(March 10, 2010 at 1:30 am)chatpilot Wrote: It seems I suffer from this horrible affliction called simplicity. As I always say I don't like to get caught up in stupid arguments that degrade into philosophical garbage. Philosophy has its uses but it is not suitable for many fields of study which in my opinion holds true for theology. Why speculate on a bunch of assertions made in a book written by many authors, most of which are anonymous to this day? The attributes of god the spiritual plane whether he exist outside of time or whether time started when he so called created the universe etc. All a bunch of trash with no basis whatsoever.

Astronomy has shown that the earth is a sphere, it's not flat it's not a square or anything in between what more evidence do you need to accept this as absolute fact. Not only has it been discovered through mathematics and other scientific disciplines but we have put astronauts on the moon and in space that can observe the Earth from their point of view. Any argument against this is a matter of semantics and people who have nothing better to do with their time except speculate on things that make no damn sense at all.

To lend more credence to your statement, I will make the annoying observation that the Earth is best approximated as an oblate spheroid. Yet for most general applications and uses, your statement of the Earth being a sphere is correct.

There are degrees of approximations - science is a process to determine those approximations.

Personally, I think the last couple of posts arguing over semantics while agreeing on the same things is ridiculous. Chill.

(March 8, 2010 at 5:44 pm)TimeDivider Wrote: I believe in science completely and utterly, did you somehow gather that I did not from my post?

It seemed rather odd that you were so shocked when I said I believe in science, so I don't get why you now state exactly the same thing I did. You believe in science utterly - that's what I said I do, and you said that's odd that I state it as a "belief" - well you just did. Man, you're confusing.

EvF

Thanks for the assist Synakaon

(March 9, 2010 at 8:27 pm)TimeDivider Wrote: I have recently redefined belief. I used to think belief and faith were two words interchangeable with each other.

The word 'belief' is not complicated, nor is there any need to complicate it. It simply means to accept or hold something as true (including tentatively); i.e., intellectual assent that some X squares with reality. To the extent you accept that science squares with reality, you "believe in science." I always find it both tragic and hilarious when someone claims, "I have no beliefs"—as though it is a dirty thing to be avoided.

Then what would you define as faith arcauns?

(March 12, 2010 at 3:05 am)tackattack Wrote: Then what would you define as faith, Arcanus?

Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

(NOTE: "Christ died for our sins" is an example, not the sum, of notitia or informational content.)

well put! I see all the rumors about you are true, glad to see you post

(March 12, 2010 at 4:09 am)Arcanus Wrote:

(March 12, 2010 at 3:05 am)tackattack Wrote: Then what would you define as faith, Arcanus?

Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

(NOTE: "Christ died for our sins" is an example, not the sum, of notitia or informational content.)

Very well put, and it's a breath of fresh air to have someone illustrate their definitions so clearly.

I do have a few qualms with this however:

By your admission, faith would be defined more as trust than blind belief. This would pretty much equate the faith required for a belief in God with the faith that a particular weather forecast is correct. Both require information, assent, and commitment to the subject material in one way or another.

However, the fact that a belief, spouted by many to be the product of an objective, absolute, and very well defined God has to have objective evidence to back up that claim. Without it, any subjective faith would be irrelevant and hold importance solely to the believer. I fully make the claim that faith by itself does not constitute irrationality, but faith in a God that is not objectively verifiable traverses into the realm of delusion and at the very best, wishful thinkin on the part of the believer.

Given all three of your criteria, faith in God would be administered as the product of a particularly persuasive argument, and not of objectivity and necessary falsifiability. Just because an argument is persuasive enough to convince someone does not make the actual concept true or false, nor will it persuade people with a higher standard of evidence. To the outsider without evidence, it's easy to perceive that the believer practices in blind faith, even if they are absolutely convinced of their claims.

(March 12, 2010 at 1:13 pm)tavarish Wrote: By your admission, faith would be defined more as trust than blind belief.

A slight but important correction: "... as opposed to blind belief."

(March 12, 2010 at 1:13 pm)tavarish Wrote: This would pretty much equate the faith required for a belief in God with the faith that a particular weather forecast is correct. Both require information, assent, and commitment to the subject material in one way or another.

First, faith is not required for belief in God. That is actually backwards and practically ignores my post. Flip it around: belief in God is required for faith (i.e., assensus is a predicate of faith, not vice versa)—because faith without assensus leaves just notitia and fiducia, and is therefore "not faith." Remove any of the three predicates and it is no longer faith, becoming instead untrusting belief or blind trust and the like. Remember, faith is the sum, the right-hand side of the equal sign (N + A + F = faith).

Second, your analogy is not analogous. The trust we place in a weather forecast does not come anywhere close to the trust we place in God, which involves a deep commitment characterized as dying to self or giving up human-centered living in favour of God-centered living. "My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). Is that our attitude toward weather forecasts? Not even close. I might trust the forecast but I do not deeply commit my very identity to it.

(March 12, 2010 at 1:13 pm)tavarish Wrote: A belief spouted by many to be the product of an objective, absolute, and very well defined God has to have objective evidence to back up that claim. Without it, any subjective faith would be irrelevant and hold importance solely to the believer.

First, belief is a predicate of faith, not to be conflated with faith. Remember, assensus is one of three terms in the equation, the sum of which equals faith.

Second, you slipped the term "subjective" in there inappropriately. If an objective claim goes unsupported by objective evidence, that does not mean it is therefore a subjective claim. That is a non-sequitur conclusion. At the very least, the only thing it means is that you cannot yourself agree or accept that it's objective. "The truth-tracking method of effective philosophic inquiry would lead us to believe a proposition when the evidence available to us justifies our believing it, to reject a proposition when our evidence disconfirms it, and to suspend judgment about it when our evidence neither confirms nor disconfirms it," writes David Lund in Making Sense of It All: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry (Prentice Hall, 2003), which could not be stated more succinctly and articulately.

Third, the assensus involved in my faith holds importance to me, yes. That should essentially go without saying. But how is that supposed to count against me in any way?

(March 12, 2010 at 1:13 pm)tavarish Wrote: Faith in a God that is not objectively verifiable traverses into the realm of delusion ...

No, that is not how 'delusion' is properly understood. Even Richard Dawkins properly understands what 'delusion' means: a false belief persistently held in the face of contradicting evidence (The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006). Consider that carefully and understand its enormous burden of proof before deciding whether you want to apply the word here, because I will indeed press you to shoulder it.

(March 12, 2010 at 1:13 pm)tavarish Wrote: Just because an argument is persuasive enough to convince someone does not make the actual concept true or false, nor will it persuade people with a higher standard of evidence.

First, I never suggested that an argument being persuasive somehow means its content is true. "I have reason to believe X is true" on the one hand, and "X is true" on the other, are two very different things. Second, I never suggested that my being persuaded of X somehow automatically makes you persuaded of X; additionally, your rejecting X as false does not somehow make X false. Third, "higher" in this context is a value term; the fact that you happen to value a certain standard of evidence does not mean other people should agree or follow suit. Fourth, my claims have to meet your standard of evidence only if your accepting my claims is required or relevant (and it's neither).

(Phew! You sure packed a lot of rhetoric common with atheists into a single sentence, including the common practice of objecting to things never said. Sorry for being so curt in unpacking it all.)

(March 12, 2010 at 1:13 pm)tavarish Wrote: To the outsider without evidence, it's easy to perceive that the believer practices in blind faith, even if they are absolutely convinced of their claims.

If Bob forms a conclusion about Jane without bothering to interact with Jane's beliefs (relying on mere perception), that says something about Bob and nothing about Jane.

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: A slight but important correction: "... as opposed to blind belief."

I would say faith and blind belief aren't mutually exclusive, but I'll grant you that, for the intents and purposes of this discussion.

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: First, faith is not required for belief in God. That is actually backwards and practically ignores my post. Flip it around: belief in God is required for faith (i.e., assensus is a predicate of faith, not vice versa)—because faith without assensus leaves just notitia and fiducia, and is therefore "not faith." Remove any of the three predicates and it is no longer faith, becoming instead untrusting belief or blind trust and the like. Remember, faith is the sum, the right-hand side of the equal sign (N + A + F = faith).

In your definition of faith, I understand that you need the belief in God as a prerequisite. However, the very belief of God requires a leap of faith, i.e. you need a certain amount of blind faith, as you cannot objectively verify something that is, in essence, purely a subjective experience.

I would contend that in order for you to actually believe in a God, you would need:

1. Information
2. Intellectual assent
3. Trust in the concept.

These are your same criteria. You would require a certain amount of blind faith for #2 and #3, since the information in #1 is claimed to be objective, but has not been objectively verified. You have to make that choice for yourself alone. This requires faith in your understanding of the concepts and evidence presented to you.

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: Second, your analogy is not analogous. The trust we place in a weather forecast does not come anywhere close to the trust we place in God, which involves a deep commitment characterized as dying to self or giving up human-centered living in favour of God-centered living.

My analogy serves to illustrate that you're equating faith to trust in something that is established, understood and trusted to provide a desired result. The details are vastly different, but the concept is the same. In fact, many of us place more trust in weather forecasts than any God claims, as weather claims are actually demonstrable in reality. I digress.

I understand that your personal trust is characterized by lifestyle sacrifice, but it does not change the fact that you did this due to trust in a concept you believe to be true. It's the same as if I bring an umbrella to work with me if the forecast predicts rain in the early afternoon. It's a lesser degree, but conceptually identical.

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: "My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). Is that our attitude toward weather forecasts? Not even close. I might trust the forecast but I do not deeply commit my very identity to it.

A weather forecast is a much lesser degree than trust in Christ. It isn't a worldview in itself but can alter your decision to act a certain way within your life based on a trusted concept. It's not the attitude that I'm comparing since not everyone has the same attitude to God claims. Attitudes are irrelevant in a discussion of principles.

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: First, belief is a predicate of faith, not to be conflated with faith. Remember, assensus is one of three terms in the equation, the sum of which equals faith.

What would constitute a "leap of faith" required for belief in God? Where would that fit in?

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: Second, you slipped the term "subjective" in there inappropriately. If an objective claim goes unsupported by objective evidence, that does not mean it is therefore a subjective claim. That is a non-sequitur conclusion. At the very least, the only thing it means is that you cannot yourself agree or accept that it's objective.

That was exactly my point. An objective claim without objective evidence is a null argument. I never said it was a subjective claim. I said that the only thing that would be considered evidence for faith would be subjective, and therefore irrelevant to the original claim.

Without evidence, you can't make the call unless you make a leap of faith to reflect your own perception of reality.

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: "The truth-tracking method of effective philosophic inquiry would lead us to believe a proposition when the evidence available to us justifies our believing it, to reject a proposition when our evidence disconfirms it, and to suspend judgment about it when our evidence neither confirms nor disconfirms it," writes David Lund in Making Sense of It All: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry (Prentice Hall, 2003), which could not be stated more succinctly and articulately.

I completely agree. The discussion would then go to developing a standard of evidence to separate fact from fantasy.

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: Third, the assensus involved in my faith holds importance to me, yes. That should essentially go without saying. But how is that supposed to count against me in any way?

It should not count against you, but it should serve as a reminder that although you feel strongly about it, a subjective set of claims cannot be objective without adequate evidence. That's all I was trying to say. Your beliefs reflect you alone.

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: No, that is not how 'delusion' is properly understood. Even Richard Dawkins properly understands what 'delusion' means: a false belief persistently held in the face of contradicting evidence (The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006). Consider that carefully and understand its enormous burden of proof before deciding whether you want to apply the word here, because I will indeed press you to shoulder it.

I prefer a more complete definition:

A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. Psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, "incorrect" dogma, stupidity, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Without evidence, I'll contend that a claim into the objective realm is laced with delusion, and at the very least, wishful thinking as a result of an unrealistic or non-existent standard of evidence. I understand that most psychiatrists don't combine spirituality and delusion immediately, as there is an innate need to solve unanswered question and delve into worlds we cannot perceive, but a belief in something strongly without evidence for its existence, and even in the face of disproven arguments is nothing more than the product of a deluded mind.

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: First, I never suggested that an argument being persuasive somehow means its content is true. "I have reason to believe X is true" on the one hand, and "X is true" on the other, are two very different things. Second, I never suggested that my being persuaded of X somehow automatically makes you persuaded of X; additionally, your rejecting X as false does not somehow make X false. Third, "higher" in this context is a value term; the fact that you happen to value a certain standard of evidence does not mean other people should agree or follow suit. Fourth, my claims have to meet your standard of evidence only if your accepting my claims is required or relevant (and it's neither).

First, I never said you made the point, nor did I imply it, I was glazing over the fact that just because one can believe a concept, that does not make the concept true. That's all.

Second, rejection or acceptance of a concept should not lend to its credibility. The only thing that can verify a claim is evidence, whether subjective or objective.

Third, "higher" is a value term I use to distinguish the people who don't make objective claims with subjective evidence. I can make claims that underpants gnomes exist because I can hear them at night, but that doesn't do anything to illustrate the claim's objectivity in the least. It just makes the point that I'm personally subject to making claims with a low standard of evidence. Not being able to distinguish between confirmation bias, rationalization, and reasoned logic is another example of lower standards of evidence.

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: (Phew! You sure packed a lot of rhetoric common with atheists into a single sentence, including the common practice of objecting to things never said. Sorry for being so curt in unpacking it all.)

If I've made straw men, I apologize. I hope I elaborated a bit on my claims with this post.

(March 13, 2010 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: If Bob forms a conclusion about Jane without bothering to interact with Jane's beliefs (relying on mere perception), that says something about Bob and nothing about Jane.

If a conclusion is formed after Bob interacts with Jane's beliefs, and analyzes Jane's actions and standards of evidence for claims made, that says something about them both.