Faith

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Ok, I've been having some problems trying to sort some stuff out. Ok, faith is belief without evidence. Belief is the mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another or a thing. One shouldn't believe anything without evidence because what should one pick? Having faith that a can of soup will keep you from drowning underwater by giving off enough oxygen to breath is stupid. Believing in a god is faith. But is believing in a philosophy faith, or maybe I'm not getting what I'm talking about? Is having a dualistic worldview, idealistic worldview, materialistic worldview, Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Communist, inalienable rights ect. outlook a faith? What evidence is there for being a Republican? I think debating with a certain Christian on another forum has twisted me all around and fried my brain. Help me because I'm afraid I don't know what I'm talking about at all.

[spectacle]

all the responses youre going to get from the net are from figments of your imagination, so if you look hard enough you already know all of the possible answers youll get here, duh

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
But is believing in a philosophy faith, or maybe I'm not getting what I'm talking about? Is having a dualistic worldview, idealistic worldview, materialistic worldview, Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Communist, inalienable rights ect. outlook a faith?
Maybe the word you are looking for is "conviction".

The problem with the word faith is that it can be equivocated to mean so many different things, not limited to "belief without evidence" to "belief system" to "anything held to be true".

What evidence is there for being a Republican?
I think your problem is this: you are hooked too greatly on semantics. The two things that contrast to faith are empiricism and reason. (It doesnt make any sense to call a belief "faith" if it is evidenced or reasoned.)

Naturally, the implications follow that defining faith simply "belief without evidence" is unfairly restrictive. I recommend the definition "unreasoned belief", that definition is more inclusive and more accurate.

It doesnt make any sense to ask for evidence for "being a Republican" (unless you want to nitpick and rephrase the question "what is evidence is there that Republican forms are better than any other form of government"). What does make sense however is making the consideration that as long as someone's Republicanis is reasoned, then Republicanism shouldnt be called a faith.

Adhering to Republicanism without a good reason could be called faith for the simple fact that it fits the definition "unreasoned belief".

So, remind whoever you are talking to that calling a certain belief "faith" is purely a matter of context: if the belief is unreasoned it is faith, if not it isnt. (This holds true for theism as well. People who believe there are logical or scientific reasons to believe in God are, as a matter of observation, clearly not basing their belief on faith).

Semantics is a hoot, but its good to get definitions sorted out if needed.

[Brown]

I distinguish faith from trust.

Some people might say that they have faith in a person, but the meaning is that they trust the person's judgment.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Ok, I've been having some problems trying to sort some stuff out. Ok, faith is belief without evidence. Belief is the mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another or a thing. One shouldn't believe anything without evidence because what should one pick? Having faith that a can of soup will keep you from drowning underwater by giving off enough oxygen to breath is stupid. Believing in a god is faith. But is believing in a philosophy faith, or maybe I'm not getting what I'm talking about?

There is a difference between placing "faith" or "trust" in the efficacy, usefulness, or the level of agreement with reality of a concept (philosophy, ideology, or religion), and the ontological existence of something within them.

For example, I "believe in capitalism". Does that mean that I have faith in an actually existent (physical or mystical) "Invisible Hand?" No. The Invisible Hand is a useful shorthand for describing the normal self-correction of a negative-feedback system. Nor do I believe capitalism exists as some entity... it is a abstract concept concerning economic interactions.

There is a difference between faith in a concept's usefulness and it's ultimate ontological existence. I believe in the efficacy of justice, and believe we should strive for it, but I don't believe it exists apart from our exercise of it.

I also believe religion could be useful if done correctly, and God could be a useful concept. That doesn't mean I believe it exists in any ultimate sense.

ETA: I though I should add more here to make myself clearer.

There is a significant difference, as Yahweh has pointed out, in the vernacular use of "faith" and "believe" to mean "I reasoned these things to be true, but I still realize they could not be true, either due to limited data or non-objective viewpoint", and the precise use of "to hold as true without evidence."

The very fact that your interlocutor is using reason and logic means he isn't demonstrating "faith" in the strict sense either. He has evidenced belief, just like I do with quantum physics. The only problem is, once you try and use logic and evidence, you are playing the atheist's game. And we are good at it. Call him on it, and you will realize he just believes because he believes... all the the stuff he is spouting is post hoc reasoning.

In as much as faith is reasoned and evidenced, it is not faith.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Ok, I've been having some problems trying to sort some stuff out. Ok, faith is belief without evidence. Belief is the mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another or a thing.

Usually in this context, the word "belief" refers to mental acts with propositional content. So simple statements like "I believe Larry" really means that "I believe that what Larry said is true." Similarly, a statement like "I believe in unicorns" means "I believe that unicorns exist."

But it's certainly possible for a Red Sox fan to "believe" in the Sox in the sense of having confidence in them, or more accurately, having confidence in the proposition "the Red Sox will win." Propositional content isn't a necessity, but it makes it much easier to analyze in a lot of philosophical contexts....


Is having a dualistic worldview, idealistic worldview, materialistic worldview, Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Communist, inalienable rights ect. outlook a faith? What evidence is there for being a Republican?

Is "being a Republican" a form of belief? I'm not sure it is -- but just as a Sox fan can believe in the Sox, so can a neocon "believe in the principles of the Republican party," in the the sense that he asserts that they are either true themselves, or that they are moral imperatives that will make the world a better place if followed. So there's certainly a cluster of (propositional) beliefs that seem to be associated with Republicanism, and by extension there is another set associated with the Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Ulster Unionists, the Shriners, Libertarians, dualists, and fans of Formula 1 racing.

Are these beliefs "faith"? Well, most of the neocons I know insist that their beliefs are in fact based upon evidence. For example, the 2004 Republican party platform included the following claim.


Personal savings accounts must be the cornerstone of restructuring. Each of today’s workers should be free to direct a portion of their payroll taxes to personal investments for their retirement future. It is crucial that individuals be offered a variety of investment alternatives and that detailed information be provided to each participant to help them judge the risks and benefits of each plan. Today’s financial markets offer a variety of investment options, including some that guarantee a rate of return higher than the current Social Security system with no risk to the investor.

I think it's fair to say that most Republicans "believe" in that particular plank, in the sense that the declarative statements ("Today’s financial markets offer a variety of investment options, including some that guarantee a rate of return higher than the current Social Security system with no risk to the investor.") are held to be true and the moral imperatives ("Each of today’s workers should be free to direct a portion of their payroll taxes to personal investments for their retirement future.") are held to be worth following.

But I also think that most Republicans would also claim that they have evidence to support this belief. For example, if I asked why workers should be free to direct some of their payroll taxes to personal investments, they would have a reason. If I asked what investment options guarantee a better rate of return than the current SS system, they would name (what they believed to be) examples.

[Bikewer]

I still like the old Bertrand Russell quip, "Faith is an unsupported belief in the unlikely."

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Maybe the word you are looking for is "conviction".


Ah, but why does one have the convition, what is it based on? Why do they have this conviction over another one? Say someone has the conviction god exists but can't and won't attempt to prove it. But they kill in the name of this being.
It's not the same thing as a favorite color, that's an asthetic preferrence, not a claim of being truth or trying to convert someone to Yellowism in sight either. No effect on their worldview either. No killing in the name of the color yellow also.


I'm still confused, maybe.

[Ryokan]

I'm not really a Buffy fan, but Faith is hot :roll:

[c4ts]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
What evidence is there for being a Republican?

My bank account.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Ok, faith is belief without evidence.

You answered your own question! :p

Do someone have "faith" in that materialism is accurate? No, they can be convinced, or persuaded about it.