In what ways is "faith" different from "credulity?"

[BenBurch]

Faith is a profound belief or trust in a particular truth, or in a doctrine that expresses such a truth, a belief that is not based on proof.

Credulity is readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence.

I can't see a hair's breadth difference between the two.

Will one of you faithful enlighten me?

[kerikiwi]

Faith:good, credulity:bad.

Another false dichotomy is seen when certain beliefs or practices are rejected as superstition, and people are encouraged,rather, to follow a particular relgious faith, which involves dipping fingers in holy water, making odd gestures, waving smoke makers about, and various other (strictly non-superstitious) activities.

[Complexity]

:pigsfly

BenBurch - An eternal optimist, I see.

They'll never 'fess up about how woo their religious beliefs are.

[KingMerv00]

Faith is the celebration of one's own credulity.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Faith is the celebration of one's own credulity.


Agreed.

BB, what is the point you are trying to make this time?

[westprog]

Faith is a profound belief or trust in a particular truth, or in a doctrine that expresses such a truth, a belief that is not based on proof.

Credulity is readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence.

I can't see a hair's breadth difference between the two.

Will one of you faithful enlighten me?

Faith is a belief in subjects the truth or falsity of which cannot be definitively established.

Credulity is the belief in subjects where the truth or falsity could be easily established.

[Civilized Worm]

Where did you get those definitions?

[BenBurch]

Online dictionaries...

[Ichneumonwasp]

Faith is the celebration of one's own credulity.

That's very good. I really like that. Where's that nominate button?

[quixotecoyote]

Faith is flexible. Sometimes it means credulity, sometimes it means confidence. It depends on who you're talking to and what argument you're making.

[Moose]

Will one of you faithful enlighten me?

The difference is entirely in how much it's going to cost you. If there's a price tag attached to it somewhere, it's 'credulity'.

[Civilized Worm]

Online dictionaries...


I was asking Westprog.

[dglas]

Credulity can be accidental; faith is deliberate.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Credulity can be accidental; faith is deliberate.


True...credulity also doesn't necessarily involve the same degree of emotional entanglements as faith; still curious to know where BB is going with this.

:con2:

[DouglasL]

From a 1955 Websters Dictionary: Faith...The conviction of the truth of a thing, or the existence of a thing, with out evidence sufficient to cause a surety of knowledge.

[dglas]

True...credulity also doesn't necessarily involve the same degree of emotional entanglements as faith; still curious to know where BB is going with this.

:con2:

Well, there was some discussion in "that other thread" about God being woo. Maybe BB is trying to drive home the point that faith and credulity are in fact the same thing. If that's the case then I, of course, disagree - for reason of prescriptive force and, as you indicated, emotional attachment.

I would submit that a perceived difference between the two is the degree of detachment form one's concept of self they each respectively have. Credulity suggests that it is possible to remove oneself from the belief without in some way losing who they are, whereas faith is deemed as integral to the self of the believer. In this way, the difference between credulity and faith is much akin to the difference between a mosquito and a tapeworm. Both are parasitic. One is easily detached, the other....

It seems to be a matter of degree, coupled with an emotional dependence on a mere philosophy and some particulars of the content about that which is believed. I suppose an instance of credulity could become a faith, with some differences in the content (self-affirmation) of that which one is credulous in regard to and some rather hefty emotional attachment.

Now, to those who see faith as woo, there is no significant difference (even though we can still speak of such a difference as if it were real). To those in the grips of faiths as a way of being the idea of separation of faith and self may very well be perfectly inconceivable. This is not insignificant and needs to be accounted for.

Explaining this difference can go a long way to determining how to deal with it. Right now, at this stage, we are still treating faith as if it were mystical in some way (much like we distance ourselves from serial killers as if they were different from us in kind rather than aberrations on a theme), so we are left using blunt rhetorical tools. We are at a loss for the actual target.

I tried to present a possible understanding that may give us some more subtle tools for understanding and working with faith in the form of prescriptive force. One poster, in particular, went abusively aggressive over that idea - for reasons unknown. Perhaps I was uncomfortably close to the mark...

ETA: What I am suggesting is that one of the possible differences between credulity and faith is the content about that which is believed. While one can believe anything, some beliefs affect how one believes.

[Piscivore]

Faith is a profound belief or trust in a particular truth, or in a doctrine that expresses such a truth, a belief that is not based on proof.
That's three or four different senses of the word you're combining into one.

faith (http://www.answers.com/faith&r=67)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs
It is an error of equivocation when a Creationist accuses us of having faith (2) like his because we may have faith (1) in evolution, let's not make the same mistake.

You seem to be addressing specifically mostly the second sense, right?

Credulity is readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence.

I can't see a hair's breadth difference between the two.

Will one of you faithful enlighten me?
I'm not "faithful" but it seems to me that faith (2) is to credulity as fear is to lack of confidence.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Well, there was some discussion in "that other thread" about God being woo. Maybe BB is trying to drive home the point that faith and credulity are in fact the same thing. If that's the case then I, of course, disagree - for reason of prescriptive force and, as you indicated, emotional attachment.


That seems a good possibility; one with which I too would disagree. Another possibility...purely speculation (that would fit with some of his statements elsewhere)...is that he is aware of the differences in meaning between the 2 terms and is intent on exploiting that difference.

I would submit that a perceived difference between the two is the degree of detachment form one's concept of self they each respectively have. Credulity suggests that it is possible to remove oneself from the belief without in some way losing who they are, whereas faith is deemed as integral to the self of the believer. In this way, the difference between credulity and faith is much akin to the difference between a mosquito and a tapeworm. Both are parasitic. One is easily detached, the other...


For the purpose of my alternate potential interpretation of BB's direction, the perceived difference in meaning between the 2 terms you describe above is close to a fit. Based upon BB's stated perspective that religion is a "mental illness", it seems likely a better compare/contrast analogy might be that he views 'faith' as like unto melanoma whereas 'credulity' is a bad sunburn...making faith a repeated effort born of craziness and/or stupidity and credulity just an act of ignorance and/or gullibility.

It seems to be a matter of degree, coupled with an emotional dependence on a mere philosophy and some particulars of the content about that which is believed. I suppose an instance of credulity could become a faith, with some differences in the content (self-affirmation) of that which one is credulous in regard to and some rather hefty emotional attachment.


This fits both yours and my potential explanation.

Now, to those who see faith as woo, there is no significant difference (even though we can still speak of such a difference as if it were real). To those in the grips of faiths as a way of being the idea of separation of faith and self may very well be perfectly inconceivable. This is not insignificant and needs to be accounted for.


And this would be where my potential version of BB's efforts seems to step a bit to the forefront. His perspective that faith is "crazy" opens up the possibility of "treatment" for a "mental disorder"...seemingly, this would be his view on how to account for people's defense of their faith.

Explaining this difference can go a long way to determining how to deal with it. Right now, at this stage, we are still treating faith as if it were mystical in some way (much like we distance ourselves from serial killers as if they were different from us in kind rather than aberrations on a theme), so we are left using blunt rhetorical tools. We are at a loss for the actual target.


Not necessarily; BB's "mental disorder" approach would certainly provide a more tangible target. Oddly enough, this also provides for similar distancing between "us" and the faithful to that which you describe in terms of "us" and serial killers while employing a (perceived-by-many-as-arrogant) variant on the otherwise benign sentiment "I just want to help them".

I tried to present a possible understanding that may give us some more subtle tools for understanding and working with faith in the form of prescriptive force. One poster, in particular, went abusively aggressive over that idea - for reasons unknown. Perhaps I was uncomfortably close to the mark...


It would be foolish not to acknowledge the prescriptive components of many "faiths".

Even in the face of this, it just seems too easy to cross the line into discounting the possibility that some choose religion in spite of the inconsistencies and label all faithful as "mentally ill" or "crazy". Certainly there are some faithful who fit the bill, but to go so far as to classify all those who have faith as developmentally deviant, would be far too broad a stoke. This is what my alternate possible interpretation of BB's direction would be doing (IMO).

ETA: What I am suggesting is that one of the possible differences between credulity and faith is the content about that which is believed. While one can believe anything, some beliefs affect how one believes.


This is true, but it still does not preclude the possibility of choice.

All I am saying is that if this is another attempt by BB to suggest that faith equates flatly to insanity, it isn't valid as an encompassing perspective and is dismissive and discounting to at least some faithful.

It is possible that he is "blazing a new trail" here; I'm interested to know what he has to offer as to his purpose, though.

[dglas]

ParanoidAndroid,

I guess at this point we are kinda waiting for BB to weigh in on our respective interpretations. Should be interesting. :)

Of course, from a believer's perspective, both of our analogies might seem incorrect, insofar as we each depict faith as a more sever form, or more difficult to treat form, of an affliction (me: tapeworms, you: melanoma) whereas the believer might very well conceive of faith as a "cure" for credulity (interestingly enough) - protecting one against credulity. This might seem paradoxical to us, but perfectly natural to the believer in that truth precludes the possibility of credulity. If one has faith, one has a safeguard against credulity. And they wouldn't be entirely wrong about this, either. That's where it gets interesting.

And this is (partly) why safeguarding against credulity is simply not enough.

[ParanoidAndroid]

...hard to disagree with you there, dglas. I'll try to enjoy our shared holding pattern...

[BenBurch]

Hi!

Sorry I didn't get back here sooner...

Where am I going with this?

This question was inspired by a paragraph in L. Sprague De Camp's book "The Ancient Engineers."

Referring to the late Roman Empire under Christianity and the decline of technological innovation therein, and the tasking of innovation to provide wonders for impressing the public;

All these procedures were inventions, just as much as Heron's toy steam engine. With these new techniques, the priests, prophets, and magicians could more effectively compete for public attention and support. Credulity they redefined as "faith" and fanaticism as "seal," while respect for the laws of cause and effect was condemned as "blind materialism."

[ParanoidAndroid]

Hi!

Sorry I didn't get back here sooner...

Where am I going with this?

This question was inspired by a paragraph in L. Sprague De Camp's book "The Ancient Engineers."

Referring to the late Roman Empire under Christianity and the decline of technological innovation therein, and the tasking of innovation to provide wonders for impressing the public;

All these procedures were inventions, just as much as Heron's toy steam engine. With these new techniques, the priests, prophets, and magicians could more effectively compete for public attention and support. Credulity they redefined as "faith" and fanaticism as "seal," while respect for the laws of cause and effect was condemned as "blind materialism."


I appreciate the explanation above and can now see where you came from, so to speak. Were you headed in a particular direction or just wondering "out loud"?

[BenBurch]

Just wanted to see how people justify the difference between the two.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Fair enough.

[BenBurch]

BTW, that should have been "zeal". I shouldn't try to post from my iPod as the letters are really too small to see things like that.

[ParanoidAndroid]

BTW, that should have been "zeal". I shouldn't try to post from my iPod as the letters are really too small to see things like that.


That's what I was assuming, but I wasn't 100% sure.

What is your perspective on the difference in meaning between 'faith' and 'credulity'?

[qayak]

Faith is the celebration of one's own credulity.

Absolutely! Taking it out and showing it off so to speak.

[BenBurch]

That's what I was assuming, but I wasn't 100% sure.

What is your perspective on the difference in meaning between 'faith' and 'credulity'?

I don't see a lot of space between the meaning except one of standpoint. If you are inside or sympathetic to it, you call it faith, and if you are outside and unsympathetic to it you call it credulity. The epistemology is identical.

By analogy, the difference between starvation rations and a diet is only one of perception. Same number of calories. But the person on the diet likely isn't as miserable.

[Tricky]

Faith is a profound belief or trust in a particular truth, or in a doctrine that expresses such a truth, a belief that is not based on proof.

Credulity is readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence.

I can't see a hair's breadth difference between the two.

Will one of you faithful enlighten me?
I think the key is in your definitions, especially the bolded words. Credulity implies that one is easily convinced. Faith may involve credulity, but it is not inherent. Many people of faith agonize over it, like Mother Teresa. Many people of faith waffle between belief and non-belief, or between various types of faith depending on which one makes the most sense to them. While it is true that a lot of religious and "spiritual" people simply absorb it from their surroundings, there are many who think about it deeply and may even hold a very personal faith, one that they have developed themselves. This can be unlike a credulous person who blithely accepts whatever is told to them.

But of course, these are charicatures. Not every person of faith spends a great deal of time thinking about that faith, and not every person who has been suckered by a slick-talking salesman is, on the whole, a credulous person. It is a widely ranging mix, depending largely on the person's background.

If you told me that they had discovered dinosaurs in Ordovician period rocks, I'd be skeptical, because I know enough about earth science to recognize that as almost certainly false. If you told me that the Higgs Boson had been discovered at a lab in Palo Alto, I might (credulously) believe you, because I'm relatively ignorant of this field of study.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think the difference is so clear either.

I especially see this when a "cult" makes the news and my Catholic family poo-poos them as a bunch of lunatics. It's pretty clear that the difference here is simply that faith is the stuff we accept without proof (and it's good and noble that we do so), and credulity is what leads them to accept nonsense without proof (and it's bad and laughable).

I've yet to see any distinction on the merits.

I disagree strongly with westprog's definitions that distinguish between the two terms based on the subject matter. (Sounds like Gould's NOMA.) Faith leads plenty of people to believe things that are demonstrably untrue. Also, most conventional religions started out as a lunatic fringe at one time. Further, most conventional religions have made pronouncements about matters outside the realm of things for which there is no evidence at one time or another, and called on the faithful to accept them. . .on faith.