Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's the religious who make the distinction, who insist upon it. The claim for many Christians is that faith isn't simply confidence but rather a species of knowledge.
If I have confidence in my own judgement, isn't that also knowledge? When I describe my dog as faithful, what am I exactly saying? I could be saying I have confidence / I special knowledge that he will be faithful to me. I can be saying he has faith in me. How would we know that he does? Maybe I am merely projecting. Most dog owners will disagree. It is a slippery slope. Words fail to express all the nuances, meanings and expressions the human mind is capable of. I think we should go with that and not wave a dictionary around so much. Speaking of which I highly recommend the movie,The Professor and the Madman.
If I have confidence in my own judgement, isn't that also knowledge? When I describe my dog as faithful, what am I exactly saying? I could be saying I have confidence / I special knowledge that he will be faithful to me. I can be saying he has faith in me. How would we know that he does? Maybe I am merely projecting. Most dog owners will disagree. It is a slippery slope. Words fail to express all the nuances, meanings and expressions the human mind is capable of. I think we should go with that and not wave a dictionary around so much. Speaking of which I highly recommend the movie,The Professor and the Madman.
Yes, I saw The Professor and the Madman - fascinating.
At least in the Christian context, the notion is that faith is a species of knowledge granted by God; it flows from God's revelation. It isn't just confidence or trust that flows from our own accumulated experience, observations and judgment. As Wittgenstein recognized, this is why religious believers and unbelievers are mostly talking past each other when the subject is faith. I spent a lot of time defending a position like yours until I realized that in the Christian context "faith" is something quite different.
In an everyday sense, we exercise faith all the time. I exercise faith every time I step on a ladder without "complete evidence" it will hold me. In most situations in which we exercise faith, it's an informed faith based on past experience and present observation. We don't even think of it as exercising faith.
On metaphysical issues like the existence or nonexistence of God, there isn't just a lack of complete evidence. By the very nature of these issues, there can never be anything like complete evidence. The more specific our answers get - for example, Christianity rather than Buddhism - the greater the evidence gap and the more reliance on faith.
My definition of faith used to be "living as though what I believe is true while acknowledging it might not be."
However, in the religious literature the term faith is often used in a sense that goes beyond mere trust. It is more typically used in a sense of "knowledge" unique to religious belief. I've come to accept that my former definition is inadequate. Stepping on a questionable ladder or holding an atheistic position really isn't faith. Faith is something unique to religious belief and is more accurately thought of as a special kind of knowledge.
Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein recognized this distinction. He recognized that religious believers are thinking entirely differently from nonbelievers and on an entirely different plane. He said that if asked if he believed in a Last Judgment, he would find it "utterly crazy" to answer "No" because a nonbeliever can't simply assert the opposite of a religious claim; the nonbeliever simply has no frame of reference for the religious claim.
It's the religious who make the distinction, who insist upon it. The claim for many Christians is that faith isn't simply confidence but rather a species of knowledge.
It's the religious who make the distinction, who insist upon it. The claim for many Christians is that faith isn't simply confidence but rather a species of knowledge.
In an everyday sense, we exercise faith all the time. I exercise faith every time I step on a ladder without "complete evidence" it will hold me. In most situations in which we exercise faith, it's an informed faith based on past experience and present observation. We don't even think of it as exercising faith.
On metaphysical issues like the existence or nonexistence of God, there isn't just a lack of complete evidence. By the very nature of these issues, there can never be anything like complete evidence. The more specific our answers get - for example, Christianity rather than Buddhism - the greater the evidence gap and the more reliance on faith.
My definition of faith used to be "living as though what I believe is true while acknowledging it might not be."
However, in the religious literature the term faith is often used in a sense that goes beyond mere trust. It is more typically used in a sense of "knowledge" unique to religious belief. I've come to accept that my former definition is inadequate. Stepping on a questionable ladder or holding an atheistic position really isn't faith. Faith is something unique to religious belief and is more accurately thought of as a special kind of knowledge.
Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein recognized this distinction. He recognized that religious believers are thinking entirely differently from nonbelievers and on an entirely different plane. He said that if asked if he believed in a Last Judgment, he would find it "utterly crazy" to answer "No" because a nonbeliever can't simply assert the opposite of a religious claim; the nonbeliever simply has no frame of reference for the religious claim.
Of course...it depends on the "God Entity" one perceives, as to whether the existence of said God falls very low on The Scale of Probability that supports anything and everything we claim to "know".
The "God Entity" I perceive, and the Religion that goes along with it (Pantheism)...is as highly probable to exist as anything, ever.
I rarely agree with Irkle's posts, so didn't want to miss the opportunity.
The examples that are frequently proffered of everyday phenomena in which we all put our "faith" are poor analogs for the type of faith exercised in the religious context. Whether it is faith (i.e., trust, confidence) that the ladder will hold us, that the plane will take off and land, that the medication will work as intended, that our car will start in the morning, that our spouse will come home at night, that our contributor upthread will repair the damage to our car... these all have some key differences from religious entities or phenomena in which we put our faith.
For starters, there is no debate that any of these everyday, real world things (ladders, planes, medications, cars, spouses, repairmen) actually exist; that gives them a big leg up, in terms of being things that warrant our trust and confidence. Beyond that, there are literally millions of data points (i.e., demonstrable, verifiable evidence) for most of them... supporting our faith (trust, confidence) that they have worked, performed or behaved a certain way before, and are likely to do so the next time.
The same cannot be said for most of the religious entities or phenomena in which we are asked to put our faith, if we are going to believe. Apples to oranges. Requiring different types of "faith."
What it seems you/we are forgetting (and that you did not quote from Irk's post) is this...
"Faith is something unique to religious belief and is more accurately thought of as a special kind of knowledge."
Look at faith as anything other than "a special kind of knowledge," and two things happen; 1) you demonstrate the limit of your mental capacity to understand this "special kind of knowledge," and 2) you don't allow that huge space where faith cannot be scrutinized in any critical thinking way.
If I have confidence in my own judgement, isn't that also knowledge? When I describe my dog as faithful, what am I exactly saying? I could be saying I have confidence / I special knowledge that he will be faithful to me. I can be saying he has faith in me. How would we know that he does? Maybe I am merely projecting. Most dog owners will disagree. It is a slippery slope. Words fail to express all the nuances, meanings and expressions the human mind is capable of. I think we should go with that and not wave a dictionary around so much. Speaking of which I highly recommend the movie,The Professor and the Madman.
All for all of us to judge as we will, but I think we have all known other people who's judgement we don't trust or think too highly about. This even though they may think they are all the judge and jury anyone needs to believe what they do. Confidence may or may not be knowledge. May or may not be based on knowledge. In fact all too often people are a little too confident about what they think they know.
Back to that "great challenge" I suppose...
"Knowing enough to think you are right, but not knowing enough to know you are wrong." - Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson
Here too with the dog. I'm fairly certain most dog owners will agree their dog is faithful to them. I know ours is, and most of us dog owners know what this means. Does this have much to do with faith in God? Not really to my way of thinking...
What it seems you/we are forgetting (and that you did not quote from Irk's post) is this...
"Faith is something unique to religious belief and is more accurately thought of as a special kind of knowledge."
Look at faith as anything other than "a special kind of knowledge," and two things happen; 1) you demonstrate the limit of your mental capacity to understand this "special kind of knowledge," and 2) you don't allow that huge space where faith cannot be scrutinized in any critical thinking way.
A failure to acknowledge the bold doesn't rectify what you see in your bottom paragraph as unacceptable. Because it is ultimately unresolvable, you just end up pretending only the measurable and describable natural order applies. Pragmatically, that may be reasonable, but not for engaging in metaphysical discourse about what our Reality IS or is not. It certainly is insufficient to substantiate confidence in atheism.
All for all of us to judge as we will, but I think we have all known other people who's judgement we don't trust or think too highly about. This even though they may think they are all the judge and jury anyone needs to believe what they do. Confidence may or may not be knowledge. May or may not be based on knowledge. In fact all too often people are a little too confident about what they think they know.
Back to that "great challenge" I suppose...
"Knowing enough to think you are right, but not knowing enough to know you are wrong." - Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson
Here too with the dog. I'm fairly certain most dog owners will agree their dog is faithful to them. I know ours is, and most of us dog owners know what this means. Does this have much to do with faith in God? Not really to my way of thinking...
you do include yourself in the group whose judgement we don’t trust or think too highly about. right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
