From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:48 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: On Perception of Reality Jim Humphries wrote: > Lets consider this latest variant then. [ the original was > faith "involves positing an authority the statements of which > are considered exempt from doubt".]. We now have > faith " involves affirming the existence of an authority the > statements of which are considered exempt from doubt. It's not a "variant", since (as I demonstrated) "affirm the existence of" is a definition of 'posit'. > a theist might have faith that > the Bible is the word of God, but doubt periodically that > the statements contained therein are indeed such ( perhaps > they were just made up by the Gospel writers he thinks) Bzzzt. This theist would still believe that "the word of God" is "an authority the statements of which are considered exempt from doubt". It's irrelevant that the theist might doubt that the Bible accurately represents the word of God; he still holds that no words should be doubted if they are indeed the words of God. > Many theists periodically doubt the truth of the Bible. Doubting the authenticity of revelation is not the same thing as considering authentic revelation to be subject to doubt. > > 2. Would you agree that it is inadvisable to hold any belief > > based on revelation and exempt from doubt? > > > I don't know what you mean by 'inadvisable'. In what > sense? In precisely the same sense that I told you on Mar 16 in this very thread: In the common-usage sense of not to be advised. In the future, please assume common-usage dictionary definitions for any term whose definition is not indicated by the context. Is this question so devastating to your position that you must be so transparently evasive? > > you can consider my definition of 'faith' > > to be "belief in an authority whose revealed statements > > are considered exempt from doubt". > > > Not the definition that you presented earlier How is this substantively different from "affirming the existence of an authority the statements of which are considered exempt from doubt"? > for example a theist may believe that > the Bible is a source of religious authority but consider that > many of the statements ( including those which are purportedly > revealed) contained therein are dubious. Bzzzt. "Purportedly" makes your example irrelevant. Doubting the authenticity of revelation is not the same thing as considering authentic revelation to be subject to doubt. > Or he may periodically doubt the truth of the doctrines > contained there. If he "periodically" considers no authentic revelation to be exempt from doubt, then he "periodically" lacks faith. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net