My Fellow Atheist

[Ryft]

I would say faith and blind belief aren't mutually exclusive ...

So what? Nobody had asked what you would define as faith. I was the one asked, and my answer stands.

You cannot objectively verify something that is, in essence, purely a subjective experience.

Agreed. And completely irrelevant, since I was asked to define faith.

Unless, of course, your point is that God is a purely subjective experience. And good luck arguing that validly.

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

And your contention would fail. Trust is not required for belief formation. In order to hold belief X (e.g., life exists on other planets), I do not have to commit any trust in X. Likewise, in order to hold belief Y (e.g., God exists), I don't have to commit any trust in Y. Belief in itself does not necessitate trust, for it is merely informed intellectual assent. Going further than mere belief involves trust. Let's use your example. To believe a weather report that predicts rain doesn't involve trust. To make plans based on that report does, though (e.g., grabbing your umbrella because you're going outside)—but that's going further than belief, insofar as it's banking on that report (which is an idiom for trust).

You would require a certain amount of blind faith for (2) and (3) ...

Maybe on your definition, but not on mine. And yet mine is the one being discussed, not yours. Perhaps once you're done expositing on your definition, we can return our attention to the one Tackattack actually asked for.

... since the information in #1 is claimed to be objective, but has not been objectively verified.

It has not been objectively verified to... you? So what?

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.

I'm equating faith to trust? And trust in something trusted? Wtf?

No, I am not equating faith to trust. I am equating faith to the set of (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Stop dismembering my definition in order to build a straw man that you pretend is my definition. I did not say "faith is required for belief" (Msg. #48) nor am I "equating faith to trust" (Msg. #50), etc. These are your own constructions that ignore my actual statements. So maybe when it comes to 'faith' your definition of trust doesn't involve "a deep commitment characterized as dying to self" and therefore can reflect attitudes to weather forecasts, but so what? Mine doesn't. When you're finished exploring your definition, I'll be over here with the one I provided for Tackattack's question.

In fact, many of us place more trust in weather forecasts than any God claims ...

Who is this "us" that you are presuming to speak for, and what is their relevance to the definition of faith I provided Tackattack?

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.

The lifestyle sacrifice is not due to trust in a concept believed as true. You're inverting my view, which makes it no longer my view. Flip it around and you'll have what my actual view is: "The trust we place in God ... involves a deep commitment characterized as dying to self." In other words, the self-sacrificing commitment is not due to trust; rather, the trust is defined as self-sacrificing commitment.

Trust in weather forecasts does not involve self-sacrificing commitment. Trust in God does (as per faith being defined).

Your definitions of these terms are very different from mine, but (again) so what?

A weather forecast is a much lesser degree than trust in Christ. It isn't a worldview in itself ...

Sir, that is exactly why it's not analogous.

Attitudes are irrelevant in a discussion of principles.

Perhaps. But this isn't a discussion of principles. I was asked what I would define faith as; ergo, this is about definitions and, where the fiducia part of the definition is concerned, attitudes certainly are relevant because it involves "giving up human-centered living in favour of God-centered living."

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

I don't know. That falls under your view, not mine, and I'm not answering for yours.

That was exactly my point. An objective claim without objective evidence is a null argument.

There is defining faith on the one hand, and arguing to defend the object of faith (God) on the other. Tackattack asked about the former, not the latter. You are raising objections against things nobody said in the first place. Very weird, in addition to irrelevant. If you want to attack weak arguments for God, then go find one.

It should serve as a reminder that although you feel strongly about it, a subjective set of claims cannot be objective without adequate evidence.

(emphasis mine)

Wtf? Um, no. A subjective set of claims cannot be objective by definition—that is, regardless of the evidence issue. As I said, whether a claim is objective or subjective is determined by the very nature of the claim itself, not by the presence or absence of relevant evidence. A subjective claim does not become objective by virtue of having sufficient evidence, nor does an objective claim become subjective by virtue of having insufficient evidence. Your statement was horrifically erroneous.

I prefer a more complete definition ...

First, I'm not terribly concerned about what you prefer. Second, the definition that Dawkins uses and I provided corresponds precisely to the one you claim to prefer, with one exception: it leaves off the pathological dimension. And it's left off for two reasons: (i) the issue is being argued philosophically, not medically, and (ii) pathology compounds the burden of proof, not lightens it. If you want to include pathology, go ahead, but my caution simply becomes even more salient: "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."

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.

So you assert. But without meeting your burden of proof, no one has any reason to accept your assertion. More importantly, by proclaiming bald assertions without any supporting evidence, you're guilty of the very thing you accuse theists of. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is exquisitely ironic and quite revealing.

And you can redefine the word 'delusion' until it finally works for you, but such a lame tactic is brutally apparent to any thinking person. From available references (dictionaries to philosophy texts), no definition of 'delusion' can be found to involve "a belief in something strongly without evidence for its existence"—and that's ultimately because it is widely recognized as an error in reasoning to infer that no evidence exists on the basis that none was presented.

I was glazing over the fact that just because one can believe a concept, that does not make the concept true. That's all.

I know. And since nobody suggested such a thing in the first place, that was very weird for you to do.

"Higher" is a value term I use to distinguish the people who don't make objective claims with subjective evidence.

I'm sorry, but where did anyone base an objective claim on subjective evidence? Nowhere.

Not being able to distinguish between confirmation bias, rationalization, and reasoned logic is another example of lower standards of evidence.

Agreed. But what has that to do with anything we're discussing? I mean, other than the violations of reasoned logic you've committed (such as dismembering my definition of faith into straw man caricatures and pretending they're still mine, inverting my statements and attacking them as if they're mine, redefining 'delusion' until it favours your position, thinking that evidence doesn't exist unless you're in possession of it, and so on).

If I've made straw men, I apologize.

Should I understand that to mean you'll repair them?

[tavarish]

Let's backtrack. It's obvious I misunderstood the original statement.

Let me try to make sense of it.

You have three requisites for faith:

Information
Intellectual assent
Trust in the concept

Correct?

Here are some questions so you don't call me out for making points no one asked.

Would you consider evidence of God to be self-evident?

Would you consider the existence of God to be objectively verifiable?

I'll follow up when you answer.

Thanks.

[Ryft]

Let's backtrack. It's obvious I misunderstood the original statement.

Your honesty and candor is noted, and rather appreciated. Thank you.

You have three requisites for faith: (1) information, (2) intellectual assent, and (3) trust in the concept. Correct?

I take issue with (3) and just for two reasons: (i) it does not convey the deep commitment I've been describing, (ii) which I distrust because of how you've been characterizing 'trust' so far in the discussion, compelling me to stress the deep commitment element. Maintain that element and you have my acquiescence.

Would you consider evidence of God to be self-evident?

Would you consider the existence of God to be objectively verifiable?

Neither question is relevant to the issue at hand (i.e., what I define faith as), so by answering them I would be derailing the issue. I leave it in your hands to show how they actually are relevant.

[tavarish]

[quote='Arcanus' pid='59984' dateline='1268607614']
Your honesty and candor is noted, and rather appreciated. Thank you.

No problem.

I take issue with (3) and just for two reasons: (i) it does not convey the deep commitment I've been describing, (ii) which I distrust because of how you've been characterizing 'trust' so far in the discussion, compelling me to stress the deep commitment element. Maintain that element and you have my acquiescence.

Alright, how about a deep, ineffable trust and commitment to the concept, which can include, but is not limited to lifestyle sacrifices and changes? It's a bit long, but does it get across what you're trying to illustrate?

Neither question is relevant to the issue at hand (i.e., what I define faith as), so by answering them I would be derailing the issue. I leave it in your hands to show how they actually are relevant.

Actually these are separate questions that I'm personally asking you. The first question was me trying to better understand your understanding of faith.


A quick aside:

I'll admit that I'm a bit on edge, as I'm used to rebutting arguments that are tired and monotonous. I realize that you're not trying to proselytize or guilt others into believing something inherently illogical. This would lead to my posts making points that aren't necessarily part of the argument. It's sort of a pre-emptive attack - I'm used to dealing with a hundred claims at a time. Straw men and red herrings aside, I try not to make fallacial arguments, but I'm not inerrant, and still learning how reasoned debate works.

I've read through your debate and understand that you choose your words very carefully, it's an eye-opener for me to analyze my own writing style and try not to make simple yet inexcusable mistakes.

I look forward to your replies.

[Ryft]

Alright, how about a deep, ineffable trust and commitment to the concept, which can include, but is not limited to lifestyle sacrifices and changes?

I am suspicious about your refusal to use the terms handed to you in my definition, why you're choosing to use your own (e.g., I'm eyeing your choice of the word "concept," which isn't found in my definition). However, for the sake of argument and just to find out where you're going with this next, I'll accept that definition so we can move forward.

I'll admit that I'm a bit on edge, as I'm used to rebutting arguments that are tired and monotonous. I realize that you're not trying to proselytize or guilt others into believing something inherently illogical. This would lead to my posts making points that aren't necessarily part of the argument. It's sort of a pre-emptive attack - I'm used to dealing with a hundred claims at a time. Straw men and red herrings aside, I try not to make fallacial arguments, but I'm not inerrant, and still learning how reasoned debate works.

I've read through your debate and understand that you choose your words very carefully, it's an eye-opener for me to analyze my own writing style and try not to make simple yet inexcusable mistakes.

Yeah, as some around here have noticed, I'm not your average Christian theist. So listen, thank you for this sincere honesty. It takes integrity to own up like you have, here. I deeply appreciate that, and have now completely readjusted my impression of you. I think our conversations could really open each other's eyes to some things. I look forward to less combative dialogue.

[tavarish]

I am suspicious about your refusal to use the terms handed to you in my definition, why you're choosing to use your own (e.g., I'm eyeing your choice of the word "concept," which isn't found in my definition). However, for the sake of argument and just to find out where you're going with this next, I'll accept that definition so we can move forward.

Alright, understood. I used the word "concept" so it isn't limited solely to God. I'm not going anywhere with this, really. My argument before was made based on a false assumption of what the argument was. Moreover, I don't really see a point to combat such a view - carrying on would be an exercise in futility and hindered progress. If I saw any inherent illogic in your assertion, I would call you out on it, but so far, it's pretty contingent with your perceptions of reality, albeit confusing (through no fault of your own, my own shortcomings are more to blame).

Yeah, as some around here have noticed, I'm not your average Christian theist. So listen, thank you for this sincere honesty. It takes integrity to own up like you have, here. I deeply appreciate that, and have now completely readjusted my impression of you. I think our conversations could really open each other's eyes to some things. I look forward to less combative dialogue.

Good shit.

[Ryft]

I used the word "concept" so it isn't limited solely to God.

Then a problem would arise there, since the definition of faith I provided is exactly "limited soley to God." To place that sort of faith in anything other than God waltzes into idolatry.

[tavarish]

I used the word "concept" so it isn't limited solely to God.

Then a problem would arise there, since the definition of faith I provided is exactly "limited soley to God." To place that sort of faith in anything other than God waltzes into idolatry.

Would you say that this trust is unparalleled? Or can it be applied to different entities?

[Ryft]

Would you say that this trust is unparalleled? Or can it be applied to different entities?

It can be. As I indicated, that becomes idolatry.