My Fellow Atheist

[tavarish]

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.