although some wish to reject the term faith and call it confidence instead.

*Raises hand*

RT, do you not think there is a legitimate difference to be had?

You would be pointing to that ultimate disconnect between mind, experience, and reality. But isn't the fact of that reliability make it reliable? Insanity, hallucination, and mental construct aside.

yes, i recognize that our perceptions are a construct. A "picture" of what the world is, and not the actual world, but however faulty our construct may be, it is reliable in so far as what it is able to detect. Cars are not really smaller because they are farther away, but we can accurately measure distance using this scaling short-hand to reliably avoid getting hit by cars.

I am interested in your analysys of my idea of confidence vs. faith.

The distinction between faith and confidence rests on the question of whether absolute knowledge is possible.

An example here is the basic structure of the solar system. Science is undoubtedly confident that the planets are in their well known order. There is still much to learn about Trans Neptunian Objects and other physical questions, but the basic order of the sun and planets is certain.

My concern with the term 'confidence' is that it admits a chink of doubt regarding objective knowledge. Anyone who says maybe the planets are actually in a different order is either ignorant or a nutcase. Logically, such principled doubt may be admirable, as Popper and Hume showed. But practically, it creates a popular view that science is just one worldview among many, that there is no objective knowledge of the universe.

So I prefer to say that certainty is 100% certain, and should be restricted to facts that are beyond dispute. The difference between confidence and faith is this tiny chink of difference between 99.99...% and 100%.

In philosophy, this debate was the reason for Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. His doctrine of synthetic a priori judgments - necessary truths - was introduced to solve the conundrum posed by Hume, that we do not know if the sun will rise tomorrow, and we cannot prove a logical connection between a cause and effect. Hume's logic is absurd from the point of view of common sense, and Kant tried to bring philosophy into line with the logic of common sense. Kant summarized his views in terms of faith in the moral law within and the starry sky above.

Faith is a term with much baggage, associated with belief in things that are not true and for which there is no evidence. Even if we do choose to have faith in claims that lack proof, such as ethical ideas about love and justice and the good, this form of faith can still be validated on the model of the real scientific faith provided by absolute confidence in the truth of core knowledge, because even ethical ideas can be tested against evidence by study of their consequences.

It is obviously wrong to have faith in something you know to be false. The converse is that it is right to have faith in things you know to be true. Faith is not just blind obedience, it is a statement of where we place our trust and loyalty, and can be entered with eyes wide open. We lose faith when our trust is shown to be unjustified, but that is no reason to assert that we can somehow live entirely without faith.

Robert Tulip wrote:

giselle wrote: the attempt to draw a parallel between the two is an oversimplification and is invalid.

It is valid. If religious believers claim the world is flat, or was recently created by God, that is just as offensive as to claim that two plus two does not equal four.

In 1984 by George Orwell, if the Party says two plus two equals five, everyone is required to believe it. This type of delusory corruption is the ground of the absence of ethics in supernatural religion. Believing things that are not true is a slippery slope. As Voltaire said, belief in absurdity permits atrocity.

Appreciate your response .. I am not convinced that an offence/insult over math is equal to that of religious matters, belief etc. for the reason I stated above ... the fundamental place of 'relationship' in the human experience of religion and belief and how (I believe) this relationship might create a sense of insult in some circumstances . As to Orwell, I accept that, in the context of the 1984 and the Party, the requirement to believe what is obviously false is offensive ... but primarily because it is a 'requirement' so there is an element of brainwashing and coercion ... the dehumanizing factor, the stripping of the dignity of the autonomy and dignity of the individual does create an offensive, insulting situation but this goes beyond the case I was considering above.

alley-oop.

http://www.booktalk.org/confidence-vs-faith-t11336.html

johnson1010 wrote:
If you feel overwhelming insult when someone merely challenges your beliefs, ask yourself why that is. Why should someone else’s doubt cause YOU any anguish?

If I assert that 2+2=7, are you angry? Are you personally insulted? Why not? Think about that.

I think this oversimplifies the argument by drawing a parallel between religious belief and arithmetic. ..

I was trying to point out the difference between a simple fact, vs a vested ideal, and i think you hit the nail on the head with your analysis of it.

The point being, people don't get upset over the veracity of the claim, but rather their attachment to the source of the claim.

Isn't the more important thing the truth? Isn't the more important thing to have an accurate grasp on what is happening?

Doesn't the fact that a person defends their beliefs because of where they came from rather than whether they are true really illustrate that the assertion of magic couldn't be trusted in any case because of a vested interest?

It indicates a need to believe, not a search for truth. Not an accurate parsing of truth from fiction, but an embrace of the impossible and the rejection of what can be demonstrated to be true for reasons that don't add up.

So why step lightly around the issue? It isn't me who's at fault because a believer chooses a poor source of information. It is they who are at fault for vesting so heavily without doing their due dilligence and checking their sources. I will not respect or side-step the believers rage for being challenged on something that they are too lazy to check into for themselves.

Anger and hostility are not valid responses to being corrected. We do not mollify aggressors by meekly ducking our heads when they pass by. That only creates greater and greater transgressions. You stand your place and demonstrate that you won't be cowed by their puffed chests and false cries of insult.

It's a silly tactic designed to shut down discussion without considering the points you have made.

I am a lost cause? What?! Excuse me, but I am a lost cause. You know why? b/c I DO KNOW THERE IS A God!!!!! I DO KNOW THAT I WILL BE IN HEAVEN WHEN I DIE OR Jesus comes back 4 me. You can NOT tell me i dont!!!! I came here to talk about books, but i only talk about Christian books. so you know what? I am going to make y'all mad and i dont care. I am leaving this. You continuously insult my God, and mock him. You tell me He's not real, but we shall see. You will oneday regret not listening to the 'teenager'. You know who told me everything i know? God! Yeah y'all think im some looney who is a complete idiot? i dont care. i dont care what y'all think. I will be in Heaven and i will feel so sorry 4 y'all that you didnt listen to me. and you know what? you just lost a fan on FB!!!!! I am teling everybody i know to tell their friends to tell their friends, and you just wait!!! Christian-Haters!!!! Y'all good for nothing sorry idiots deserve to rot in Hell!!!! I would pray 4 yall but im kinda mad right now. blieve what ya want. i tried. God you know i did. Goodbye!!!

...

I am done. I'm not taking it anymore. Chris, please remove my account.

Chris, we need an exponential punctuation function.

My concern with the term 'confidence' is that it admits a chink of doubt regarding objective knowledge. Anyone who says maybe the planets are actually in a different order is either ignorant or a nutcase.

Even though I agree with your exasperation, I have to say that this still does not give us a way around the problem of certainty. To say that the order is certain can be expanded into an identical claim with more transparency.

Let's say there are infinite universes that are approximations of our own. Some things in history are different, some things are the same. In each and every one of these infinite universes, humanity believes the planets are in a very specific order. There is almost no room for doubt. Now, out of these infinite universes, what are the chances that just a single universe got the answer wrong? Some incredible series of mistakes and circumstances that have lead people to the wrong answer about the order of the planets.

I can't see myself saying that out of an infinite number of universes, not a single one of them would get the answer wrong. All things being equal, that could very well be our universe. The very concept of certainty doesn't compute for me. It's as though it's invalid because of it's definition.

I dislike the problems the admittance of doubt gives rise to. But I can't simply wish away what I see as true to instead believe in a way that is "more productive".

As to Orwell, I accept that, in the context of the 1984 and the Party, the requirement to believe what is obviously false is offensive ... but primarily because it is a 'requirement' so there is an element of brainwashing and coercion ... the dehumanizing factor, the stripping of the dignity of the autonomy and dignity of the individual does create an offensive, insulting situation but this goes beyond the case I was considering above.

Perhaps there is no gentle way to educate someone away from false beliefs, if they are emotionally tied to those beliefs. To be emotionally tied to a belief can be contrasted with the alternative; being emotionally tied to a cause or a process. Not irrationally so, as is sometimes suggested by an "emotional tie".

I believe there are a few processes and axioms that when combined, trump any single belief. Avoid certainty, be confident instead. Be aware of what it feels like when you feed your ego, it's a good feeling and we all desire to feed it more. If something intellectual is feeding your ego, explore that in great detail, because it's the most likely source of error in your worldview. Adhere to the best practices of logic and epistemology, including being aware of your biases. Accept every conclusion only provisionally(avoid certainty).

And if any of these things presents a problem, be willing to restructure or rethink them. The beliefs that these processes lead to are not to be considered "property" of my mind. They are results of a process, so I can be confident that they are true while still not taking ownership of them. There are more processes and axioms I abide by, but it's a lengthy discussion. It would be interesting to talk about emotion versus reason, and the interplay.

Interbane wrote:Let's say there are infinite universes that are approximations of our own.

Though I am not nearly as knowledgeable or intelligent as you folks, when I read that comment on the certainty of planetary order, the first thing that came to my mind was alternate universes. I didn’t have enough confidence in my own knowledge about such things to respond, but I’m glad to find that my thoughts were not so bizarre as to be unworthy of some discussion. Not by me, however. Carry on, gentlemen. I’ll be listening in.

johnson1010 wrote:alley-oop.

http://www.booktalk.org/confidence-vs-faith-t11336.html

Okay, further discussion on confidence and faith should be at that thread. Thanks

I was watching a movie the other day where a christian couple invites over a couple of men for dinner. They are under the mistaken impression that the two men are gay lovers. In reality, one of the men is gay, but the other is not. He's just letting the gay man stay with him until he gets on his feet again, having been recently fired from a job on account of his homosexuality.

The christian couple wants to say grace before they eat, they all agree with shrugs. The man leads the prayer and spends the majority of the prayer pleading with god to help the two sinners to repent from what god finds abominable.

Offended, the guests leave, thinking that the christian man who lead the prayer is an asshole.

Both now have some distaste of the other. Who has cause and who does not for those feelings?

The christian has a distaste for something which has nothing at all to do with his life. Something which is simply the manifestation of two consenting adults having love for one another.

The two guests have a distaste for the christian man calling them degenerates to their faces with a shrug and saying, "hey it's not ME who hates gays. It's god."

Lets say a man hates me because i have brown eyes. He knows, because he read it in a book somewhere, that dudes with brown eyes are the worst sort of asshole. So, he pre-emptively key's my car.

I think he's an asshole because he keyed my car.

Equivalent distaste?

Hi Johnson, that argument is a good example of the defective psychology of religious assumptions. People are very sensitive about topics that touch on deeply felt emotional attitudes. This makes them wary about asking explicitly for evidence that might test their opinions. In the movie you describe, the Christians prefer to act on their flawed assumptions rather than ask simple questions that would let them know they are wrong. It is a strange psychological quirk that people find it more painful and risky to ask direct questions than to insult people on the basis of no evidence.

It is an interesting case study regarding how false belief can flourish. People believe what they want to believe, and emotional fixation can be very hard to shake.

Comparing this example to the broader problem of the prevalence of delusory Christian belief, it is worth going back to the beginning of Christianity to ask how the myth of a historical Christ gained such momentum. The Old Testament predicted the Christ (anointed one), and then because people so much wanted to believe, they converted this prediction, which just used Christ as a title, into a belief that it had actually happened, with Christ as a person's name, all the time refusing to analyse the evidence that showed it was completely imaginary.