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

2nd Level RPGnetter · 12-06-2004, 12:33 AM

Post originally by Wyvern at 2004-12-05 23:33:50
Converted from Phorums BB System

Sigh. Against my better judgement, I feel compelled to try one more time to get my point across.

Then why do you keep arguing with it?

I'm not. I'm arguing against your original definition, and your failure/refusal to see that it's not the same as the dictionary definition.

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.

* Since it's based on faith, then by definition, it need not be based on any input from the reality around the characters.
* Since it's based on faith, then by definition, it cannot be affected by reason or contrary evidence.

You know, the thing I quoted in the very first line of my first post? I really don't see how you could have missed it. Anyhow, whenever I mention "your definition", this is what I'm referring to (NOT the dictionary definition that you quoted).

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

I really don't see why it's so hard for you to understand the difference between "resting on" and "affected by", but since you asked for a demonstration, try this one: My feet do not rest on a large rock. Should I therefore conclude that I would not be knocked over if someone threw a large rock at my feet?

Too literal for you? Okay, how about this: Newton's laws of motion did not rest on an understanding of quantum mechanics. By your logic, therefore, belief in the laws of motion could never be affected by an understanding of quantum mechanics.

The point is: the fact that a person believes something in the absence of evidence to confirm or deny that belief (i.e. has faith) does not necessarily mean that his belief would not be affected if evidence confirming or denying that belief came to light. If I'm not standing on a rug, then I'm not affected if someone comes and jerks the rug away. Likewise, if a belief is not based on evidence, then obviously it's impossible to undermine the belief by attacking the evidence, because there is none. However, it does not therefore follow that the unearthing of new evidence cannot strengthen or weaken said belief.

You're avoiding the question. Which definition do you think is the most pertinent?

No, I already answered the question. Twice, IIRC. In the context of the review, the word "faith" clearly connotes "belief in a religion", therefore of the definitions you listed, #5 ("the body of dogma of a religion") is most pertinent.

And why doesn't that definition fold back into the definition I used?

Depends on what you mean by "fold back into". If you're saying that defintion #5 is for all intents and purposes interchangeable with definition #2, that's simply not true, and if I have to explain to you why it's not true, then I might as well abandon all hope of an intelligent discussion. If you're saying that definition #5 is conceptually descended from definition #2, that may be the case, but I don't see how it's relevant. If a person uses a word to mean Y, it matters not that definition Y is conceptually descended from definition X; to try to refute their statement using arguments based on definition X is to miss the point. Or, as you put it, slippage.

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

Who decides what the "primary" definition of a word is? If anything, I would think the "primary" definition of a word would be the first one listed in a dictionary -- in this case, that's "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." But when I gave examples of faith based on that definition (e.g. faith in CODIS), you dismissed them by saying, in effect, "that's not faith, that's trust." As for which is the most commonly-used one, in the absence of a poll, I would guess that definitions #1, #3 and #5 have as good a chance of fitting the bill as #2. But that's irrelevant in any case, because as I said before it's the definition of faith you gave (see above) which I'm objecting to.

If he meant "religion" with no connotations of "faith", then he should have said "religion".

Why, when "faith" is an accepted synonym for "religion" (e.g. "the Muslim faith")? I don't see why it bothers you so much.

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.

No, you've got it backwards. When I gave examples of faith-as-trust, I was simply trying to illustrate that there were other valid definitions of faith than the one you described. As for the question of which is valid in the context of the review, I freely admit that that definition isn't the least bit valid, but neither is yours. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that "faith-as-belief" is an equally valid interpretation of the reviewer's meaning as "faith-as-religion". It's not.

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?

Yes.

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.

That's strange, because a few days ago you were denying that "faith-as-trust" was a valid usage. Here, let me refresh your memory:

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 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.

Odd how you persist in bypassing all other definitions of faith as if they were completely irrelevant.

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.

Okay, you're right. I should have said "ALL role-players..." However, my omission serves as a nice illustration of what it is that I'm arguing against. Because some people have faith which is unaffected by reason or contrary evidence, you've formed the erroneous conclusion that being unaffected by reason or contrary evidence is a defining characteristic of faith. (As to why "not based on logical proof or material evidence" is not synonymous with "unaffacted by reason or contrary evidence", see above.)

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.

Cheap shot or not, if the point I'm trying to make is that "a person who plays RPGs" is not the only possible definition of a role-player, then how is that statement inadmissable?

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. ... Given that, I really don't see how definition 5 -- "the body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith." -- fits at all.

Okay, I'll grant you that definition #5 doesn't correspond perfectly to the way the word was used in the review. But the fact remains that it fits better than any of the other definitions you listed. That being the case, let's see if we can find a better definition in Merriam-Webster (which I have no particular preference for, btw, it's just the first site that came up when I googled for online dictionaries). At first glance, perhaps #2a-1, "belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion" would fit the bill (keep in mind, it's the characters we're talking about; whether the players are familiar with the traditional doctrines in question is of no concern). Let's try it out:

It gives a description of several [beliefs in the traditional doctrines of a religion], and the powers they give the faithful relative to the evil beasties: Catholic, Zoroastrian, and Judaism. The descriptions of rituals are simple yet accurate, and will be interesting to most people.

Still not a perfect fit, perhaps, but certainly better than "a belief unaffected by reason or contrary evidence." Unless you're saying that religions are by definition composed of such beliefs... but I thought you denied saying that. Then again, perhaps #3, "something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs" might be a closer definition. Which, I grant you, does resemble "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence," but having strong conviction doesn't preclude the possibility of that conviction being supported by evidence.

I agree that it's legitimate to offer alternative definitions, but you haven't offered any.

Yes I have. In my first post. The Bible verse. The one you objected to on the grounds that it had religious connections. Of course, you seem to have decided that it's no different from your own definition, by means of ignoring the distinction between "certain of what we do not see" and "completely oblivious to what's right in front of our eyes."

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.

And I can assure you that there are theologians who do not view that kind of faith as either necessary or desirable. See for example Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, Man Alive! by Michael Green, <Faith and Reason by Ronald Nash, and He is There and He is Not Silent by Francis Schaeffer.

The definition of faith that I share with them (which is not exactly the same as any of the dictionary definitions, though #1 is the closest) is what happens when you start with reason and evidence, but come to the realization that evidence alone is insufficient, and you have to make a choice whether or not to step beyond the evidence and place your trust in the truth of something you can't conclusively prove.

You're arguing for faith-as-belief, but the examples you're using are of faith-as-trust.

When did I ever argue for that? You're the one who's been pushing faith-as-belief as the most "accurate", "pertinent" and "primary" definition the whole time. Not that I disagree with that usage; it's the "not based on any input from reality" bit that I take exception to, as stated above. But I have no idea what you mean by saying that I'm trying to "demonstrate one by demonstrating the other". The only thing I'm trying to demonstrate is that your definition of faith is too narrow, so how is it invalid to give examples of other uses of the word?

No, don't answer that. If you do, then I'll feel obligated to read your answer, and then I might be tempted to respond to it, and.... I'm getting off the merry-go-round now.

Wyvern

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