What is the difference between faith and gullibility?

[Puddleglum]

Seems like 'faith' is just a positive way of describing 'gullibility'. Or put it another way believer are suckers.

[Minimalist]

Any one of our True Xtians will explain to you that "faith" is what THEY have and gullibility is what any other believer has.

[Cato]

Seems like 'faith' is just a positive way of describing 'gullibility'. Or put it another way believer are suckers.

You are a master of the obvious.

[CliveStaples]

Hmm. A person is said to be "gullible" if they are "overly" credulous, relative to some standard of what constitutes 'reasonable' credulity given some set of criteria. I think you could distinguish faith from gullibility on these grounds, depending on what you understand "faith" to mean. Let's say that r is the "proper" amount of credulity that X should ascribe to some proposition p, and let k be a "gullibility" constant such that X is gullible with respect to p <=> X ascribes p some credulity greater than r+k.

So, according to this hypothetical standard, X should ascribe p a credulity of r; and if X ascribes p a credulity greater than r+k, then X is gullible. What if X ascribes p a credulity in the interval (r, r+k)? Then X isn't gullible, but X is going "beyond" the evidence for p, so to speak; whether or not this constitutes "faith" depends on what you understand "faith" to mean.

I think your question is unanswerable until you define your terms more clearly.

[downbeatplumb]

Faith-what you believe without evidence.

Because when you have evidence that has been verified scientifically it becomes "knowledge".

Knowledge-by the way, is how my wife describes her spiritualist church beliefs because of her "experiences", none of which would stand up to scientific scrutiny but there you go.

So belief-something you think is true without direct evidence.

I believe that there is not currently an elephant in my kitchen-this is a reasonable belief to have because there has never been an elephant in my kitchen and I think that it is unlikely that anyone would have smuggled one in in the ten minutes since I was in there.

I am now looking at the kitchen and "know" that there is no elephant in the kitchen.

But religious belief takes it a step further than these mundane beliefs, they layer more and more bizarre things onto the belief until what they actually believe takes a turn for the absurd and naive.

[genkaus]

Hmm. A person is said to be "gullible" if they are "overly" credulous, relative to some standard of what constitutes 'reasonable' credulity given some set of criteria. I think you could distinguish faith from gullibility on these grounds, depending on what you understand "faith" to mean. Let's say that r is the "proper" amount of credulity that X should ascribe to some proposition p, and let k be a "gullibility" constant such that X is gullible with respect to p <=> X ascribes p some credulity greater than r+k.

So, according to this hypothetical standard, X should ascribe p a credulity of r; and if X ascribes p a credulity greater than r+k, then X is gullible. What if X ascribes p a credulity in the interval (r, r+k)? Then X isn't gullible, but X is going "beyond" the evidence for p, so to speak; whether or not this constitutes "faith" depends on what you understand "faith" to mean.

I think your question is unanswerable until you define your terms more clearly.

The constant k in this case is 0.

Reasonable credulity, by definition, is credulity based on reason - on evidence. Therefore, based on reason and evidence, X should ascribe p a credulity of r and no more than that. Adding any more credulity than reason permits makes X gullible. Thus, k is zero.

Further faith, by definition, means adding credulity without reason or in contradiction to reason. Therefore any amount of faith would add a variable credulity of f to what reason already permits ®. Thus the total gullibility becomes r+f and since the interval (r, r+k) has been reduced to (r, r), the total credulity falls above the prescribed limit for gullibility. Further, the amount of faith (f) is equal to unreasonable credulity (gullibility) added.

Thus faith = gullibility.

Hence proven.

[Dumac Dwarfking]

Hmm. A person is said to be "gullible" if they are "overly" credulous, relative to some standard of what constitutes 'reasonable' credulity given some set of criteria. I think you could distinguish faith from gullibility on these grounds, depending on what you understand "faith" to mean. Let's say that r is the "proper" amount of credulity that X should ascribe to some proposition p, and let k be a "gullibility" constant such that X is gullible with respect to p <=> X ascribes p some credulity greater than r+k.

So, according to this hypothetical standard, X should ascribe p a credulity of r; and if X ascribes p a credulity greater than r+k, then X is gullible. What if X ascribes p a credulity in the interval (r, r+k)? Then X isn't gullible, but X is going "beyond" the evidence for p, so to speak; whether or not this constitutes "faith" depends on what you understand "faith" to mean.

I think your question is unanswerable until you define your terms more clearly.

You've ascribed parameters to credulity where none exist. Can you give me an example of "reasonable" credulity? By definition it is unreasonable.

[jonb]

Hmm. A person is said to be "gullible" if they are "overly" credulous, relative to some standard of what constitutes 'reasonable' credulity given some set of criteria. I think you could distinguish faith from gullibility on these grounds, depending on what you understand "faith" to mean. Let's say that r is the "proper" amount of credulity that X should ascribe to some proposition p, and let k be a "gullibility" constant such that X is gullible with respect to p <=> X ascribes p some credulity greater than r+k.

So, according to this hypothetical standard, X should ascribe p a credulity of r; and if X ascribes p a credulity greater than r+k, then X is gullible. What if X ascribes p a credulity in the interval (r, r+k)? Then X isn't gullible, but X is going "beyond" the evidence for p, so to speak; whether or not this constitutes "faith" depends on what you understand "faith" to mean.

I think your question is unanswerable until you define your terms more clearly.

Aye, lubber thou would wish to knoweth thar ends of the narrow path thee walks on, Believe what thar wants that thars blnfold does not let thee see, We buckos knoweth where thee be headed, Arrgh!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wAdHAGVLWc

[greneknight]

Hmm. A person is said to be "gullible" if they are "overly" credulous, relative to some standard of what constitutes 'reasonable' credulity given some set of criteria. I think you could distinguish faith from gullibility on these grounds, depending on what you understand "faith" to mean. Let's say that r is the "proper" amount of credulity that X should ascribe to some proposition p, and let k be a "gullibility" constant such that X is gullible with respect to p <=> X ascribes p some credulity greater than r+k.

So, according to this hypothetical standard, X should ascribe p a credulity of r; and if X ascribes p a credulity greater than r+k, then X is gullible. What if X ascribes p a credulity in the interval (r, r+k)? Then X isn't gullible, but X is going "beyond" the evidence for p, so to speak; whether or not this constitutes "faith" depends on what you understand "faith" to mean.

I think your question is unanswerable until you define your terms more clearly.

You are just obfuscating the issues. I'm wary of those who try to use equations for anything. I've read a story of someone who gave a complex equation and in the end, the conclusion, Therefore God exists follows quite naturally.

The truth is there is not a trickle of evidence for faith. Total zilch. Anyone who believes must be gullible.

[The Magic Pudding]

Tired of answering those pesky calls to prayer?
Well just don't, I did but now I don't.
So many better ways to spend your time.
I got me a flab eliminator/ab extenuator.
Why wait till your dead to get your houri?
All it takes is $39.99 or one goat a month. *
Hurry, first fifty customers get our special,
Miracle Tooth Regrow and Whiten Paste!

*We'll be checking the goats.