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

2nd Level RPGnetter · 12-07-2004, 07:24 PM

Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2004-12-07 18:24:33
Converted from Phorums BB System

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

I understand your point. You don't accept that faith is "belief without proof" and, since you don't accept that, object to me using the word to mean "belief without proof".

I'm sorry you don't accept it and I have no interest in aggravating you, but the quality which distinguishes faith from simple belief is the lack of proof. Faith does not rest on material evidence. Faith does not rest on logical proof. It exists independently of both. Faith is not accepting something as true because it's likely or probable or as-good-an-explanation-as-any or a working hypothesis or anything else. Faith is accepting something as true for no other reason than because you accept it as true.

If logic supports an act of faith, that's nice, but irrelevant because faith exists without logic. If evidence or experience supports an act of faith, that's nice too, but also irrelevant because faith exists with evidence. Since faith does not rest on logic or evidence, then if either or both happen to disagree with an act of faith then they're equally irrelevant because faith does not rest on them. Faith does not rest on anything except itself. It hangs there, suspended in mid-air, completely unsupported.

This quality of faith means that it can be used as a foundation for all sorts of other things. You can build entire philosophies and ideologies and worldviews on it, and they can be logically consistent and valid extrapolations from the act of faith, but they are not the act of faith itself. That is unsupported. By definition.

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

   (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

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

You have yet to demonstrate that it's different. You keep saying that it's different and you keep saying that it's my definition as if it's something I came up with rather than the standard usage of the term, but you saying so doesn't make it so.

I've presented definitions from two separate dictionaries now -- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition and the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary. Actually, three, since "belief without proof" is from the Collins Australian Gem English Dictionary, the standard pocket dictionary I use. Though the specific wording differs, all three agree that faith involves (i) belief, and (ii) a lack of proof, either logical or evidentiary. You have yet to present a definition from any dictionary that disagrees with that.

I've presented my reasoning for why I think that if faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence", then changes in logical proof or material evidence will not affect it. You have yet to address any of this reasoning.

If the totality of your argument is "I don't accept [that] definition", that's fine, but I don't see why you think anyone else should be convinced by it.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
* 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).
-------------------------------

Those two statements are not a definition. They were never presented as a definition. And they were never treated as a definition -- at least not by me. So, if you're going to refer to them as a definition, I think it's legitimate that I had no idea of what you were talking about.

Those two statements are the logical consequences of the definition. So, if you disagree with them, then you aren't disagreeing with the definition -- which, to be fair, is what you've been saying all along -- but rather, you're disagreeing with the logical consequences that flow from that definition. The problem is that you have resolutely failed to discuss logical consequences, preferring instead to go on and on and on about definitions.

Perhaps if, instead of talking about definitions, you were to engage with what I see as the logical consequences of that definition you might have a chance of convincing me of your case. Until then, though, I suspect we're at an impasse.

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

What do your feet rest on then? If not a large rock or some structure ultimately resting on a large rock, then what? If you're just standing there in mid-air, completely unsupported, and someone were to throw a large rock at your feet, then, yes, I would conclude that you wouldn't be knocked over. You might be sent tumbling in space, but since I don't know what was holding you up in the first place, I have no reason to expect that a large rock hurled at your feet would disrupt things and bring you down to earth. It may briefly destabilise you, send you momentarily spinning and tumbling, but you'll still be hanging in mid-air, completely unsupported.

If that turns out not be what happens, then I can only conclude that you were resting on something that was ultimately resting on a large rock and that the rock thrown at your feet knocked you off your perch. If that's the case, then the analogy to faith is not valid.

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

Both Newton's laws of motion and quantum mechanics are logical models which rest on observations of the universe. To the extent that they affect one another, it's because both rest on the same material evidence. If they did not share that common foundation, they would be like J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle Earth and Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age -- completely separate mental constructs with changes or developments in one having no effect on the other.

However, since Newton's laws of motion and quantum mechanics do rest on the same set of material evidence (the observable universe, or what I quaintly like to call reality), then inconsistencies between them suggest that, if they are not incorrect, then they must be incomplete. Presumably, one could develop a meta-theory that would encompass both Newton's laws of motion and quantum mechanics and which would account for the inconsistencies by showing that both are only special cases of a much larger model.

And, for what it's worth, you don't have to believe in Newton's laws of motion. They work whether you believe in them or not. In fact, as with the rest of science, you're probably better off approaching them with scepticism. They're valid only as long as they can be independently verified; if you encounter a situation in which they do not apply, then you've found something very interesting indeed.

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

Okay, working with your own analogy, if someone unearths a new rug, how will that rug magically appear under your feet? If you're not standing on a rug, then as far as I can tell, whatever happens to the rug will have no affect on you. If the rug turns out to be flying carpet and it takes off to travel to distant Araby, you will be left behind because you aren't standing on it. The only way that you can be carried away with the rug is if you choose to step onto it. Of course, once you're standing on the rug, you run the risk that someone could jerk it away.

The key here is your choice. If you choose to believe something in the absence of evidence -- rather than simply reserving judgement, which strikes me as the sensible thing to do -- and evidence were to appear, you could choose to accept that evidence as support for your belief or could say that's nice but irrelevant and ignore it. After all, if the absence of evidence wasn't enough to make you reserve judgement, why would the appearance of evidence affect you in any way?

If you choose to accept the evidence, you've moved from faith to justified belief, with the evidence serving as the justification. This, of course, opens up the possibility that the evidence could be attacked, thus undermining the belief, but that's the risk -- or opportunity -- you take.

If you choose to ignore the evidence, you preserve your faith as faith. In your terminology, I suppose you could say that you've moved from simple faith to blind faith, but that's a difference of degree, not kind.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
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, as I've pointed out, the review suggests that the game doesn't require belief of any sort. That is, as far as I can tell, I could play a Zoroastrian character without accepting any of the tenets of Zoroastrianism. Nor does the game seem to incorporate any of the dogma of a religion. Nor does it seem to require any of the participants to be familiar with the doctrines, practices or dogmas of any religion. As such, "belief" doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.

Given that, I will stand by my response that if the reviewer meant religion he should have said religion, because faith means something a different. And it's the use of faith, not religion, that I'm responding to.

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

I actually explained how I thought all the other definitions folded back into "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" so you don't have to speculate as to what I meant. You could look it up. And respond to it.

I suggested that the relationship between definition 2 and definition 5 was that in definition 5, faith was used as metonym; an aspect of religion used to stand for the whole thing. However, it's a metonym that stresses a particular aspect of religion: belief. As such, responding to the review on the basis of the stress on belief is valid. If the reviewer didn't wish to stress belief, then he shouldn't have used the word faith.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Who decides what the "primary" definition of a word is?
-------------------------------

The people who use it. And, around me, people use "faith" to mean (i) belief without proof, or (ii) a character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Since the reviewer didn't seem to be talking about any aspect of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it seemed reasonable to conclude that he was going with the other common usage.

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

I didn't give a definition, I presented the logical consequences of the definition. Just because you don't like those consequences doesn't' mean that they don't exist or that you can somehow devalue by trying to blame me for them. Why don't you try addressing the reasoning rather than blaming the reasoner?

As for dismissing your examples based on trust, I honestly don't see how demonstrating something to do with trust has anything to do with belief. It's entirely possible to have a reasonable expectation that others have done a good job without assuming that the product of the work is a source of ultimate truth.

I'm sure those that depended on the work of the various Intelligence Agencies on the subject of Iraq's WMDs trusted them. However, they went beyond that to faith in the WMDs existing. If they'd stayed with trust, then when contrary evidence appeared, they could have acknowledged it, modified their views and moved on. As it is, though, since they went with faith, they're left still insisting that Iraq had WMDs despite all the evidence to the contrary.

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

And I don't see why the actual definition of faith bothers you so much that you feel the need to redefine it.

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

And I agreed that roleplaying games depend on trust, so I've already conceded the point. How that relates to faith-as-belief is something you have yet to explain.

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

Then why did the reviewer use "faith"? If he meant religion, and only religion, then why not just say "religion"? Since the reviewer used "faith", I assume he meant faith. Unlike you, I'm not trying to rewrite the review and pretend that the rewrite is the review.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
That's strange, because a few days ago you were denying that "faith-as-trust" was a valid usage.
-------------------------------

I never denied that faith-as-trust was a valid usage. I denied that accepting the existence of electrons and Napoleon was an act of faith since logical proofs based on material evidence existed for both. The fact that you, personally, accept both only because you trust others who tell you they exist (or existed), does not alter the fact that logical proofs and material evidence exist for both.

If you want to keep switching between definitions so can say A-ha! What I actually meant this time was..., go ahead. It won't make your case any more convincing though. It will just be a series of cheap shots.

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

Odd how you keep insisting on a definition of faith that goes against the definition presented in dictionaries. If a belief is justified, then it's not without proof. If it's without proof, it's not justified.

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

I'm not saying anything about any people who may or may not have faith. Being independent of reason or evidence is a defining characteristic of faith. In fact, it's the defining characteristic, the thing that separates faith from belief. This isn't a conclusion based on any sort of survey of people who profess to have faith, it's a logical extrapolation of the definition of the term.

As for a refutation of the claim that "not based on logical proof or material evidence" is not synonymous with "unaffected by reason or contrary evidence" see the claims about Iraq's WMDs. Like it or not, that's how people with faith actually behave. (Since you don't seem to be accepting reason as a valid way of demonstrating a point, I thought I'd try using material evidence. Of course, if you're acting on faith, neither will affect you.)

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

Because switching definitions like that doesn't tell us anything about the logical consequences of the original definition. If all you want to do is say there are other possible definitions, then why bother setting up a syllogism using only one definition? Much better to be up front and honest and to list all the possible definitions you think might apply. Being underhanded only casts doubts on your trustworthiness.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
<snip example>
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.
-------------------------------

Then why use "faith", which emphasises the "belief without proof" aspect of these religions, when just saying "religion" would have avoided that? The point remains that the reviewer used "faith" and used it in the blurb for the review with no hint of religion.

The reviewer wrote "It puts the Faith back in horror gaming" and, as the subject line says, I don't think faith belongs in horror games, at least not ones which involve investigation.

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

You mean like those people insisting that Iraq did so too have WMDs? I guess having so many examples of people being deliberately oblivious to the evidence in front of them to the point of supporting mass murder just leads me to the conclusion that's what people do. Some of us are certain of things we do see.

Also, being certain of something for which you have no evidence is just asking for trouble. Human psychology being what it is, when people who are certain turn out to be wrong, they seem to prefer to preserve the certainty than to admit the error. Why they don't just reserve judgement is a something I don't understand.

As for you "definition", I didn't object to it because it had religious connections, I objected that it was scripture. Still, if you're going to be using a definition from a literary source rather a dictionary, I feel I have the right to do the same. So, henceforth, I will be using the definition of faith from Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that I quoted in my last post: faith is that which is denied by proof.

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

When you've gone as far as logic and evidence will take you, you can choose not to go any further. You can stop and reserve judgement. You can speculate beyond the evidence all you like, but you don't have to commit yourself to any of those speculations. You can just keep them in mind as you try to find more evidence or to develop a new line of reasoning. Or you could just wait for developments.

The various theologians you list all argue that you must choose to step beyond the evidence. They provide no particular reasons why you must do this. They also argue that you must commit yourself and decide that one bit of speculation is "true". Again, they provide no particular reasons for why you must do this. No, you have to step beyond the evidence and you have to be certain about the conclusion you reach -- for reasons that have nothing to do with logical proof or material evidence.

Further, since the books you mention are all apologetics for Christianity, they all argue that this conclusion be some type of Christianity. Why it can't be Classical Greek religion or the Force of the Jedi or fairies or super-powered mutants or anything else is something they don't explain. Rather they just smuggle in Christianity as a presupposition and proceed from there. It's a leap made without any logical proof or material evidence.

So, as far as I can tell, the theologians you list are all dealing in the same sort of faith as those I was referring to. They're just introducing it at a later stage in the process and pretending that it somehow follows from the evidence they present. At least Tertullian (c. 160-220) had the honesty to say "I believe because it is absurd" ("credo quia absurdum est") rather than trying to feign otherwise.

If you don't know what lies beyond the next mountain range, you're free to speculate, but committing yourself to one single answer as being the truth is just foolish. Look at the on-going debacle just such an approach led to in Iraq. And I'm hard pressed to think of a better example of why faith doesn't belong in a roleplaying game involving investigation than the one you just gave. Apologetics is no substitute for actual thinking and investigation.

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

If faith is that which is denied by proof (the new literary definition I'm using), and proof is input from reality, then faith cannot be based on any input from reality, otherwise it would be self-negating and would just disappear in a puff of logic. Q.E.D.

Also at some point you have to go beyond just trusting the word of others and begin thinking for yourself. Well, no, actually you don't have to; you could choose not to. But if that's the case, could you please put on the source of these ideas? I'd much rather be discussing this with the ventriloquist rather than the dummy.

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

Well, originally I was using a dictionary definition rather than plucking one out of a literary source, and I tried to harmonise the various definitions given by reducing them to a common source. Clearly I was putting in way too much effort in trying to be reasonable.

Still, perhaps you're right. The fact that a term like "ground" means both "the surface of the earth" and is the past tense of "grind" must have great significance, else why would that be the case? If we keep arbitrarily switching between those two meanings when discussing the term, then surely we will attain some deep insight. Or achieve maximum confusion. So, in that sense, it's not invalid for you to keep switching definitions as it suits you; you're certainly managing to generate confusion.

Noting that, let me switch definitions for a moment: such behaviour is a sign of bad faith on your part. That's why it's invalid. No doubt you will now read that use of "faith" to mean something completely different.

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

Since you're the one who started this merry-go-round -- the topic was lying dead and quiet until you choose to revive it -- I guess you're the one who has the right to stop it.

Regards,

Zoran