What is faith?

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I have thought about it and I thnk that the scientific method, logic and reason is best for showing that faith is not so good at discerning the truth. Could you perhaps explain what you had in mind?

Well get this:

-Logic cannot be defended. Trying to use logic to defend logic is the same as saying the bible is true because the bible says it's true.

-The scientific method is based on three assumptions:
1. There is a single objective reality.
2. Laws of inference apply.
3. Evidence, mixed together with reasoning allows us to discern the truth.

Of course we have no problems making these assumptions because they give us results and frankly you would have to be an idiot who and really likely to win a Darwin award not to.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

Well get this:

-Logic cannot be defended. Trying to use logic to defend logic is the same as saying the bible is true because the bible says it's true.

-The scientific method is based on three assumptions:
1. There is a single objective reality.
2. Laws of inference apply.
3. Evidence, mixed together with reasoning allows us to discern the truth.

Of course we have no problems making these assumptions because they give us results and frankly you would have to be an idiot who and really likely to win a Darwin award not to.

Interesting ideas. I'm not sure where you got that from or whether they are your own ideas. However let's consider them.

Logic is rather like mathematics. It does not need to use itself to defend itself. That two and two do not make five is obvious and doesn't need self - justification. Similarly to say that a brick is hard, but if you call it a sponge it becomes soft is obviously wrong. Why, aren't sponges soft? Yes, but it actually has to BE a sponge to be soft and the mistake is a logical fallacy. That is self evident and does not need logic to justify it.

Thus, logical steps, rules and methods are shown to be valid by testing.

"Suppose you tried to play a game in which the rules were arbitrary: each individual could set their own and could change them anytime. I doubt that you would want to play this game for very long. Most of us would rather play games that have a fixed set of rules that do not change during play. Logic is fundamentally a set of rules that we agree to use in our discussions. It is more than that, but that aspect of it will be of great help in our discussions and our thinking.
A simple explanation of logic -- suitable for the level we need here -- is given in Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia:...
Here is another definition of logic extracted from a text book (The Art and Science of Logic by Daniel Bonevac, Mayfield Publishing Co., 1990):

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) founded the discipline of logic as a system of principles on which all other knowledge rests. Indeed, logic pertains to all subjects, since people can reason about anything they can think about. Politics, the arts, literature, business, the sciences, and everyday problems are all subjects open to reasoning. Sometimes the reasoning is good; sometimes not so good. People use logic to tell the difference."

Using Logic

Similarly the scientific method is a kind of logic.

"What is the scientific method''?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:"

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation


5 is, of course, the point at which the hypothesis becomes a theory - an explanation of something tested and supported by evidence to the stage of becoming pretty much proven.

I don't know that I agree with the assumption that there is a single objective reality. So far as I know, science does not and cannot know that, unless it refers to the single objective reality that we experience. We apply science to that and that's quite enough.

Inference applies. If I may quote the ever-handy Wiki

" Inductive
The process by which a conclusion is inferred from multiple observations is called inductive reasoning. The conclusion may be correct or incorrect, or correct, or correct to within a certain degree of accuracy, or correct in certain situations. Conclusions inferred from multiple observations may be tested by additional observations."

Reasoning, like logic is seen to be valid or not on its own terms. Indeed, it is much akin to logic. It makes assumptions, true, but unlike faith, it tests them according to methods designed to avoid self - deception (controls)and the results are tested and re-appraised. They are not adopted as some sort of dogma which no-one is allowed to question. Or, that ought to be the case.

"Evidence, mixed together with reasoning allows us to discern the truth."

I would say that evidence evaluated using reasoning, or the methods for evaluation, based on reasoning, allows us to discover which way the evidence points. That's the only way or method that has been shown to be a reliable way of finding fact - or 'truth' as you say.

"Of course we have no problems making these assumptions because they give us results"

Well, yes, but I think the methods needed a little justification, otherwise it looked too much like making up a set of rules which would give us the results we wanted.

Thanks. I shall keep this on my box, in case some theist demands to know why we should think logic or science have any validity.

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Logic is rather like mathematics.

Yh, logic is a branch of mathematics.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It does not need to use itself to defend itself. That two and two do not make five is obvious and doesn't need self - justification. Similarly to say that a brick is hard, but if you call it a sponge it becomes soft is obviously wrong. Why, aren't sponges soft? Yes, but it actually has to BE a sponge to be soft and the mistake is a logical fallacy. That is self evident and does not need logic to justify it.

That's what I'm contending here. We take logic as a priori simply because we cannot even fathom a way to defend it.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Thus, logical steps, rules and methods are shown to be valid by testing.

I think it's the other way around. We infer that testing is valid using logic.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

"Suppose you tried to play a game in which the rules were arbitrary: each individual could set their own and could change them anytime. I doubt that you would want to play this game for very long. Most of us would rather play games that have a fixed set of rules that do not change during play. Logic is fundamentally a set of rules that we agree to use in our discussions. It is more than that, but that aspect of it will be of great help in our discussions and our thinking.
A simple explanation of logic -- suitable for the level we need here -- is given in Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia:...
Here is another definition of logic extracted from a text book (The Art and Science of Logic by Daniel Bonevac, Mayfield Publishing Co., 1990):

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) founded the discipline of logic as a system of principles on which all other knowledge rests. Indeed, logic pertains to all subjects, since people can reason about anything they can think about. Politics, the arts, literature, business, the sciences, and everyday problems are all subjects open to reasoning. Sometimes the reasoning is good; sometimes not so good. People use logic to tell the difference."

Using Logic

Similarly the scientific method is a kind of logic.

"What is the scientific method''?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:"

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation


5 is, of course, the point at which the hypothesis becomes a theory - an explanation of something tested and supported by evidence to the stage of becoming pretty much proven.

I don't know that I agree with the assumption that there is a single objective reality. So far as I know, science does not and cannot know that, unless it refers to the single objective reality that we experience. We apply science to that and that's quite enough.

Inference applies. If I may quote the ever-handy Wiki

" Inductive
The process by which a conclusion is inferred from multiple observations is called inductive reasoning. The conclusion may be correct or incorrect, or correct, or correct to within a certain degree of accuracy, or correct in certain situations. Conclusions inferred from multiple observations may be tested by additional observations."

Reasoning, like logic is seen to be valid or not on its own terms. Indeed, it is much akin to logic. It makes assumptions, true, but unlike faith, it tests them according to methods designed to avoid self - deception (controls)and the results are tested and re-appraised. They are not adopted as some sort of dogma which no-one is allowed to question. Or, that ought to be the case.

I don't think we are really disagreeing on anything.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I would say that evidence evaluated using reasoning, or the methods for evaluation, based on reasoning, allows us to discover which way the evidence points. That's the only way or method that has been shown to be a reliable way of finding fact - or 'truth' as you say.

To put it simply, we assume that the evidence doesn't lie.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Well, yes, but I think the methods needed a little justification, otherwise it looked too much like making up a set of rules which would give us the results we wanted.

It's really interesting when you think about it because maths is a completely arbitrary set of abstract concepts with principles that may or may not apply to certain situations.

It took me a while to understand the basics of non-euclidean geometry.

[TRANSPONDER]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Thus, logical steps, rules and methods are shown to be valid by testing.

I think it's the other way around. We infer that testing is valid using logic.

True, but my point was that the testing established the principles of logic in the first place. Otherwise it's rather like saying that a level can't be relied upon to check a wall is level because it is already assumed that the level is level, then to say that level has been checked, "Well, that level - checking is what's being checked now" as though it was a circular argument. It only looks like that because of a danger of equivocation. 'Level' is the same word, but it actually applies to two separate applications. The testing that established the validity of logic is not the same test that logic applies.

I gather that you are not disagreeing with this, but it's a useful excercise to get back to first principles about the nature and validity of knowledge. It is something of a convention but it does, as you say, produce the results.

[elisaa]

Originally Posted by elamigo

Yesterday I had an interesting conversaion with a lady at work. She is very religious. The conversation started on world affairs but it ended up moving into religions as it applies to world affairs also.

However, as I asked inquiring questions and some of her answers were that I have to have faith when replying to questions I felt she had no answers for.

No, I am not trying to bach religion or Christianity. Some take it that way once discussions of this nature start.

I want to ask people what is faith to them. The reason I asked is because I told her that as far as I know the definition of faith requires evidence. It makes sense to me. However, I quoted from one Bible. I am aware there are many Bible versions out there and I only have two versions.

I cite the Bible version I quoted to her: The New World Translation of the Holy Scripture from the Watchtower Society. I know, Jehovah's Witnesses are not very popular in the Christian World. I am not one but I do like their Bible version because it seems it uses more contemporary language. I aks not to close your mind simply because it is a Jehovah's Witness version. I have seen that a lot.

The intent of my thread is to compare the faith definition in different versions and for you to define faith yourself.

The lady told me you have to have faith but could not describe it according the the Bible. She admitted she did not know the Bible definition. To be fair to her I think she just could not remember it verbatim. I told her Hebrews 11:1 gives the definition of faith and that to me it requires evidence. We disagreed on this point.
In the version I have it says:
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

My point to her is that faith also requires evidence, not just believe in something just because. There must be some type of evidence.

I would like to see your views.

You have a great day.
El Amigo

Faith is the belief in something unseen!