rose" to suggest whiteness (roses come in a variety of colours) and nothing in "white" to suggest roses (many things are white).

The statement "role-players are fat, socially-inept losers" is a synthetical statement since not all role-players are fat, socially-inept losers and not all fat, socially-inept losers are role-players.

An analytical statement is one that brings out an element contained in the definition of another element. For example, "flower" and "rose", as in "a rose is a flower". Being a flower is part of the definition of a rose, so I'm not bringing anything new to the statement, I'm just elaborating something that was contained in the original element "rose".

A statement such as "role-players are people who play RPGs" would be an analytical statement since it just elaborates on part of the definition of what a "role-player" is.

So, if you were to construct a syllogism such as:
   P1: Role-players are people who play RPGs.
   P2: Bob does not play RPGs.
    C: Ergo, Bob is not a role-player.
It would be logically valid and true. The only way you could falsify it would be engaging in slippage and switching to a different definition of "role-player" than that employed in the first premise by saying something like "But Bob's an actor, so he is a role-player!" A cheap shot and cheating.

So, the question is: am I making a synthetical or an analytical statement when I say faith involves belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence? I say I'm making an analytical one and as evidence of that I cited dictionary.com which offers that very phrase as part of the definition of "faith". You seem to think I'm making a synthetical statement and that I'm bringing something to "faith" that's not already a part of its definition. So far you have failed to demonstrate that's the case. Instead, all you've done is said that your don't accept that definition and tried to claim that it's somehow my definition rather than belonging to the American Heritage Dictionary as quoted on dictionary.com.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
"Faith" as you define it 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.
-------------------------------

Case in point. It's not as I define it. I keep telling where I got the definition from and you keep ignoring it.

Still, why don't you quote a definition from some source that doesn't define faith as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" or "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" and explain why you think that's a better and more pertinent definition than the one I'm using. At least that way we'd be discussing something rather than just having you repeat "I don't accept [that] definition".

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

No, I don't think so. While the review does mention various religions -- Catholic, Zoroastrian, and Judaism -- there's nothing to suggest that players need to be specifically aware of the dogmas or doctrines of these religions. Any more than a priest of Poseidon in a Dungeons & Dragons game need be familiar with the details of that god's actual cult. Given that, I really don't see how definition 5 -- "the body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith." -- fits at all.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Second, as I stated previously, I am not objecting to that definition. I am objecting to your personal 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 legitimate definition of faith, I'm saying it's an incomplete and one-sided definition of faith, hence my use of the words "narrow" and "skewed".
-------------------------------

My "personal definition of faith"? I'm sorry, but if you've quoted it, I haven't seen it. Care to quote it again? And this time make it very clear. Because the definition I keep using is the one I got from I got from dictionary.com like I told you.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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 didn't say anything about your motives. I described what I see as your behaviour -- at least in part. Why you might be behaving that way is something I haven't addressed.

I agree that it's legitimate to offer alternative definitions, but you haven't offered any. You just keep saying some variant of "I don't accept [that] definition". Fine, you don't accept it. That doesn't make it disappear.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

"Faith" and "justified belief" are mutually exclusive concepts.

Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence", whereas justified belief is belief that is justified precisely because it rests on logical proof and/or material evidence.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

Yes you are. You're arguing for faith-as-belief, but the examples you're using are of faith-as-trust. The two are not the same. I'm not saying either is invalid, but demonstrating one does not demonstrate the other.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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?
-------------------------------

Because there's nothing in the review to suggest that the reviewer was talking about the dogmas associated with any religion. If one of the goals of Blood Games is to acquaint participants with the dogmas of Catholicism, Zoroastrian or Judaism, I'm afraid that's something that did not come out in the review at all. Nor is there any suggestion that familiarity with the dogmas and doctrines of particular religions will be helpful in play. Nor does the review suggest that the game is based on the dogma of a particular religion such as the various End Times/Apocalypse RPGs that have come out over the years based on some interpretation of the Book of Revelations. Given that, I really don't see how you get the idea that definition 5 is the one the reviewer intended.

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

No, we're discussing faith-as-belief. You keep trying to switch to faith-as-trust as in trusting that McDonald's will keep faith with its customers expectations that the hamburgers will not be poisoned or the FBI trusting in the good faith of those who put together the CODIS when preparing a case.

Now, I'll grant you that the two usages are intertwined, but they are not identical. And I've already granted that trust and expectations that all parties will act in good faith are an important part of any roleplaying game, so I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by this shilly-shalling.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
What you're describing is difference in degree.
-------------------------------

No, what I'm describing is a difference in kind. One -- losing faith -- involves a loss of certainty, the other -- acknowledging that one's trust was misplaced -- involves adjusting degrees of doubt.

Often those who loose faith in something skip doubt all together and go from certainty that something is true to certainty that it is false. Personally, in such cases I think it would be more accurate to say that the individual has "switched faith" rather than "lost faith", but that's not the way the usage works in the real world. If I were doing what you keep saying I'm doing and making up my own personal definitions, I would be insisting that the phenomenon be called "switching faith", but since I'm not doing that, I don't. I just accept the usage as it is.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as quoted on dictionary.com at <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith>:

     faith
       n.
       2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

If a belief can be affected by reason, then it rests on logical proof to some extent. If a belief can be affected by contrary evidence, then it rests on material evidence to some extent. If a belief rests on logical proof and/or material evidence, it's not faith.

Hope that was clear.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Yes, you cited a definition from dictionary.com which says that faith does not rest on logic or material evidence, but that does not mean that faith is impervious to logic or material evidence.
-------------------------------

If a belief is susceptible to logic and/or material evidence then it must to some extent rest on them. If you believe something because of a logical proof, you believe it because of the logical proof, not because of faith. If you believe something because of material evidence, you believe it because of the material evidence. The logic or the evidence justify the belief. It's only when you believe something irregardless of logic or evidence that you are displaying faith.

I don't know what religion or denomination you are, but I assure that there are a large number of Christian and Muslim theologians who define faith precisely that way and who argue that such belief in revelation is a state devoutly to be hoped for and possessing such belief is a sign of genuine grace. If you care to go looking in works of theology, I'm sure you'll find examples of such arguments.

My only difference with such theologians is not in their description of faith, but in its desirability.

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

Because the definition specifically states that it does not rest on logical proof (reason) or material evidence (reality).

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------

Thank you for the interesting discussion. While I don't think I've convinced you either, we can agree to disagree on this point in a civil manner.

And I'll leave you with a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams:

     Babel Fish - The Bable fish is small yellow and leachlike, and
       probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave
       energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it.
       It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave
       energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of
       its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious
       thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech
       centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot
       to all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can
       instantly understand anything said to you in any language. The
       speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix
       which has been fed into your head by the Babel fish.
       * Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything
         so mind bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance
         tha t some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and
         clinch ing proof of the nonexistence of god.
       * The argument goes like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,"
         say s God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
         nothin g."
       * "But" says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?
         It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist,
         and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
       * "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought about that," and promptly
         vanish es in a puff of logic.
       * "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on and
         pro ves that black is white and gets himself killed on the next
         zeb ra crossing.
       * Most leading theologians clam that this is a load of dingo's
         kidney s, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small
         fortun e when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling
         boo k, Well That about Wraps It Up for God.
       * Meanwhile, the poor Bable fish, by effectively removing all
         barrie rs to communication between different races and cultures,
         has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the
         histor y of creation.

Regards,

Zoran