EvF Wrote:As I tried to show in the OP - if you actually DO have VALID rational reasons TO believe something then that IOW WOULD count as evidence of the truth of it.
(May 23, 2009 at 10:55 am)Darwinian Wrote: No it wouldn't, it would just strengthen your faith that your assertion is correct based on previous experience.
IF the reasons ARE valid then that would mean they WOULD be correct so she must be telling the truth therefore they WOULD indeed be evidence of her trustworthiness (AT LEAST in THIS case), right?
Quote:It is still a rational stance to take as the only alternative is to have to personally validate every claim ever made to you.
I am being hypothetical here. IF the reasons ARE valid then they are rational (and you cannot possibly KNOW but IF they are) and it would IOW be evidence of her being truthful. IF the reasons AREN'T valid then they'd be irrational and they IOW would NOT be evidence of her being truthful. In the first case we have rationality and IOW evidence of her being truthful in the second case we have IRrationality and no evidence of her being truthful so IOW "faith".
Yes you cannot KNOW WHICH case it is. That's just speculation. But the point is in both cases - one is belief without evidence and irrational, the other is belief WITH evidence and rational.
Quote:The statement that I have faith in my daughter doing her homework is quite rational based on my previous experience with her.
Well 'having faith in' or 'trust' here is not the kind of faith I was talking about...because as you know I am talking of the definition of faith being BELIEF without evidence..
So whether or not you can 'know' that she is doing her homework or whether you 'think' or 'trust' that is rationally based is not concerned with what I am saying here...
What I AM saying is that there is one of two cases: 1. She IS doing her homework. 2. She ISN'T doing her homework.
IF she is doing her homework and your reasons ARE rational then your reasons for trusting her are VALID to that and hence IOW are EVIDENCE that she is doing it.
So that would be rational and the reasoning, because in that case valid - would IOW be evidence that she is doing her homework.
If she is NOT doing her homework then your reasons for trusting her must be INvalid and hence irrational and hence IOW they can't possibly remotely be evidence that she is doing it so hence you must be believing on "faith."
So that would be IRrational and the reasoning, because in that case INvalid - would IOW NOT be evidence that she is doing her homework so would also be Irrational.
Hence irrational faith - not rational faith.
Quote:You may say that my previous experience somehow counts as evidence but of course that would never stand up to scientific scrutiny and therefore cannot be counted as evidence. I must therefore rely on a belief that she is telling the truth, i.e. Faith.
Hypothetically speaking though. If she IS doing her homework and your reasoning and previous experience IS valid and reason to believe that she IS doing her homework, it's rational - and that IOW WOULD be evidence that she is (otherwise they wouldn't be valid reasons). So that would be rational and there would be evidence.
IF on the other hand she ISN'T doing her homework then your reasoning and previous experience ISN'T valid and reason to believe that she is doing her homework it's IRrational - and that IOW WOULDN'T be evidence that she is. So that would be IRational and faith.
Hence irrational faith. Not rational once again if it's faith.
Quote:However, if I were to state that I have faith that one of her friends had done her homework but have nothing to support my belief that that may be considered irrational.If you have nothing to support your belief then IOW you don't have any rational, valid reasons to believe your friend. So in other words you don't have evidence so it's faith and obviously also irrational.
Yes - it would be irrational if you had nothing to support your belief...but if you have nothing to support a belief IOW that means you don't have evidence. So that="Faith." So not having support for a belief is irrational as you said and also =Faith. By what you just said.
Quote:But rational faith is still not, in itself, an oxymoron.
I think it IS for reasons stated above. Because belief in something when there's no evidence for it whatsoever= irrational. And that is what faith is - so that's why rational faith is an oxymoron.
EvF
