(January 10, 2019 at 4:13 pm)unfogged Wrote:(January 10, 2019 at 10:18 am)tackattack Wrote: If knowledge is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association or the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning (standard definitions from MW) then knowledge is pretty easy to obtain.
Reasoning is only valid when fed true premises; faith is believing something that you can not reason your way to.
Quote:Neither knowledge or faith require evidence in their definitions.
Knowledge, in any meaningful use of the term, must be based on evidence.
Quote:People however, demand proofs and evidentiary standards to include a view into their own beliefs. That could be difficult to accept for those that don't believe there is a spiritual world.
Evidence, not proofs, but that's no better than saying it would be hard to believe in oompa-loompas if you don't believe there is a Willy Wonka. You can't base "knowledge" on something that you can't show actually exists. You can only get as far as belief with faith.
Quote:It may not be reasonable from your perspective, or provable to you, but that doesn't make it any less real to me or true objectively. Faith requires reasoning. The reasoning could be faulty, but doesn't have to be.
The reasoning can be completely valid but unless it is based on demonstrably true premises there can be no justifiable conclusion. Faith can lead you to a true conclusion but you have no way to evaluate that.
Quote:Faith doesn't require evidence.
Which makes it a failed epistemology since it can't justify any conclusion it reaches.
Quote:As to your earlier point regarding what faith leads to, it does lead to expectation. Faith breeds hope. You and I both have Faith that there will be a tomorrow to wake up to our wives.
I have confidence based on decades of experience in that situation. Using faith as a synonym for trust or confidence while also using it to justify believe in supernatural agents is an equivocation fallacy. They are not at all the same thing.
Quote:Justified faith leads to reliance, and reliance to trust, trust to security in your knowledge that tomorrow is another day. That is reasoned knowledge from faith. We can discuss all day long how and why tomorrow will most likely happen in a materialistic evidentiary way. We can even apply neuroscience and sociology to whether it will include our wives.
There is no such thing as justified faith.
Quote:However, we nominally operate on this intuitively not scientifically, which is faith.
That is very disingenuous. We do operate intuitively but some intuition is based on experience and demonstrable facts and the conclusions can be justified if you take the time to review them consciously. Other times, as in the belief in the supernatural, it can feel compelling but when you examine it there is no substance there. If I find that I have believed something based on intuition without being able to rationally justify it then I stop believing.
You seem to have a fair amount of faith in your explanations. Why do you assume them to be correct?
