Let's talk about faith

[Martian]

I have talked to many theists about faith, and I've noticed that there's something they always say. They say that every belief requires faith, and then give the example that it requires faith to believe in historical events. And then the faith bar goes from high: believing that Shakespeare wrote his plays, to low: believing that the chair you're sitting on exits.

Is belief in reality, really require faith?
Is faith the same as an assumption/prediction?
Is faith just dependent on the amount of evidence there is?
Is here a concrete way of sperating things with a lot of evidence versus things with low evidence?

Discuss.

[LARA]

I think Bayesian inference would be relevant here.  It's a mathematical way to express the degree of belief in the truth of a proposition based on prior experience.  I've just started reading about it a couple of years ago, so I'm not really that familiar with the details.

As far as having faith in existence, I think that goes back to Descartes with the Discourse on Method where he first denied his existence, proved it by denying that denial, decided <i>cogito ergo sum</i> and then decided the rest of the world existed because God existed.  Descartes never defined the God he was discussing so I always thought it a silly argument for the existence of the material world.

I prefer the Solipsist's test of reality.  If I can't change it by faith alone, it must exist apart from me, and therefore I can't be a Solipsist anymore.  I think most of us come to this conclusion when we are somewhere around three years old.

[tacoma_kyle]

I think they are just all naive.

Born and raised with it. They've spent so much time with it. So many others believe it. What would others think of you not believing it? What is left to explain these things that would be unexplained?

When you are in that kinda of a pickle you have to have faith. Although is doesnt explain jack shit, you al least have the comfort of it.

[SteveS]

Hey Martian, here's my thoughts on the matter.

Does belief in reality require faith?
I don't think so, although I find it difficult to prove.  I think reality has to be accepted more than proven.  I don't consider this faith-based: assuming there is a reality seems to work, demonstrably so.  I don't consider that faith.  Also, shout out to LARA for the solipsist rebuttal - the philosophy of "solipsism" is exactly what I was thinking about on this particular question.

Is faith the same as an assumption or prediction?
I think "assumption" fits the bill nicely.  A person of faith "assumes" there is a god with particular qualities/characteristics.  I personally find this assumption unwarranted and of little consequence (it doesn't lead to any new knowledge or real understanding) and therefore useless, so I chose not to make it.

Is faith dependent on the amount of evidence there is?
Surely, if there is evidence in support of a belief, then faith is not required - it just doesn't help if you have evidence.  So, I would say faith is only applicable where there is not evidence.  However, where there is not evidence, it doesn't seem that faith has any demonstrable ability to lead us to truth.  So, we could say that faith is dependent upon a lack of evidence, but (again) it doesn't seem to be of any real value (value measured not in emotional appeal or well-being, but value as measured in leading us to an understanding of what is reality).

Is there a concrete way of separating things with a lot of evidence versus things with low evidence?
The only thing I can think of (Bayesian inference not withstanding) is qualification.  I can qualify how strong my beliefs are based on how much evidence I have for them.  Some things I find myself believing on different levels: some I wouldn't be terribly surprised to learn are wrong, some I would be surprised they were wrong but acknowledge a significant possibility, and some I would be flat-out shocked if they were wrong.  So, I definitely qualify my level of belief, and I think it is important to consider the certainty of a belief in conjunction with the consequences of it being wrong when we decide to act upon it.

My two cents.

[Martian]

Does belief in reality require faith?
I don't think so, although I find it difficult to prove.  I think reality has to be accepted more than proven.  I don't consider this faith-based: assuming there is a reality seems to work, demonstrably so.  I don't consider that faith.  Also, shout out to LARA for the solipsist rebuttal - the philosophy of "solipsism" is exactly what I was thinking about on this particular question.

As I think more about this, it becomes more obvious that one must accept idea of existence as axiomatic. You must accept the concept that things exist before you accept the idea of the existence of God. Makes sense to me. I think this is sufficient explaination.

On another note, I haven't heard of Solipsisim before. Upon looking it up I see that it's a belief that knowledge other than one's own existence can be certain knowledge. But, does that mean you must reject the idea that there is an objective reality? Or are we allowed to have beliefs that are not 100% certain. Can a person be justified in the belief of God in this case? What are your thoughts on this?

Is faith the same as an assumption or prediction?
I think "assumption" fits the bill nicely.  A person of faith "assumes" there is a god with particular qualities/characteristics.  I personally find this assumption unwarranted and of little consequence (it doesn't lead to any new knowledge or real understanding) and therefore useless, so I chose not to make it.

But isn't an assumption something which isn't supported 100%? For instance, I could assume that my chair exists right before sitting it (because I have seen it seconds before). Does leaning back without 100% certainty that the chair is there mean I am making an assumption? I mean, during the time that I wasn't looking, someone could have pulled out the chair and the assumption that the chair is there would have been false. Is this the same thing as taking a leap of faith? Are there degrees of assumption credibility? Do we rate beliefs as justified through evidence versus unjustified? Is this rating system subjective?

Is faith dependent on the amount of evidence there is?
Surely, if there is evidence in support of a belief, then faith is not required - it just doesn't help if you have evidence.  So, I would say faith is only applicable where there is not evidence.  However, where there is not evidence, it doesn't seem that faith has any demonstrable ability to lead us to truth.  So, we could say that faith is dependent upon a lack of evidence, but (again) it doesn't seem to be of any real value (value measured not in emotional appeal or well-being, but value as measured in leading us to an understanding of what is reality).

Well, evidence does not neccessarily require 100% certainty to be believed in. For example, how are we to know that George Washington existed or did what is recorded that he did. Does this require faith? Did Shakespeare really write his plays? Are these beleifs merely okay because they don't violate our current understand of observed reality (whilst God does)?

Is there a concrete way of separating things with a lot of evidence versus things with low evidence?
The only thing I can think of (Bayesian inference not withstanding) is qualification.  I can qualify how strong my beliefs are based on how much evidence I have for them.  Some things I find myself believing on different levels: some I wouldn't be terribly surprised to learn are wrong, some I would be surprised they were wrong but acknowledge a significant possibility, and some I would be flat-out shocked if they were wrong.  So, I definitely qualify my level of belief, and I think it is important to consider the certainty of a belief in conjunction with the consequences of it being wrong when we decide to act upon it.

So, are you saying that you are taking leaps of faith? If some new evidence later comes and shows that one of your beliefs was balony, what does this mean?

There really must be a better way we can describe this.

[SteveS]

Hey Martian, bear with me, I feel a lengthy explanation coming on  :wink:  

Part "the first",

As I think more about this, it becomes more obvious that one must accept idea of existence as axiomatic. You must accept the concept that things exist before you accept the idea of the existence of God. Makes sense to me. I think this is sufficient explaination.

On another note, I haven't heard of Solipsisim before. Upon looking it up I see that it's a belief that knowledge other than one's own existence can be certain knowledge. But, does that mean you must reject the idea that there is an objective reality? Or are we allowed to have beliefs that are not 100% certain. Can a person be justified in the belief of God in this case? What are your thoughts on this?

The Solipsist does seem to reject an "objective" reality, at least in terms of an external reality, and rather accepts only that their own personal internal reality is the only reality.  I reject this as, at the very least, untestable.  It's sort of like a "matrix" problem --- if there is no way to test that we are really plugged into the matrix, how can we know?  We can't.  The fact that I can't seem to change reality by force of will makes me believe that there is an objective external reality.  If we can't agree on this point then the rest of the discussion is honestly pointless - because the solipsist would theoretically already know everything I'm going to say, because I'm nothing but another internal thought.  So what difference does it make?

Having accepted that there is an external objective reality is just that --- we haven't yet decided what exists.  So - how do I find out?  I have to accept that my sense are capable of giving me information about this external reality.  They might not be perfect, they could be in err sometimes, and they could be limited.  But - they must give me some real information.  Having accepted that, we can now come up with a rational basis for what we believe exists:  if I can detect through my senses what is real then I can augment my sense with devices to detect what my senses cannot directly detect, and so on and so forth, and build upon what I believe exists.

For me to believe something exists I have to have some way of testing my ideas about what things are, what qualities they possess, what effects they cause, etc.  To start with something simple like my chair, I can see it, touch (feel) it, move it, hear it if it creaks when I sit on it, and so on.  I am left with a lot of good, rational evidence to believe that the chair exists, and even what color it is, what it is made of, how big it is.

But - how can I be 100% certain that the chair exists?  I'm not sure that I can, but I have many good reasons for holding my belief.  How do I know I'm not hallucinating?  Well, other people could confirm my observations - they could agree that they too see the chair and that they too see what color and how big it is and that it is made of wood (or whatever).  How do I know I'm not just hallucinating the other people and their words?  Well --- then I'd be back at solipsism, which I've rejected.

Can a person be justified in holding a belief in god on this basis?  I don't see how.  How can I test that god exists?  How can I detect the "effects" of god?  I don't see how I can --- so, what reason would I have for believing that a god exists?  Compare to the reasons I have for believing that the chair exists --- what are the corresponding reasons for believing that god exists?

Also, I would argue, the existence of god is not required to substantiate the existence of an external objective reality.  What is the difference between an electron that exists, and an electron that exists because god created it?  If we start with an assumption that electrons exist, and we can detect their presence and effects and find they are consistent with our idea of what an electron is, what does adding "god created it" add to our understanding?  Nothing.  So - we don't require this assumption for our understanding - we don't require it for our prediction of what electrons do - we don't require it for our understanding of its electrical charge.

Philosophically we could say we're applying Occam's razor --- scientifically we could say we have a more parsimonious explanation without adding "god created it" to our definition of an electron.  It is an unnecessary assumption - this doesn't mean the assumption is false, it just means that we can't find any justification for including it.  We can't find any test that would confirm or reject this additional quality.  So - why should we keep it?

Part "the second":

But isn't an assumption something which isn't supported 100%? For instance, I could assume that my chair exists right before sitting it (because I have seen it seconds before). Does leaning back without 100% certainty that the chair is there mean I am making an assumption? I mean, during the time that I wasn't looking, someone could have pulled out the chair and the assumption that the chair is there would have been false. Is this the same thing as taking a leap of faith? Are there degrees of assumption credibility? Do we rate beliefs as justified through evidence versus unjustified? Is this rating system subjective?

I say the rating system is objective as opposed to subjective.  When asked why I believe my chair is there I have demonstrable reasons for asserting my belief.  Why would you believe somebody pulled the chair out?  You may have a good reason to believe this -- maybe there is an office prankster, who has done this to people before, hanging around your office.  Or, maybe you're in a closed locked room and this is why you don't believe somebody has moved your chair.  And, nothing we know about physics gives us any reason to believe the chair somehow could have moved itself.

These are the sorts of considerations that justify a belief --- they could be wrong, but I can even guess to some degree when they might be wrong.  If a chair-pulling office prankster was hanging around my room, trying to stay out of my sight, I better take a close look at my chair before I try to sit in it.  If I haven't seen him/her, then I'm probably going to fall.

In neither case do I consider this a "leap of faith" --- rather, I'm working on an assumption that has rational basis.  What if a person has faith their chair is there and sits back but falls because I've yanked it out (picture Charlie Brown kicking the football)?  In what way can we demonstrate that faith gives us accurate information about reality?  If you, I, and many others in the office can see, touch, move, taste (yuck) and hear my chair, how much of an assumption am I making in taking it to be true that the chair exists?  In the face of all this demonstrable corroborative evidence, do I require faith to believe that my chair exists?

If, on the other hand, nobody can detect a chair at all in my office but I come up with the explanation that this is because it is an invisible immaterial supernatural chair, wouldn't you want to know why I believe that there is such a chair present?  If my answer is "I have faith that the chair exists", what are you to do with my statement?  Would you believe it?

Part "the third":

Well, evidence does not neccessarily require 100% certainty to be believed in. For example, how are we to know that George Washington existed or did what is recorded that he did. Does this require faith? Did Shakespeare really write his plays? Are these beleifs merely okay because they don't violate our current understand of observed reality (whilst God does)?

We can't be 100% certain that George Washington existed.  However, we do have many independent historical accounts of his life and his actions, and the things ascribed to him certainly seem plausible.  If an old account said "on this day, George Washington caused water to turn into wine to feed his soldiers", I would be highly skeptical.  For one thing, how would one turn water into wine?  If we brewed the wine over several months from the water, sure, but in one day?  One thing that supports believe is consistency with the other observations and determinations that we've made.  Have we ever determined that people have lied, or have exagerrated the qualities of their beloved leaders?  Yes.  So - I would be left deciding if George Washington really had some way of turning water into wine at a moments notice, or whether the person writing the account was mistaken/lying/exaggerating.  Which is more likely taken in context with my other knowledge?

Also - if George Washington didn't exist, but was a mythical figure spoken of in a sort of aggregate way out of many people and actions, how would this change the reality we are left with?  Not a whole lot of my actions and understanding are supported by a requirement that George Washington existed.  If it turns out George Washington did not exist, what would I do differently from here on out?  Not a whole lot.  So - it is important to consider the strength of our beliefs - if I'm dedicating my life to doing exactly what George Washington did and said I should do, then I might want to make certain that George Washington did exist and that his thoughts and actions have been truthfully recorded - how can I do that?  This is fraught with some level of difficulty.

Same goes for Shakespeare - what if he didn't write his plays?  What if the plays have been translated and modified as they went down the ages?  I don't really care - the plays, as they exist now, are interesting and enlightening and thoughtful words to read and I can find a great deal of joy and reflection and emotion from reading them.  Perhaps even some understanding of myself.  So it is important to ask, what am I using the plays for?  Is this still a valid use whether or not Shakespeare existed and wrote them?  If the answer is yes, then my possibly mistaken belief that Shakespeare existed doesn't really matter.  This is what I mean about being careful with your assumptions and using them only to the degree that you usefully can.

Part "the fourth":

So, are you saying that you are taking leaps of faith? If some new evidence later comes and shows that one of your beliefs was balony, what does this mean?

I am not taking leaps of faith - I am operating under assumptions that have rational backing.  I admit in many cases they could very plausibly be incorrect - if it turns out they are "balony" then I will not longer believe them.  That's all.

Here's an example - I believe that OJ Simpson is guilty of killing two people.  The reason I believe this is the evidence that I was exposed to.  I believe the evidence because I believe that through all the squabbling and confrontation some of it has remained unchanged/unpolluted and has an excellent chance of being true.  All this is second hand, though.  I was not on a police investigative team, and most of my information has come through the media, which I also know can be incomplete and incorrect.

I would not be devastated to learn that OJ is innocent of the crime --- my evidence is subject to significant doubt.  However, I am not acting on my belief because it is relatively weak --- I did not vote "guilty" because I was not on the jury, and I am not hunting OJ down to administer justice.  Rather, I just find myself believing him to be guilty.  What would I do because of my belief?  I wouldn't invite OJ over to my home for a dinner party.

Here's another example - the scientific theory of evolution.  This I believe much more strongly.  The evidence in support of the theory is freely available - anybody can go to a museum and see animal bones.  Anybody can read scientific journals and read the verification of the experiments and studies.  Anybody can look for fossil remains - anybody can examine rock strata containing fossils, etc. etc.  To believe this is false I would have to believe that the scientific community at large is falsifying experimental data and backing each other up in a massive and consistent lie - and I don't find this plausible.  This theory I don't use to take much action, but I do use it to form my understanding of the world and it is central to my "worldview" (if you will).  I would be utterly shocked to learn that evolution is false to the extent that life on earth does not share common descent.

Here's another example - origin of life (abiogenesis).  Here there is much uncertainty - I find that I don't have any belief at all on exactly how the first living molecules came to exist.  I don't know even enough to take a stab at it.  Does this mean I should accept a supernatural cause?  Well, how would I feel a supernatural cause could have worked?  What do we know, what have we been able to demonstrate, what have we been able to detect that shows how supernatural causes function?  What their effects are?  Nothing.  So - I can't find any reason to believe a supernatural cause performed abiogenesis, nor can I find a reason to believe it is possible for a supernatural cause to exist.  I accept that it may be possible only on the grounds that it can't be demonstrated to be impossible.  But this isn't a whole lot --- why should I accept something that doesn't mesh with any of our other understanding or experience?  So I don't.

The important distinction here is not "why would I believe the supernatural is impossible", but rather, "why would I believe the supernatural is possible.  Apply this same distinction to the question of god and/or gods: not "why would I believe no gods exists", but "why would I believe that god or gods do exist".

This is why I am a naturalist - I have a reason to believe nature exists, not because I have a reason to believe the supernatural does not.

This is why I am an atheist - not because I believe that no gods exist, but because I don't believe that any gods do exist.  It is not that I have a reason (or evidence) to suggest they don't exist, but rather because I don't have a reason (or evidence) to suggest that they do.

Haha, just one thing about this comment,

There really must be a better way we can describe this.

Yeah, there probably is  :wink:  .  I find myself out of my element on this exact matter, though.  I have no doubt that someone else could produce a more lucid thought on categorizing beliefs and evidence and quantifying them - but it appears I am not the man for this task.  I will read with interest any answer, though, and can certainly foresee myself agreeing that somebody else's answer is better than mine!

Anyway, I hope this was responsive, and I hope you see my major theme of holding rational justification for beliefs and only acting on them to the extent of my evidence, considering the ramifications and possibilities of falsehood, etc. that I was going for.

Cheers for sparking a lively topic,
Steve

[Martian]

Hey Martian, bear with me, I feel a lengthy explanation coming on  :wink:  

Your lengthy explaination was wonderful. Thank you. I was hoping for a detailed response like this.

I just would like to ask a couple more things that weren't covered in your reply.

People seem to make the distinction between blind faith and "evidenced" faith. Many people would claim that there is a lot of evidence (bible, prophecies, etc) to justify a belief in God/Satan, Heaven/Hell, and lots of other supernatural concepts that come with Christianity. Is there a distinction between blind faith and "evidenced" faith, or is all faith just blind faith. Does belief in the truth value of Evolution require faith under this understanding of the word faith? Because, it seemed like you were using the word to describe blind faith.

I agree with you that religion lacks a lot of evidence that we expect from everything else that we believe in. But, if Christianity is supported by just a little evidence (through testimony and... testimony... and... other stuff), does that mean that belief in it requires faith? Does it require subjective ranking of objective evidence? You and I need observable evidence in reality, we don't accept people's word on whether or not the natural world is violated. But, what makes us justified in saying that our observations of a consistent reality discredits the evidence of testimony? What do you think?

[SteveS]

Hey Martian - the trouble I have is distinguishing "faith" from "blind faith" or "evidenced faith".  I consider "faith" to be equivalent to "blind faith".

I'm not a terrible fan of dictionary definitions, but here is how http://www.dictionary.com defines faith:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Specifically, the working definition that I'm using is "belief that is not based on proof".

"Proof" is a tough word, so I would extended this somewhat, and say that a "rational belief" is one that rests upon "rational" evidence, or "rational" backing.  If this is the same as "faith", then why invent the word "faith"?  Why not just use regular old rational "belief"?

Consider the alternate definition: "the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved."  There is no provision for any appeal to evidence here, just "trust" that the scriptures are true.

If a person held their religious convictions based on evidence rather than simply on "blind faith", then they will have to follow the dictates of rational thought and critical analysis: if their position can be shown to be unsubstantiated or to lack rational backing, then they will have to modify or reject their belief.  How many religious people seem to do this?  Not many - they simply drop the argument and appeal to faith.  They seem to say "even if this argument is flawed, I still believe in god because I have faith".

If a person is backing their belief upon testimony, then they should be considering the strength and doubt of the testimony - rather than buying it wholesale.  For example, there are many religions in the world that are supported by testimony.  According to Islam, Muhammed once split the moon into two pieces.  This is presented as testimonial witnessed evidence by specific persons who claim to have seen the event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon).

If the Christian accepts the testimony of the New Testament book of the bible, why do they reject the accounts of miracles in the Qur'an?  What is their rubric for determining which testimony is valid and which is false?  My assertion is that they are not using any evidence to distinguish these positions --- instead, they are using their faith.

As for the question,

what makes us justified in saying that our observations of a consistent reality discredits the evidence of testimony?

There are sort of two issues here:  testimony, especially religious testimony, is usually directly contradictory with the testimony of other religions.  The bible claims god created the dry land from water, etc. while the Egyptians claim that the dry land appeared, then the Sun god "Ra" appeared upon the land (the first sunrise) and this god subsequently created all life.  These accounts contradict, and therefore cannot both be true.  So - we know that testimony can be false, and we would have to find some objective way to determine that testimony is true or we're going to have to qualify (somewhat heavily) our belief in the testimony.  This is sort of a reductio ad absurdum approach: if all religious testimony is true it leads us to an absurd conclusion that contradictions are true - which can't be, so some of the testimony must be false.  We need further evidence to distinguish the true testimony (if it exists) from the false testimony (that we know must exist).  We can't just simply accept the testimony.  If we do, then we're really using faith and not evidence.

The other aspect of this is the rigor of demonstration that we feel we need to apply.  A scientist, for example, will only accept recreatable consistent results as meaningful, because only this rigorous approach will rule out errors.  It doesn't mean a one-off observation must be false, it just means that we can't accept it as true without a positive way to confirm the observation independently.

The proof of this is in the pudding - consider the old "cold fusion" hullabaloo.  The original experiment that was reported could not be successfully reproduced.  Upon examination, the original experiment was inaccurately recorded, and the reported results were false.  Had we simply accepted the original report we would have accepted a falsehood.  Thus, science demands demonstrable consistent results to accept them.

Another famous example can be found in Johann Kepler creating his laws of planetary motion: a circular orbit nearly fit Tycho Brahe's observations, and one position was only off by 8 minutes of angle (8/60ths of one degree).  Rather than reject Brahe's observations, Kepler persevered until he found an orbit (elliptical) that fit exactly, consistently, over and over again.  (Credit to Carl Sagan and "Cosmos" for this bit).

Had Kepler stuck with his "faith" that God created a perfect circular orbit he could never have determined the truth --- instead, he let evidence (in the form of Brahe's excellent observations) guide him.  Faith is not required to confirm the elliptical orbits --- the truth of this claim can be independently verified through observation.  I don't have to have faith that Kepler was correct - it can be demonstrated that Kepler was correct.

[Martian]

Interesting, SteveS. But I think we need to go further. What do yout think of this explanation?

I think I have found a way to categorize "faith" and "blind faith" based on evidence.

People are persuaded by evidence.

Evidence can be classified into two categories: personal testimonial evidence and observational evidence.

We base our metaphysical world view on our observations (rather, that's how a person who wants to discover truth would do so). This means that observable evidence is what shapes the way we believe reality is. Observational evidence is confirmable and uncorrupted.

Testimonial evidence, on the other hand, is only as good as it fits within one's metaphysical world view. That is because testimonial evidence is subject to corruption of the truth. Testimonial evidence is unconfirmable and quite possibly corrupted.

Observable evidence takes presidence over testimonial evidence solely by the fact that it remains pure, while testimonials can be entirely false.

Therefore, since observable evidence is what makes our metaphysical world view, testimonial evidence that contradicts our metaphysical world views will be rejected.

The way that this applies to religion to this idea, is that belief in anything supernatural is only supported by personal testimony. Observational evidence for it doesn't exist. Science, I would argue, reserves itself to objective observational evidence that remains uncorrupted and is checked over and over for validity. I believe that was your main point, SteveS.

That is why science is trusted. It is a system that works to bring evidence in an uncorrupted manner to everyone, while personal testimonies have no such method of remaining pure.

In this way observable evidence of science is more persuasive then personal testimonies for religion. Therefore, blind faith is believing in things that go against our metaphysical world view, and faith would be believing testimonial evidence that falls within our metaphysical world view.

What do you think of this? Any disagreements or places where I can improve?