Article 34056 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 23 Sep 1992 05:30:53 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <1992Sep21.203527.4066@oclc.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44594 alt.atheism:34056 In article <1992Sep21.203527.4066@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes: >pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes: >: something that might be of value, >: useful, something that helps you see the world, or make sense of the >: world, for example, something that makes sense of why there is good and >: bad or life and death. Paul, self-delusion may be "of value" or "useful" to some people, but not to me. And I certainly don't see how a delusion could possibly "make sense" of anything. >: Or maybe something even simpler, like your >: computer or your car? Is there nothing that you have faith in, by my >: definition or any other definition that you care to propose. Your definition seems to be: "holding a proposition to be true without personally verifying it". This is a very uninteresting definition of faith, because no statement (other than tautologies and the Cartesian "ergo sum") can be verified with apodictic certitude. >Faith is believing that a theory is the best explaination for the >available evidence, but always questioning its validity and not >following it blindly. No. Faith is holding a proposition to be beyond doubt because it issues from some authority. Religion requires faith. Science requires the absence of faith. -- Brian Holtz Article 34123 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 23 Sep 1992 23:37:37 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <1992Sep21.203527.4066@oclc.org> <9226719.146@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44668 alt.atheism:34123 In article <9226719.146@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> austin@ee.mu.OZ.AU (timothy james austin) writes: >>Faith is holding a proposition to be beyond doubt because it >>issues from some authority. Religion requires faith. Science >>requires the absence of faith. > >Saying that science requires *no* faith seems to me to be an example >of faith in science itself and the "scientific method". Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by "science requires the absence of faith". Consider the following proposition: Faith -- the holding of a proposition to be beyond doubt because it issues from some authority -- is bad. Call it P, and observe: 1. Scientists do *not* hold P to be beyond doubt. 2. The reason that scientists accept P as (even provisionally) true is *not* because P issues from some authority. While religion requires faith, science doesn't. I would define science as a habit or practice that includes never accepting a proposition to be beyond doubt because it issues from some authority. So defined, science requires the absence of faith. A common mistake here is to think that carrying out an action or practice H (e.g., "never accepting...") is the same thing as affirming the proposition "the action or practice H is a good thing". It's not. >Being certain that science >is right requires faith in a number of things Who is saying that she is "certain that science is right"? -- Brian Holtz Article 34127 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 24 Sep 1992 01:18:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 51 Message-ID: References: <1992Sep23.054941.21988@raven.alaska.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord In article <1992Sep23.054941.21988@raven.alaska.edu> fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage]) writes: >> (Jeff Young's) definition seems to be: "holding a proposition to be >> true without personally verifying it". This is a very >> uninteresting definition [...] >> >> Faith is holding a proposition to be beyond doubt because it >> issues from some authority. Religion requires faith. Science >> requires the absence of faith. > > (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof This is essentially Jeff's definition. > (2): complete trust This is essentially my definition, as long as 1) we narrow the scope to epistemology (so we don't talk about "faith" in your spouse or favorite sports team), and 2) we take the use of "trust" (instead of "certainty") to imply that what is being "trusted" is an issuer of propositions, as opposed to the propositions themselves. >I disagree that science requires a lack of "faith". See the article I just posted. >In any deductive system, and even in any scientific system, there >must be faith in the methods and the axioms. There must be *belief*, but there needn't be faith. >I think a better definition of "faith" would be the belief in >something which, although you cannot necessarily prove it, you know >is right. It's silly to equate faith with any knowledge that falls short of apodictic certainty. When people say "you gotta have faith", they're talking about something a lot more narrow than the class of all propositions that aren't quite as certain as "triangles have 3 sides". That is, I can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow, but it's laughable to say that my belief that it will is an instance of "faith". >Religion and science are not exclusive Religion is unscientific. By definition. -- Brian Holtz Article 34128 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 24 Sep 1992 01:33:13 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <1992Sep21.203527.4066@oclc.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44670 alt.atheism:34128 In article pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes: >>Paul, self-delusion may be "of value" or "useful" to some people, but >>not to me. And I certainly don't see how a delusion could possibly >>"make sense" of anything. > >Yes, I see. You do not suffer from any such self-delusions, More precisely, I do not ever choose to believe something (that is insufficiently evidenced) simply because believing it would be "of value" or "useful". >everything you see is the ONE TRUE WAY. I said no such thing. Why do you choose to delude yourself that I did? ;-) Just because I am not self-deluded does not mean that I am not deluded. >Have you ever considered that everything that you assume to be real >from your perspective may in fact be only self-delusion? Of course. But are you saying that, because it's not impossible for everything I believe to in fact be wrong, I should therefore believe in whatever is "of value" or is "useful"? >>Your definition seems to be: "holding a proposition to be true without >>personally verifying it". > >Yes, we all have faith in something only some don't realize it. I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow. Others believe in an omnipresent supernatural judge. Are you saying these are the same sort of belief? >Faith is holding a proposition to be beyond doubt because it >>issues from some authority. Religion requires faith. Science >>requires the absence of faith. > >That is BLIND faith. There is a big difference. I'll not quibble over the name. If "holding a proposition to be beyond doubt because it issues from some authority" is "blind faith", then: Religion requires blind faith. Science requires the absence of blind faith. -- Brian Holtz Article 34174 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 24 Sep 1992 21:32:35 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 96 Message-ID: References: <9226719.146@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44729 alt.atheism:34174 In article pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes: >> Faith -- the holding of a proposition to be beyond doubt because it >> issues from some authority -- is bad. > >That is BLIND FAITH. Whatever you choose to call it, it's still something that religion requires, and science excludes. >And what is this bad? For our purposes, take "X is bad" to mean "I don't like X, it's distasteful, I think it's a natural distaste, a lot of people share it, and I think you should, too." >>Call it P, and observe: > >Call it MATH, and observe: "MATH" is not a proposition. "MATH" does not have a truth-value. >>1. Scientists do *not* hold P to be beyond doubt. > >[Many] Scientists do hold MATH to be beyond doubt. I defy you to cite a single proposition (from mathematics or elsewhere) that "many scientists" hold to be beyond doubt because it issues from some authority. (Tautologies don't count.) >The reason that [many] scientists accept MATH as (even provisionally) TRUE is >*because* MATH issues from some [higher] authority [MATHematicians] "MATH" is not a proposition. "MATH" does not have a truth-value. >>While religion requires faith, science doesn't. > >Science REQUIRES faith in science, scientific method, reductionism, binary >logic and MATH. That's faith, not BLIND FAITH! Big difference! Then by your definitions, my statement becomes While religion requires blind faith, science doesn't. But I don't think your definition reflects common usage. Who would really say, "Scientists have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow"? >>I would define >>science as a habit or practice that includes never accepting a >>proposition to be beyond doubt because it issues from some authority. > >If a scientist doubts everything, "Doubt" has two senses: "to not consider to be certain", and "to consider to be improbable". I explicitly used the former sense. You're deliberately (and transparently) evoking the latter sense. >nothing can ever be accomplished. Nonsense. I do not hold it to be beyond doubt that the sun will come up tomorrow, but that doesn't keep me from setting my alarm clock and planning to go to work. >A scientist >must have faith that some things (like math) are correct, faith that >mathematicians know what they are doing (higher authority). By *your* definition of faith (holding a proposition to be true without personally proving it), this statement is true. By the proper definition of faith (what you call "blind faith"), this statement is false. >>Who is saying that she is "certain that science is right"? > >Any "productive" scientist must assume that MOST of current science is correct. There is a difference between being "certain that science is right" and choosing not to personally verify the myriad aspects of current science that are verifiably correct. >Only a fool, or conversely a genius, would reject calculus as something >from authority and therefore not useful or worthy of faith. I would say Only a fool, or conversely a genius, would reject calculus as something from authority and therefore not useful or worthy of being held as true without personal verification. I would also say Only a credulous nitwit would accept calculus as something from authority and therefore to be held beyond doubt. -- Brian Holtz Article 34176 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 24 Sep 1992 22:49:26 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 83 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44732 alt.atheism:34176 In article pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes: >>More precisely, I do not ever choose to believe something (that is >>insufficiently evidenced) simply because believing it would be "of >>value" or "useful". > >Then why do you believe anything? Because I find that believing in things that *are* sufficiently evidenced is in fact "of value" and "useful". >>Just because I am not self-deluded does not mean that I am >>not deluded. > >If you are not self-deLUDEd, who is deluding you? For one thing, some god could conceivably exist and could have constructed this universe expressly to make me believe that she doesn't exist. >>But are you saying that, because it's not impossible for >>everything I believe to in fact be wrong, I should therefore believe >>in whatever is "of value" or is "useful"? > >How do YOU judge what to believe in? I believe in that which is sufficiently evidenced. >>I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow. Others believe in an >>omnipresent supernatural judge. Are you saying these are the same >>sort of belief? > >No, there is a spectrum of usefulness and a spectrum of possibility of truth >or falsehood. Right, and they are orthogonal. I pick all my beliefs based on the second spectrum, not the first. In other words, I follow these two practices: 1. Choose beliefs by evidence. 2. Choose practices by utility. >It is quite likely that the sun will come up tommorow And that's all I require in order to believe it. >and that >is an extremely useful thing to have faith in, otherwise we all die. Yes, this proposition does happen to be an extremely useful thing to believe in, but that's mainly because it's extremely useful to follow the practice of believing in things that are quite likely. >The belief in an omnipresent supernatural judge? That is more >mythical rather than true or false, Are you trying to exempt propositions about deities from analysis of likelihood? I find the existence of an omnipresent supernatural judge to be quite unlikely. And I find that believing in things that are quite unlikely to be extremely un-useful. >but there must be some value to those who chose to >believe, otherwise, why would they believe? I don't deny that many people derive value from deluding themselves. However, the utility of not deluding myself outweighs the utility of self-delusion. >>I'll not quibble over the name. If "holding a proposition to be >>beyond doubt because it issues from some authority" is "blind faith", >>then: >>Religion requires blind faith. > >Many do. What religion does not involve holding a proposition to be beyond doubt because it issues from some authority? Certainly all revelation-based religions do. But yes, I suppose there are some Eastern religions that eschew faith for mere superstition and irrationality. -- Brian Holtz Article 34195 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 25 Sep 1992 02:38:58 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <1992Sep22.184331.19817@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992Sep23.173433.7698@oclc.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44751 alt.atheism:34195 In article exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes: >We have faith in causes or the persons who lead them, or in the >probable outcome of causes, etc. In this respect, faith is not an >exclusively or purely religious phenomenon Yes, "faith" has a sense which means loyalty or dedication. But faith also has a sense which means unquestioning belief. It is the latter sense that I'm talking about. -- Brian Holtz Article 34198 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 25 Sep 1992 02:54:08 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <1992Sep24.132612.25018@oclc.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44753 alt.atheism:34198 In article <1992Sep24.132612.25018@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes: >: Faith is holding a proposition to be beyond doubt because it >: issues from some authority. > >[...] I suspect that Christians would disagree with your definition >as well. Why should they? Do they not hold the Gospels' propositions to be beyond doubt because they are contained in the Gospels? >As for science requiring an absense of faith, what is your basis >for trusting science? I don't. Next question. ;-) In other words, science says "no non-tautological proposition is beyond doubt, including this one". -- Brian Holtz Article 34203 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 25 Sep 1992 03:29:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <1992Sep21.203527.4066@oclc.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44757 alt.atheism:34203 In article svanegmo@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Stephen Van Egmond) writes: >To take an example, we must have faith in Euclid's proposal that >parallel lines, extended to infinity, will never meet. In Euclidean space, parallel lines in the same plane never meet, *by definition*. (You realize, of course, that Euclid's fifth postulate is no longer taken to be an empirical hypothesis about the space we inhabit.) >If we disprove this idea, which we can't, then >all of math as we know it will collapse befor us. What do you mean "disprove"? The space we live in was shown as early as 1917 to be non-Euclidean. Nonetheless, "math as we know it" remains useful. >Many consider the fact that all of math today, built on even more of Euclid's >(unprovable) 'axioms', is consistent with the reality it imitates, is proof >enough of Euclid's ideas. An axiom is *by definition* unprovable. Axioms aren't true are false; they are useful or useless. Even so, I know of no axiom the utility of which mathematicians hold to be beyond doubt solely on the basis of some authority. -- Brian Holtz Article 34362 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 26 Sep 1992 20:43:55 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 146 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44967 alt.atheism:34362 In article pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes: >>For our purposes, take "X is bad" to mean "I don't like X, it's >>distasteful, I think it's a natural distaste, a lot of people share >>it, and I think you should, too." > >Hmm, so I should be like you and everyone else? Did I say you should? No. You asked what "bad" meant. I said that "X is bad" can be taken to mean that the speaker has a distaste that she believes is or should be shared. That Bob believes his taste T is or should be shared does not mean that Bob beleives all of his tastes is or should be shared. That Bob believes his taste T is or should be shared does not mean Bob believes there exists a logical proof that T is or should be shared. >>"MATH" is not a proposition. "MATH" does not have a truth-value. > >It doesn't? Are you saying that MATH is false? (not valid) Things that don't have a truth-value cannot be "false". Is Literature "false"? Is Philosophy "false"? >>I defy you to cite a single proposition (from mathematics or >>elsewhere) that "many scientists" hold to be beyond doubt because it >>issues from some authority. (Tautologies don't count.) > >1 + 1 = 2 Bzzt. Tautology. The truth of this statement can be derived directly from the definitions of "1", "+", "=", and "2". Try again. >Or, do you have blind faith that this is correct? In other words, you KNOW it >to be TRUE beyond ANY doubt. Get your definitions straight. Faith (what you call blind faith) is not just about certitude; it's about unquestioning certitude based on authority. The truth of "1 + 1 = 2" has nothing to do with authority. >You see, faith means some doubt, blind faith >means absolutely NO doubt. Yes, I'm quite aware that, by your idiosyncratic definitions, "faith" means nothing more than "less-that-certain belief". Are you a native speaker of English? >>"MATH" is not a proposition. "MATH" does not have a truth-value. > >Why not? A proposition is a statement about terms. What statement does "MATH" make? >I accept it as true because I have faith that mathematicians know >more about Math than I. You mean, you have a LESS-THAN-CERTAIN BELIEF that mathematicians know more about Math than you. But you would not deny, would you, that nothing in mathematics depends ultimately on authority or revelation. >>But I don't think your definition reflects common usage. Who would >>really say, "Scientists have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow"? > >Somebody better! Thanks for not answering my question about common usage of the word "faith"... >>I do not hold it to be beyond doubt that the sun will come >>up tomorrow, but that doesn't keep me from setting my alarm clock and >>planning to go to work. > >Then why do you? Because I am persuaded by THE EVIDENCE that the sun will come up tomorrow. >>By *your* definition of faith (holding a proposition to be true >>without personally proving it), this statement is true. By the proper >>definition of faith (what you call "blind faith") [...] > >Proper? Are you speaking from authority? Of course not. Lexicography is an empirical science. >>There is a difference between being "certain that science is right" >>and choosing not to personally verify the myriad aspects of current >>science that are verifiably correct. > >Verifiably correct? By whom, people of authority? No, by anyone who cares to carry out the verification. I'll type this slowly, so you can understand: in science, there is no book or person such that propositions emanating therefrom are taken to be beyond doubt. This is not the case for revelation-based religions. >> Only a fool, or conversely a genius, would reject calculus as >> something from authority and therefore not useful or worthy of >> being held as true without personal verification. > >Right, in other words, More precisely, in YOUR words. In case it hasn't soaked through your skull yet, what's under dispute here is the proper definition of the term "faith". >you have faith that people of greater authority, >mathematicians, have done this verification for you. False. I do not hold it to be beyond doubt that this verification has been done. >> Only a credulous nitwit would accept calculus as >> something from authority and therefore to be held beyond doubt. > >Then perhaps I am a credulous nitwit, I'm only an engineer after all. I have >faith [...] But not blind faith, >I know when to question the mathematical answers. Then you are NOT a credulous nitwit, because by this admission you DO NOT "accept calculus as something from authority and therefore to be held BEYOND DOUBT" [emphasis added]. However, feel free to label yourself a nitwit for not being able to figure out whether or not you hold the pronouncements of mathematicians to be "beyond doubt". >But for me, calculus is >something I take from authority as being probably correct, Good. Now, compare the meaning of "probably correct" with that of "beyond doubt". >I have to, I don't have the time to do it myself, I'm an >engineer, not a mathematician. But do you not see the difference between a) not having the time to re-derive (e.g.) calculus, and b) not having the epistemological standing to doubt the truthfulness of the pronunciations of (e.g.) Jesus? -- Brian Holtz Article 34365 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 26 Sep 1992 22:05:09 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 167 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44976 alt.atheism:34365 In article pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes: >>Because I find that believing in things that *are* sufficiently >>evidenced is in fact "of value" and "useful". > >Ah, and who is the judge of "sufficiently evidenced"? If by "judge" you mean "one who evaluates", the answer is: everyone. If by "judge" you mean "one whose pronouncements are dispositive", the answer is: no one. >And do you have faith >in the things you judge to be "sufficiently evidenced"? By definition, if a proposition is sufficiently evidenced, it can be held to be probably true without any faith whatsoever. >>For one thing, some god could conceivably exist and could have >>constructed this universe expressly to make me believe that she >>doesn't exist. > >Do you have faith in this belief? Of course not. There is no authority whose pronouncements I hold to be beyond doubt, so I have do not have faith in this proposition or any other. >>I believe in that which is sufficiently evidenced. > >And how do you determine something to be sufficiently evidenced? Scientifically. Philosophically. Very carefully. >What authority do you trust? There is no authority whose pronouncements I hold to be beyond doubt. >Do you believe only in that which can be scientifically >proven to be true? I believe empirical propositions when they are sufficiently evidenced. I believe philosophical propositions when they are validly derived from axioms I find useful. I believe esthetic propositions based on my tastes. Etc. >>1. Choose beliefs by evidence. > >What kind of evidence? Scientific? Visual? Authority? There are all kinds of evidence, including the pronouncements of authority. But I never hold the pronouncements of any authority to be beyond doubt. >>2. Choose practices by utility. > >Don't we all do this? Even Christians do this don't they? Perhaps. My point is that Christians do *not* follow practice #1. >>>It is quite likely that the sun will come up tommorow > >>And that's all I require in order to believe it. > >Then you have faith, right? No. There is no authority whose pronouncements I hold to be beyond doubt. >Faith that what has happened before will happen >again and faith that the scientific model of the solar system is correct. No. There is no authority whose pronouncement of these two propositions I would take as placing them beyond doubt. >>it's extremely useful to follow >>the practice of believing in things that are quite likely. > >Yes, if you want to be always proved correct in your beliefs. You clearly do not understand what "faith" means. Apparently, you also do not understand the difference between "quite likely" and "proved correct". >is it safe to try some other more daring and risky beliefs? You'll have to evaluate risks for yourself. Personally, I find it far too risky to believe in propositions that are insufficiently evidenced. >>Are you trying to exempt propositions about deities from analysis of >>likelihood? > >For me? Yes. I don't care if such propositions are found to be >scientifically true or false. I asked you about "likelihood", not about "scientific truth". If you believe in a deity, then you either believe a diety is likely to exist, or you exempt propositions about deities from analysis of likelihood. Which is it? >I look for meaning in the metaphors. Given your patent unwillingness/inability to spare very much meaning for placement into the things you write, can I take it that you don't *find* very much meaning in the places that you're currently "look[ing]"? >Even if it was likely, why would this kind of belief be useful? Belief in that which is likely is always useful. (Or do you wish to dispute this?) >>the utility of not deluding myself >>outweighs the utility of self-delusion. > >I think we all derive value by deluding ourselves. Think about it. I have. My conclusion is that you are speaking for a smaller group than you realize. >>What religion does not involve holding a proposition to be >>beyond doubt because it issues from some authority? > >Moderate Christians Ah, so moderate Christians don't believe that Jesus was God? >>Certainly all revelation-based religions do. > >No, a prophet can reveal and yet not require blind faith. A prophet may or may not "require" blind faith, but blind faith is BY DEFINITION necessary to believe beyond doubt in the truth of his revelation. >A good teacher does >not require blind faith. A good teacher would say, "Follow me and be free". No, a good teacher would say "Here is what I have found out. Don't believe it simply because it's coming from me. And here is how to repeat the process by which I found it out." >Get it? Learn from dogma, but please do not be dogmatic. I learn plenty by observing the faithful, but I do not have faith, thank you. >>I suppose there are some Eastern religions that eschew faith for >>mere superstition and irrationality. > >No, for the purpose of seeing that which can not be seen. Right. Irrationality. >Transcendence beyond >the world of strict truth and falsehood. Who said anything about "strict truth and falsehood"? One needn't be a mysticist to believe in provisional truths. >The world of myth, metaphor, poetry. I've studied and practiced all three, without ever having to adopt superstition or orphan rationality. -- Brian Holtz Article 34366 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 26 Sep 1992 22:23:07 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <1992Sep21.203527.4066@oclc.org> <1992Sep25.145121.10957@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44979 alt.atheism:34366 In article <1992Sep25.145121.10957@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> gs008b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ( gregory thomas stevens) writes: >I have faith that other people actually >do have emotions. This is faith because I have no actual logical or >evidential reason to believe it, Sure you do. You have first-hand experience of your own emotions. You have tons of circumstantial evidence about other people that can best be explained by the idea that they have emotions. Et cetera. >yet still hold it to be true *How* true? You do not hold it to be beyond doubt, do you? >Everyone must have faith in something. Once we grant our own complete >subjectivity, we grant that we must assume a universal [...] Assume *provisionally*, right? That's not faith. >Some people have faith in scientific method. If anyone holds the validity of the scientific method to be completely beyond doubt, then he is in fact violating the scientific method! >we all know how annoying it is to be around someone who always says, >"Well how do you _know_?" when you're trying to have a useful conversation. Yes, it's annoying. So you wind up educating them about what's happened in epistemology since Descartes and Hume. No big deal. >HOwever, consider learning something. You assume and have faith in a lot >of things Assuming and having faith are not the same thing. Faith is not merely the belief in something that is less than certain. -- Brian Holtz Article 34371 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 27 Sep 1992 02:50:12 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <1992Sep26.165724.18811@oclc.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:44988 alt.atheism:34371 In article <1992Sep26.165724.18811@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes: >: >: Faith is holding a proposition to be beyond doubt because it >: >: issues from some authority. >: > >: Do they not hold the Gospels' propositions to be >: beyond doubt because they are contained in the Gospels? > >First, many Christians I have talked to admit the possibliity >that they may be wrong. Second, authority isn't the sole basis >for their beliefs. And yet they still believe in the divinity of Christ? Given the paucity of evidence outside the Gospels, I should think that doubt in the Gospels themselves would bring their whole belief-system crashing down. Also, how do such people explain the lack of a peer-reviewed discipline -- that is, a science -- based on their evidence? For every other category of empirical evidence, people who study the field reach a remarkable degree of agreement on how to explain the evidence. Do they think there is a conspiracy of obstinance with respect to the field of theology? How do they say they differ from, say, flat-earthers? >: In other words, science says "no non-tautological proposition is >: beyond doubt, including this one". > >Is this all there is to science? No. But it is what makes science different from revelation-based religion. -- Brian Holtz Article 34427 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 28 Sep 1992 04:29:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:45047 alt.atheism:34427 In article mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: >what's the difference between "sufficiently evidenced" and "of value / >useful"? Utility is far more value-laden a concept than corroboration. >Can you give us an example of something which is useful to believe although >there's no evidence? An afterlife can be useful to believe in for people who dislike the idea of non-existence. >Or something for which there is tons of evidence but >which is entirely useless to believe? Some people would derive no use from believing in, say, quantum physics. -- Brian Holtz Article 34430 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 28 Sep 1992 05:09:58 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: <1992Sep26.194221.23321@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:45052 alt.atheism:34430 In article pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes: >Math is of course >symbolic, it symbolizes something that is transcendent of writing. No; Plato was wrong. However, math has *utility* that is transcendent of the symbol systems which it defines. >What is the meaning of 1 + 1 = 2 ? Is it just true or false, or is it >metaphoric? It can be used as a metaphor of sorts, but then its truth/falsehood/ accuracy depends greatly on the circumstances of a given use. >How about a = 3.624 ? Does that mean a is 3.624? It means that, within a certain scope, "a" and "3.624" are interchangeable. >1+1=2 was not defined true. The truth of "1+1=2" can be derived solely from the definitions of "1", "+", "=", and "2". >How do you cope with this possibility of failure? By realizing that the possibility of failure increases when one refuses to recognize it. >Do you ignore the possibility of failure or do you accept it as part of >that which you perceive as reality? The latter. >Why do you go on in the face of possible defeat? Because going on is better than not going on. >Do you have faith in the unknown? Faith in yourself? >Faith that you will do the right thing? Even though death takes lives >beyond number everyday, do you still have faith in life? In your life? I do not have faith. >>>>the proper definition of faith (what you call "blind faith") [...] > >Widely used? Is that not authority? No. It's convention. If you want to be understood, you use the linguistic conventions that your audience understands. >The faithful take the word of authority and use it as they see fit, >but always question the validity. Then they are, by definition, faithless. >When the student is ready, the teacher appears. If the teacher says, >"Follow me and be free", do you have faith or blind faith? Neither. I say to the teacher "tell me where you're going, and give me some evidence that there will be freedom there". -- Brian Holtz Article 34462 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:01:55 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 279 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:45118 alt.atheism:34462 In article pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes: >>>>For our purposes, take "X is bad" to mean "I don't like X, it's >>>>distasteful, I think it's a natural distaste, a lot of people share >>>>it, and I think you should, too." > >But, now let me see if I get this straight, if you say that X is bad, >that is that [repeats what I said]. Do I interpret you >correctly here? In the sense that you've typed back what I wrote, yes. >When I say that X is bad, I mean that X is bad from >my perspective. When I want to mean that, I say "X is bad from my perspective". >I don't expect you to share my value judgement, I sometimes expect (e.g., anticipate) YOU to share MY value judgement, e.g. about self-dismemberment, or self-delusion. Feel free to correct my expectations. >>Faith (what you call blind faith) is >>not just about certitude; it's about unquestioning certitude based on >>authority. The truth of "1 + 1 = 2" has nothing to do with authority. > >I see, then blind faith is your answer. You see nothing. Your assertion is flatly contradicted by the excerpted material. You are blind. >>Yes, I'm quite aware that, by your idiosyncratic definitions, "faith" >>means nothing more than "less-that-certain belief". Are you a native >>speaker of English? > >A bit condescending, don't you think? Would a bit of decorum be too much >to ask for? "Decorum" includes not deliberately missing the point. >>You mean, you have a LESS-THAN-CERTAIN BELIEF that mathematicians know >>more about Math than you. > >Yes. > >>But you would not deny, would you, that >>nothing in mathematics depends ultimately on authority or revelation. > >To me, mathematics depends ultimately on the authority of >mathematicians and what they chose to reveal to me. No. If it depended "ultimately", then your belief would be not be less than certain. >Faith means some doubt of truth, blind faith means absolutely no >doubt of truth. I think you have blind faith that math is true. Make up your mind. Does "blind faith" mean any apodictic certainty, or does it mean apodictic certainty based on authority? At any rate, my apodictic certainty that 1+1=2 is uninteresting, because that truth is ultimately tautological. >Common usage of the word faith? How is such a thing determined? Do you >have a poll? Or are you perhaps assuming that your definition of faith >is the common usage of the word? There is an empirical discipline called "lexicography". If you're not familiar with it, then you're simply not equipped to carry out a discussion at this level. >I hear engineers say all the time that they have faith that the >models are correct, or faith in the predicted simulation results, or >faith that the schedule will be met. I hear "ordinary" people all the >time tell me they have faith that they won't get towed or that there >isn't a cop looking or that it will or won't rain. It's already been pointed out here that faith in a project is different from faith in a proposition. I'm talking about the latter. >But, you won't hear me trying to argue from authority like you are. In fact, lexicography SUPPORTS the use you cite. However, lexicography does not support a use like "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow." >>I am persuaded by THE EVIDENCE that the sun will come up tomorrow. > >Persuaded by THE EVIDENCE? That's a very interesting concept. That >sounds like blind faith to me. Of course, you have zero basis for this statement. Of course, that hasn't stopped you from making such non sequitors in the past... >>Lexicography is an empirical science. > >it is generally considered poor practice to use a dictionary >as a source on usenet. It sounds to me like you have blind faith in the >dictionary. Only a moron could conclude that the statement "lexicography is an empirical science" implies "blind faith" in a lexicographical text. >>No, by anyone who cares to carry out the verification. > >Aren't there certain qualifications, certain talents required? Verification can be done well. Verification can be done poorly. It varies. >Are you saying that anyone can be a complete Mathematician? I am saying that no one incapable of being a mathematician merely by dint of not having received some personal epiphany. >That anyone can >prove or disprove all the theories of Math for themselves? I am saying that there is no theorem in math that one can't (dis)prove merely by dint of not having received some personal epiphany. >Do you do this or do you have some trust that Mathematicians know >what they are doing? The evidence is that mathematicians know what they're doing, so I consider it more likely than not that they do. >>I'll type this slowly, so you can understand: in science, there is no >>book or person such that propositions emanating therefrom are taken to >>be beyond doubt. This is not the case for revelation-based religions. > >To be taken beyond doubt would be blind faith. Many scientists have >faith that the revelations of research journals are mostly true. But not >blind faith, mistakes do happen. Hey, congratulations! Except for your continued idiosyncratic use of "blind faith", you displayed no evidence of misunderstanding what I wrote! Of course, you nevertheless showed no evidence of understanding the distinction I made, but at least this is a start... >So, by your definition, anything that you judge to be sufficiently >evidenced as evaluated by you is in fact of value and useful to >you. Yes, that is a practice I follow in forming my value-judgements. >Surely you see this as self-delusion? What makes you think that you are >judging correctly, that is without self-delusion? Self-delusion in one's value-judgements is a solecism. It's like saying I'm deluding myself into thinking that I value the taste of chocolate. Self-delusion means holding an insufficiently-evidenced proposition to be true. The mere fact that I *believe* I like chocolate is sufficient evidence that "I like chocolate" is true.. >>By definition, if a proposition is sufficiently evidenced, it can be >>held to be probably true without any faith whatsoever. > >Self-delusion. Non sequitor. >>I believe empirical propositions when they are sufficiently evidenced. >>I believe philosophical propositions when they are validly derived >>from axioms I find useful. I believe esthetic propositions based on >>my tastes. Etc. > >Self-delusion. Non sequitor. >>>>it's extremely useful to follow >>>>the practice of believing in things that are quite likely. > >>>Yes, if you want to be always proved correct in your beliefs. > >>You clearly do not understand what "faith" means. Apparently, you >>also do not understand the difference between "quite likely" and >>"proved correct". > >I said "want". Goody for you. Now please explain what "proved correct" has to do with "quite likely". They are completely different standards. >>You'll have to evaluate risks for yourself. Personally, I find it far >>too risky to believe in propositions that are insufficiently evidenced. > >Again, more self-delusion. Another non-sequitor. Are you going for some kind of record? >>If you believe in a deity, then you either believe a diety is likely >>to exist, or you exempt propositions about deities from analysis of >>likelihood. Which is it? > >Neither. I find the belief in a deity to be a non-issue. Ah, so the statement "you believe in a deity" is false. >How can one believe or not believe in a myth? Easy. One either believes or doesn't believe that unicorns used to walk the earth, or that white-bearded judges sit in the sky. Are you really not sure how to believe or not believe in unicorns? >Myth means a great deal to me. This is kind of a Hindu leaning, Myth means a great deal to me, too. This is a kind of a Classicist leaning. >>>I look for meaning in the metaphors. > >>Given your patent unwillingness/inability to spare very much meaning >>for placement into the things you write, can I take it that you don't >>*find* very much meaning in the places that you're currently >>"look[ing]"? > >Non sequitur. Decorum please, or is that too much to ask? Hah. I invite any reader who is dissatisfied with my level of patience toward you to inform me via private e-mail. >>Belief in that which is likely is always useful. (Or do you wish to >>dispute this?) > >It's too conservative for me. How so? When is believing-in-that-which-is-likely NOT useful? >Why do you fear failure? There is a difference between fearing failure and inviting it. >>>I think we all derive value by deluding ourselves. Think about it. > >>I have. My conclusion is that you are speaking for a smaller group >>than you realize. > >I see, so you do admit to self-delusion? Hardly. Let me buy you a clue: I don't count myself in the "smaller group" that I referred to. >>Ah, so moderate Christians don't believe that Jesus was God? > >They judge there to be sufficient evidence under your own structure of >rules. Their judgment is spectacularly wrong. There isn't enough signal-to-noise with you to make discussing the evidence worthwhile, but let me ask you one question. Even though majority opinion is of negligable weight in these matters, how do these "moderate Christians" explain the obstinant refusal to find any widely-shareable common ground on this allegedly empirical issue? Do they think that all non-Christians are part of some conspiracy, or are under the control of Satan, or what? >>No, a good teacher would say "Here is what I have found out. Don't >>believe it simply because it's coming from me. And here is how to >>repeat the process by which I found it out." > >That is a meaning of: "Follow me and be free". Utter nonsense. Jesus, for example, in effect said "follow me and be free". He did NOT say "don't believe it simply because it's coming from me"; in fact, he said the opposite. >>I learn plenty by observing the faithful, but I do not have faith > >I said learn from dogma, not observe the faithful. I learn plenty from the absurd dogmas peddled by various mystics -- yourself included. -- Brian Holtz Article 34464 of alt.atheism: Path: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!netcord.Eng.Sun.COM!holtz From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Faith Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:13:51 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <1992Sep26.194221.23321@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord Xref: exodus.Eng.Sun.COM talk.religion.misc:45119 alt.atheism:34464 In article pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes: >>The truth of "1+1=2" can be derived solely from the definitions of >>"1", "+", "=", and "2". > >Try that on sci.math and see what happens. I don't have to. I know what would happen. >>It's convention. If you want to be understood, you use the >>linguistic conventions that your audience understands. > >And what would that be? [List of alleged variants of English.] Any of these will do. In all of them, "faith" has, by convention, the meaning I use, and not the meaning you use. >If I were to play the part of the teacher, I would say, "tell me where YOU >are going, and by definition there will of course be freedom there, in time". Yes, I know how creative and original you are with definitions... >What would you say if you played the part of teacher? What part do you THINK I've been playing? -- Brian Holtz