Tom Caylor wrote:
> Brent Meeker wrote:
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > >
> > > Brent Meeker writes:
> > >
> > >>> This cannot be explained away by
> > >>> "faith" in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a
> > >>> deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such
> > >>> beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of simultaneously
> > >>> believing x and not-x.
> > >>>
> > >> Seems like "faith" to me - belief without or contrary to evidence. What is the "x" you refer to?
> > >
> > > There is a subtle difference. It is possible to have faith in something stupid
> > > and still be consistent. For example, I could say that I have faith that God
> > > will answer my prayers regardless of whether he has ever answered any
> > > prayers before in the history of the world. However, I think most religious
> > > people would say that they have "faith" that God will answer their prayers
> > > because that it what God does and has done in the past. In so saying, they
> > > are making an empirically verifiable claim, at least in theory. They can be invited
> > > to come up with a test to support their belief, which can be as stringent as they
> > > like; for example, they might allow only historical analysis because God would
> > > not comply with any experiment designed to test him. I suspect that no such
> > > test would have any impact on their beliefs because at bottom they are just
> > > based on blind faith, but given that they do not volunteer this to begin with, it
> > > shows them up as inconsistent and hypocritical.
> > >
> > > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> > OK. But I'd say that in fact almost no one believes something without any evidence, i.e. on *blind* faith. Religious faith is usually belief based on *selected* evidence; it is "faith" because it is contrary to the total evidence. Bruno seems to use "faith" somewhat differently: to mean what I would call a working hypothesis.
> >
> > Brent Meeker
>
> This gets us to the question that has been pondered here before, a
> question that is more appropriate to the general
> metaphysical/epistemological thoughts of this List: What does it mean
> to believe something? I'd say that you can't really know if you or
> someone else really believes something unless you/they act on it. An
> act could simply be investing some of our precious limited time to look
> at its consequences. I'd say that for that non-trivial period of time
> in your life, you had at least somewhat of a belief in it. It is not a
> trivial thing to use up some of your life doing something (at least in
> my worldview). I think this shows how Bruno's "belief" can be brought
> equal in essence (if not necessarily the quantity of investment) to any
> other belief. Evidence is relative, and I think is important in
> practical terms, but it is not essential to the definition of belief.
>
> Tom
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Jan 09 2007 - 09:06:38 PST