The conclusion I come to from talking to many people with faith is that they don't really understand why they have faith, they just know that they do.
As noted the definition is
I don't think people can explain why, because it isn't "rational" (where we define rational as "based on logical proof or material evidence").
Why are some people republicans and some democrats? The beliefs that differentiate politics are also faith-based:
We just had a demonstration of the absolute complete failure of the trickle-down economics belief, preached by Reagan and others, and yet you don't see republicans discarding this belief ... they remain confident that they know more about economics than (heathen) democrats.
A lot of social concepts are beliefs, based on faith. Take the Declaration of Independence: "we take these truths to be self-evident ..." ... and what this is really saying is "we assume these statements to be true ..." we take it on faith.
Actually I have high confidence that these definitions are consistent with common usage of these terms, while I have low confidence of the reason behind your statement, based as it is on emotion.
You are also confusing "not based on logical proof or material evidence" with "irrational" when these are not a mutually exclusive dichotomy.
Its the type of statement meant to produce prejudice rather than rational discussion.
Curiously what is "meant" is understanding, rather than prejudice. Strangely, pointing out that some beliefs are false is not prejudice, rather it is reality. There is gray distance\area between
quote:"rational" (where we define rational as "based on logical proof or material evidence").
and
There is "rational" "unrational" "nonrational" and "irrational" and some concepts are neither "based on logical proof or material evidence" nor "irrational" ...
Beliefs only become "irrational" when they are at odds with reality, contradicted by the facts. Such as belief in a flat earth, or a young earth.
The worlds definition of what constitues Faith is not even close to what the scriptures or reality would suggest.
The logical fallacy of special pleading? Claiming that your faith is somehow different and superior to other faiths?
Of course you also fail to provide anything to show that your assertion here "... rest(s) on logical proof or material evidence" when you make this statement.
Looks like the definition still fits. Like a glove.
... and Paul asked them this one question ... If not, this could be the reason why you turned away from the Christian faith.
Ah yes, the old "you didn't really believe when you claim you did and that is why you do not believe now" cop out, the assumption that faith once really really really acquired will never fail.
This is just your failure to understand those that did and don't.
There is an element of faith in science. Science assembles what the scientists regard as evidence for the hypothesis. The more evidence, the more substantial the hypothesis becomes. Scientists, both Biblically inclined and secularly inclined end up with unknowns which require an element of faith; faith bolstered by the evidence relative to the knowns.
The problem I have with this attempt to equate different levels of faith is that it ignores the tentativity of science.
Faith is not tentative.
The more evidence that a theory is valid means that it is robust, and more likely to survive the next test, either intact or as a special condition (newton's gravity operates with sufficient accuracy to guide rockets to mars, so it is useful in the special condition of local gravity calculations). However a scientist does not believe a theory is absolute truth.
Nor does the "faith" you have in bridges compare to the faith you have in your god.
Have you studied cognitive dissonance? It seems there is an inverse relationship between the logic of a position and the amount of assurance your have in it:
quote:Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
Boring task experiment
In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were asked to perform boring and tedious tasks (e.g. turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again). The tasks were designed to generate a strong, negative attitude. After an hour of working on the tasks, participants were asked to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not asked to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study, those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control groups. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. The researchers theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, "I told someone that the task was interesting", and "I actually found it boring." When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, and thus experienced less dissonance.[5]
Postdecision dissonance
In a different type of experiment conducted by Jack Brehm, 225 female students rated a series of common appliances and were then allowed to choose one of two appliances to take home as a gift. A second round of ratings showed that the participants increased their ratings of the item they chose, and lowered their ratings of the rejected item.[7] This can be explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. When making a difficult decision, there are always aspects of the rejected choice that one finds appealing and these features are dissonant with choosing something else. In other words, the cognition, "I chose X" is dissonant with the cognition, "There are some things I like about Y." More recent research has found similar results in four-year-old children and capuchin monkeys.[8]
It seems (to me) that the people rationalized a need for their decisions\position afterwards, or invested more emotional conviction in it.
Possible way to view the problem: what is the "Black Box" {set} of beliefs
Hey Percy,
No one from the religious side accepts the originally proposed definition of faith
No one's interested in discussing the type of faith that isn't supported by evidence.
The religious types will say their belief is based on evidence, when that evidence is discussed, it turns out to be part of the {set} that is believed to be true.
Thus what they have (or claim to have) is an internally consistent {set} of beliefs (the fact that no two christians believe exactly the same set is a curious, but irrelevant, aside), but they have no evidence that the {set} is true.
This is where John 10:10 turns to scripture as evidence that the bible is true (while using the bible as evidence that the scripture is true, completing the internally consistent set).
This is where Buz turns to archaeological evidence to show that places that occur in the bible occur in the world, but dismisses evidence that there is no record of the possible jewish cohabitation with egyptians that matches the mythology of the bible. Similar with the chariot wheels in the red sea, etc etc. He believes he has evidence, but on inspection it turns out that he has faith that the "evidence" is true, rather than actual evidence.
In other words, the "faith" is indeed of the second definition above, the part that is believed includes more than just belief in god/s.
So the question really is a matter of definition of what is the {set} that is believed that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Reality Man writes:
Message 3: The root of intelligence is to be able to define one's position in the world, humility if you will, so Ha!
and
but I listen to a lot of discussions and stuff, enough to the point that I can think in terms of "Black Boxes" a programmers' term for a functional object that receives input and ejects output, and of which the precise workings of that "black box" is not important to the users.
We need to use the entire "Black Box" for the {set} of beliefs that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
A typical Young Earth Creationist Literal Biblical Fundamentalist (YECLBF) "black box" set of (internally consistent) beliefs would include:
the bible is inerrant,
the earth is young,
the flood actually occurred,
all life breeds "after their own kind" ...
They have faith that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence from outside their black box.
The second issue of {evidence} is confirmation bias.
This is where your typical YECLBF cites creationist websites as evidence, as he believes they are true because of confirmation bias.
And then we have cognitive dissonance ...
And this is where your typical YECLBF ignores or denies any contradictory evidence while confirming their biased belief in creationist arguments.
The fourth issue of {evidence} I would like to bring up involves delusion:
A person who believes false information from creationist websites (whether via confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance or not) is deluded1b by the false information. This kind of delusion can be rectified by the presentation of {evidence} from outside the black box (ie from objective evidence of reality, from other christians, etc) that contradicts the belief and that demonstrates the error\falsehood of the creationist website argument. This can then lead to cognitive dissonance, and then either rejection of the falsified creationist argument, or denial of the contradictory evidence, leading to delusion3.
While this later case may not result in people drowning their kids because they heard the word of {god} telling them to (ie clinical delusions), it does mean a certain degree of rejection of the real world. I think it is only fair to exclude this kind of clinical delusion3 from the discussion of faith
Thus I would submit that this sets an outer limit to what can be believed on faith2 - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence - alone, because beliefs that are contradicted by evidence are based on denial of evidence (via cognitive dissonance or delusion).
In other words, rational faith cannot be confirmed nor invalidated by evidence from outside the belief set.
The typical YEC black box set listed above fails this test.
The problem is the ones who don't know this because of the "black box" mentality sort of a super "can't see the forest for the trees."
We all live in our own black boxes, though some look outside the box. Those that only see "unknown territory" are more likely to be attuned to reality than those that have that plus "here there be dragons" territory/s (The land where da Nile flows freely) ... and where walls need to be built to keep the dragons at bay.
Enjoy.
ps - did you escape the big freeze? My bro lives in Fitchburg.
Re: Possible way to view the problem: what is the "Black Box" {set} of beliefs
Hey Buz,
I am not going into any of that here, but cite it to make my point.
Percy breathes a sigh of relief ... thanks.
We who argue for it go with the researched givens relative to evidence which undergirds our faith.
In other words, you admit confirmation bias.
As with you people we all, regardless of ideology, must exercise a greater or lesser degree of faith, the degree of faith depending on the ratio of givens to non-givens in the hypothesis.
As I said above, we all live in our own black boxes ... however some have gray boundaries where there are unknowns, boundaries that are constantly tested, and some have rigid walls to keep out dragons.
The only difference in the ideologies, relative to faith, is that compatible terminology is graciously afforded to secularists while faith is the only terminology strictly encumber upon Biblicalists by mainstream science, media and fora which happens to have the majority bully pulpit.
I don't think it depends on who believes what rather it depends on the degree of faith one relies on, as opposed to the degree of evidence based knowledge that is tested against reality, particularly when reality based tested knowledge is discarded.
Re: Possible way to view the problem: what is the "Black Box" {set} of beliefs
Hi ICANT
It does make a difference what you believe.
The problem here is nobody knows what faith is.
...
When talking about Biblical faith found in the Bible this is the only definition for faith.
...
I can be very confident in what I believe because gave me all the faith and evidence I need to trust Him to do what He says He will do.
I know that there are very few that can understand what I am saying and how I can be that confident. That is OK we all make our decisions based on and for different reasons as onifre says "that is cool".
Thank you for telling us about your "black box" ... that's cool.
Re: Possible way to view the problem: what is the "Black Box" {set} of beliefs
Hey Buz,
Don't both camps discard knowledge tested and attested to by research, history and archeology?
If the question is whether "both camps" (of the several involved) discard invalidated concepts. The answer is no. Science does.
An example is the "Lucy's Knee Hoax" where even after creationists had been confronted with the evidence of their false information and some actually admitted they were wrong, they still publish the false information.
The reason it is so easy to document fraud\hoax after fraud\hoax on creationist website after website is that creationists do not, as a general rule, bother to remove wrong information, don't test information to see if it is wrong, and don't appear to care that they are wrong.
Don't both camps discard knowledge tested and attested to by research, history and archeology?
If the question is whether "both camps" (of the several involved) discard finds that cannot be replicated. The answer is no. Science does.
Again, creationist websites usually provide insufficient information to replicate their "findings" (or even review their "data") so one either takes them on faith (:rolleyes or discards them as insufficiently supported by the scientific method. An example of this is Don Batten's Tree Ring "study".
So no, I don't think there is any equivalency between science and creationist approaches.
I agree totally. I've noticed this in myself when I either buy or borrow a computer game ... I've encountered some people in my professional life ... In several cases this has led to ideas of conspiracy ...
It is important to remember that cognitive dissonance affects all of us, it is also seen in adjusting to a changing paradigm.
I have also wondered why it seems that the first refuge of being confronted with something contradictory to what you believe, is to think there is some conspiracy. Now that you have made this connection, I have a "of course" reaction. Thanks.
Just like when the X factor wannabes rant and rave that the experts are wrong and they really are great singers.
That's one show I avoided like the plaque. I know I can't sing or dance.
But another factor could be the inverse relationship between knowledge on a topic and the ability to perceive competence on that topic. People are unable to know when they are incompetent when they have little knowledge (or they would know enough to be competent?) ... and we also see that behavior here as well.
or discards them as insufficiently supported by the scientific method. An example of this is Don Batten's Tree Ring "study".
™ Version 4.2
