What is the difference between faith and gullibility?

[Angrboda]

Hmm. A person is said to be "gullible" if they are "overly" credulous, relative to some standard of what constitutes 'reasonable' credulity given some set of criteria. I think you could distinguish faith from gullibility on these grounds, depending on what you understand "faith" to mean. Let's say that r is the "proper" amount of credulity that X should ascribe to some proposition p, and let k be a "gullibility" constant such that X is gullible with respect to p <=> X ascribes p some credulity greater than r+k.

So, according to this hypothetical standard, X should ascribe p a credulity of r; and if X ascribes p a credulity greater than r+k, then X is gullible. What if X ascribes p a credulity in the interval (r, r+k)? Then X isn't gullible, but X is going "beyond" the evidence for p, so to speak; whether or not this constitutes "faith" depends on what you understand "faith" to mean.

I think your question is unanswerable until you define your terms more clearly.

Mein Gott! You ARE William Dembski!

[Anomalocaris]

Seems like 'faith' is just a positive way of describing 'gullibility'. Or put it another way believer are suckers.

No, Faith may overlap gullibility, but faith is not completely the same as gullibility.

For example, if a certain piece of information vital for definitive assessment of a situation is unavilable, and yet progress is desirable, some may get bogged down for the want of definitive support for an intermediate stage of the process. But others may may say "I have faith that this is so" and go on.

In this case "faith" is taken to mean emotional preparedness to gamble with a working assumption.

This is by no means the same as gullibility.

[Minimalist]

A person is said to be "gullible" if they are "overly" credulous, relative to some standard of what constitutes 'reasonable' credulity given some set of criteria.

Uh-huh.

[genkaus]

No, Faith may overlap gullibility, but faith is not completely the same as gullibility.

For example, if a certain piece of information vital for definitive assessment of a situation is unavilable, and yet progress is desirable, some may get bogged down for the want of definitive support for an intermediate stage of the process. But others may may say "I have faith that this is so" and go on.

In this case "faith" is taken to mean emotional preparedness to gamble with a working assumption.

This is by no means the same as gullibility.

I disagree. It's not gullibility, but it's not faith either. Even if there isn't definitive assessment of the situation, there is some sort of assessment on which the assumptions are based. In which case, the decision to go ahead with a course of action is based on facts - albeit incomplete ones - and is therefore rational. Further, the knowledge that a definitive assessment is unavailable allows one to have doubts regarding the course of action as well. You believe that it'll work based on the facts you know, but also realize that it may not work based on the facts you don't know.

On the other hand, if you did believe in it completely inspite of knowing that definitive assessment is unavailable and facts may come out later that'd prove you wrong, then you do have faith and are gullible.

[CliveStaples]

The constant k in this case is 0.

Reasonable credulity, by definition, is credulity based on reason - on evidence. Therefore, based on reason and evidence, X should ascribe p a credulity of r and no more than that. Adding any more credulity than reason permits makes X gullible. Thus, k is zero.

I don't find this very convincing. Suppose you lived in the Bronze Age, and someone proposed the existence of black holes. If you don't have the requisite scientific insight to be able to deduce the theoretical existence of black holes--along with all the machinery of modern theoretical physics--then any credence in the existence of black holes could not be based on reasoned deductions.

Nor would there be evidence available in the Bronze Age--"available" in sense of epistemically available, i.e. able to be detected by a Bronze Age person. The evidence might exist--say, some point in space from which not even light can escape--but no Bronze Age person would be able to acquire such evidence.

Is it really true, then, that believing in the existence of black holes in the Bronze Age requires "gullibility"? That strikes me as wrong. A gullible Bronze Age person might believe in the existence of black holes, but I don't see why a Bronze Age person who believes in the existence of black holes must be gullible.

[The Grand Nudger]

You explained precisely why this is the case in your own post.

[CliveStaples]

You explained precisely why this is the case in your own post.

I wouldn't call someone who had accurate beliefs about black holes "gullible" because of those beliefs. But then, I don't think there's ever a good reason not to believe something that's true. If it's true, it seems to me that you should believe it. I'd rather have true beliefs and be "gullible" under your definition than to lack true beliefs and be perfectly not-"gullible".

[genkaus]

I wouldn't call someone who had accurate beliefs about black holes "gullible" because of those beliefs.

Not because of their beliefs, but because they don't have the evidence to support it.

But then, I don't think there's ever a good reason not to believe something that's true. If it's true, it seems to me that you should believe it. I'd rather have true beliefs and be "gullible" under your definition than to lack true beliefs and be perfectly not-"gullible".

And how exactly do you propose to tell the difference? If you start believing things just because they might be true, then most of your beliefs would end up being false and you'd never know the difference. Holding a false belief on evidence is better than holding ten true ones on faith - because the former leaves you the means to correct it, while the latter destroys your capacity to tell the difference.

[Reasonable_Jeff]

Actually when Christianity was just starting out they had a reputation of being cannibals because of the line

John 6:56 (NLT) — 56 Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

---

Seems like 'faith' is just a positive way of describing 'gullibility'. Or put it another way believer are suckers.

Faith (as a Protestant Christian would use it) is very similar to trust. As you would have faith/trust that a chair will hold your weight when you sit in it, or as you would have faith/trust in an elevator not to fall, so you must have faith/trust in Jesus' atonement for your sin on the cross knowing that it really is finished, it is enough and salvation has been given to you.

Here is a text that would convey that meaning. In the text the concept of faith is "believe in."

John 5:24 (NLT) — 24 “I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.