But this isn’t the same as faith. Axioms are assumed, and then you derive theorems from them. Whether any of these sets of axioms are true in the sense that they accurately describe or correspond to the world is an empirical question, to be decided on the basis of evidence. Faith doesn’t tell us whether real space is Euclidian, Riemannian, or Lobatchevskian. Experience tells us that.
But belief in these elementary particles is based on inference from observables and from observations that are actually made. Not the same as faith.
You may be right about this. After all, how do we justify the reliability of sense-perception? (Not that everyone thinks this is a problem.) But I strongly disagree with those above who argue that faith is compatible with evidence. If you read philosophy of religion, theistic philosophers (like Alston and C.S. Lewis) and atheistic philosophers (like Scriven) alike use ‘faith’ to mean ‘belief in the absence of evidence.’ If faith is belief with evidence, then ‘faith’ has no unique meaning at all; it becomes utterly otiose as a concept. That’s just how the term ‘faith’ is used in debates over religion; to redefine it is to change the debate into something else entirely.
And fundamentally, **viccum’s ** question is one people of faith have to grapple with. If you believe on the basis of faith, then why believe *this * rather than that? Why believe in Catholicism instead of the Norse or Hindu gods? If you are basing your beliefs on evidence, then you have to do apologetics, which may have its own problems, but they are a different set of problems from the problems of faith.
That’s assuming the initial “axiom” was decided by critical reasoning. What if it was decided by gut feeling? Or, some irreproducible, subjective experience (blinded by the Light, or some such).
Or similarly, would you be willing to call geometry a faith? After all, the axioms are unprovable assumptions, and everything else in geometry is derived from them.
I’m not sure its impossible for us to understand the complete nature of the universe. We sure seem to understand a lot. Nor would I be surprised if it were physically impossible for us.
I don’t think Godel’s Theorem applies to humans. Our brains are not in the class of formal systems that it applies to (I think we violate the self-consistency condition, if not others).
Ah, well. If you don’t join, hopefully we’ll be free-to-post Soon™.
You’re right. I’m not saying mathematics or science are the same as faith, I’m pointing out that they have a similar problem about where to start.
I agree completely, assuming you mean objective, reproducible evidence. Faith must be based on subjective, personal experience. I find “proofs” of God to be foolish. One doesn’t need proof of God if one has faith in him. And if one is convinced by a proof of God, then it’s not really faith, it’s science or mathematics.
Well, my religious beliefs are based on my lifetime of personal experiences. It’s not evidence; I’d never expect anyone else to be convinced by my experiences. But, the fact that my beliefs are not evidence-based does not prevent me from analyzing them and changing them based on my changing experiences.
Since when are personal experiences not evidence? They’re not transferrable evidence, sure, but that doesn’t mean they’re not evidence.
I’ve heard this now and then and it always seems like a dodge to avoid having to subject one’s faith-related personal experiences to the same standards and checks that one subjects other evidence to.
What I find weird is how politicians advertise themselves as models of virtue. As a class, politicians are probably among the most dishonest, disreputable people I know. I would prefer a politican like Richrd Nixon, at least you know what you are dealing with. As far as faith, I don’t give damn what any politiican thinks. What I care about is intelligence.
To me, evidence is something that I can show or explain to someone else and they can either see or do it for themselves.
Personal experiences are a different thing altogether. How does one subject ones feelings to the same standards and checks as other evidence? There are no standard measuring sticks for love or curiosity or any other internal experience.
I agree that faith in specific religious dogma is a contradiction. You can’t say you believe it purely on faith - unless it came to you in a vision or something. Most people believe it because they were taught it by someone. There’s always some reasoning involved. And it’s kind of absurd to use reasoning up to a certain point and then just stop and refuse to do any further critical analysis.
And of course faith in specific dogma is not exactly the same sort of things as trust in God. One is a body of knowledge, the other is a personal relationship.
But then there’s the other sort of faith, which is just a sort of decision to feel a sense of trust or security in the absence of specific peril. Or the stronger sense, a feeling of security and ease even in the face of problems. That as long as you take action against bad things, there’s no need to have bad feelings about them. This sort of faith makes sense to me.
Accounting for van-on-the-corner syndrome. Recognizing the possibility of selective memory. Recognizing that other people have exactly the same sorts of experiences, yet reach diametrically opposite conclusions about them - and that we have a tendency to interpret experiences in the context of the culture we were raised in. Recognizing that we dream while asleep, and can daydream while awake. And the big one that I almost forgot: coincidences do happen.
Everyone recognizes these facts when looking at the paranoid, the conspiracy theorist, and the loon on the corner. We may even recognize examples of these things in ‘extreme’ adherents of religions, even in our own religion. The uncommon thing is recognixing how these facts about how people think relate to one’s own faith experiences.
Of course, this raises the question of whether an experience that is not intersubjectively verifiable can be justification-conferring. We (not you, but you know, the usual suspects) have gone around and around on this question many times before here. I’ll try by best not to hijack the thread in that direction. (Unless someone else does first. )
But love and curiosity are just feelings, and not evidence for any factual claim about the world. You are using your personal experiences to justify a factual belief–a belief about the existence of a divine being. So the cases are not analogous.
(There I go, breaking my promise in the space of two posts.)
I see your member ship has expired but you may still be reading so I’d thought I’d comment. It simply isn’t true that you can’t use critical analysis and faith in your life. It’s not an either or situation. All people are a combination of logic, reason, critical analysis, of the objective, and subjective experience which requires some conclusions and choices even though we can’t be certain our analysis of the subjective is correct {if correct even applies}
I’d agree that a percentage of believers do deny , or simply refuse to examine, hard evidence concerning specific details of belief but the axiom of “God is” is still open for examination.
It’s been my experience that all people use some form of faith in their lives.
It seems to me we all must reach conclusions and make choices based in part on our response to our subjective experience. I don’t see how we can subject our subjective experiences to the same standards as other {objective} evidence.
I think it’s very important to acknowledge the difference between what we “know” and what we simply believe based on the evidence we have so far. There are varying levels of certainty. Maybe that’s what you’re talking about as standards. I agree with your previous post that religious faith often promotes skewed analysis of the evidence encouraged in part by group thinking.
No idea. As to the other, whether the phenomenon called “sunrise” is occasioned by the sun rising or the horizon sinking is immaterial when what is under discussion is not the cause but the predictability of the phenomenon.
)