Adrian and I disagree on faith.

[Welsh cake]

I completely agree and in discussion here on AF I have found no reason to think that Leo has a different opinion on this.

Yes, but for the sake of faith it is not okay to dismiss those few answers we do have.

Leo should speak for himself but I think you got stuck on a particular interpretation of the word 'faith' and that there really is no issue at hand.

Now I didn't notice 'faith' being used out of its typical 'Asserting the truth onto X', 'Give us hope for the future' context, or given another definition for the sake of the argument, but if you feel that Leo was playing devil's advocate with the term the entire time, then by all means show me where I got the misinterpretation from.

In order to move forward we do sometimes need to take some things as faith and if and when our understanding of a given subject increases we might find a better way of explaining these things. That is the nature of the game. We couldn't explain lightening properly, and when we got a better understanding of electricity, the hypothesis that lightening is a very powerful electrical discharge was formed and later on through experimentation found to be accurate.

These are intuitions you are speaking of, not faith-based assumptions.

Show me anywhere in this thread where I did anything like that?

You elaborated on faith for quite a bit Leo, or maybe I misunderstood the point you were making?

There is no valid reason to assume that the Earth will keep rotating so you will see the Sun again. Is is a matter of faith. No matter how many good reasons you have of believing that you are correct does not make it any less of an assumption. Just because we know the Earth has always done it, is not a guarantee that it will continue to rotate.

Is the Earth likely to continue? Yes. Is it certain to continue? No. Do we therefore assume that the Earth stops rotating? No. We assume that it does continue, we have to accept on faith that it doesn't stop.

As for having a job next month, that is so dependent on so many factors that you have no choice but to accept on faith that you will still have a job next month and work hard to balance the odds in your favour. There is no basis outside faith to assume so.

Neither have I. So what is your problem?

I have no problem I'm just disagreeing with your original statement for good reason.

Now that is a Red Herring. I've never argued that, not even implied that.

Would you like me to include a *Welsh cake was responding to Purple Rabbit* disclaimer in your post? Just say the word buddy and I'm there.

I don't either because that is not how I defined faith, if you ever bothered to look.

To be honest, I don't actually mind how you defined "faith", as tangible as it was, it was how you applied the term as not only practical but essential for unforeseeable future events that actually bothered me to some extend. I object to that argument because faith is not reliable, therefore hardly practical.

Here you're clearly stating a comparitive definition of faith as blind hope.

I made no such conjunction. However, having faith in the most unlikely of all possible outcomes is technically the same as having blind hope.

So then how do we have a "better understaning" of mental illnessses or criminal tendencies?

Fixed. To effectively answer that then you must ask to what degree must guilt be proven? Beyond a reasonable doubt, of course. It's the highest level or standard of proof required in a legal action to discharge the burden of proof, that is, to convince the court that any given proposition is true.

Why is having a basis in reality the only way to constructively contribute to the betterment of society?

Because a cooperative society that cannot distinguish fact from fiction, true from false, opens itself to every conceivable form of abuse there is, internal and external. Our modern-day civilization wouldn't last long under that mentality.

And what's your definition of reality?

As much as I enjoy your asyndetic thinking, don't go all 'metaphysical objectivism' on me today. Reality, as most people like to define it, is the state of things that are real, what actually exists.

Here's is another wild definition of faith. What do you really define as faith? Ok you guys ahave had some seriously good stuff on here but could each of you do a short recap of things so far? Maybe we can get definitons straight.

Faith's broad definition is the confident belief in future events or outcomes and in the context of belief involves a concept that does not rest upon on logic or evidence. Because of this you can substitute 'trust' in place of 'faith' as well.

When dealing with something as complex as reality itself I rationally try not to put trust in anything.