Faith is the issue

[AnimatedDirt]

If I file this under "being difficult", will you mind?

Not at all...in fact it would seem that my stance is more "scientific" and less "faith" based by the ending results.

There was proof before.  Not absence of proof.

I respectfully disagree.  There was no PROOF anyone would read my post.  There are a number of things that could've happened to prevent it.

NOW there is simply more proof.  You posted words on the Internet, in a thread, on a forum.  The forum has active users.  The thread has an OP.  We know how forums work; that is, people visit them and read them and reply to any thread which catches their interest and it stands to reason at least one person will have an interest in this case: the OP.  The OP asked a direct question, therefore anticipates responses and is seeking them.  The OP has a fairly large amount of posts for only being a user for under 4 days.  With all of this evidence, you have more than a complete lack of proof.  There is no lack of cogent evidence to compel acceptance by the mind that your words would be read.  It stands to reason that you were going to be correct.  It was not faith.

If then it stands to reason, then there is room for doubt and thus not proven.

If I'm being difficult, I suppose I'm simply being as critical as some are in other areas dealing with proof, evidence and reason.  The proof in THIS thread is substanciated as proof only AFTER proof is seen.  Until then, it remains a "stands to reason" point.  In fact, to the many that have not even seen my post yet, they are unaware of proof and so to them the proof is non-existent and meaningless.

[AnimatedDirt]

By knowledge I mean it in the sense of Objectivity. The knowledge of your faith, and your awareness of it, does not elevate it to anything higher than faith. If that were true, I could say the knowledge that I am left handed was true. Yes the thought exists, I have knowledge that the thought exists - the issue is that it does not hold true to reality. As I am right handed.

Define "left-handed" - Do you not use your left hand?  In picking up things to your left, one can assume and reason you use your left hand more than your right to do so and in context it can be true you are left-handed.

Objective knowledge only came about the moment someone read my words.  More proof was given the moment a reply was made specific to my words and even more proof was given when my words were quoted.

And I would never think you would ignore any posts!  

[Persimmon Hamster]

I respectfully disagree.  There was no PROOF anyone would read my post.  There are a number of things that could've happened to prevent it.

If then it stands to reason, then there is room for doubt and thus not proven.

Then you have redefined "proof" as something different from that which I posted.  Maybe if you tell me what you mean when you say "proof", I can propose an alternate term that is more in line with the dictionary.

If I'm being difficult, I suppose I'm simply being as critical as some are in other areas dealing with proof, evidence and reason.  The proof in THIS thread is substanciated as proof only AFTER proof is seen.  Until then, it remains a "stands to reason" point.  In fact, to the many that have not even seen my post yet, they are unaware of proof and so to them the proof is non-existent and meaningless.

Stands to reason = proof, by the definitions I listed.

When you posted, what would you have estimated the probability that your words would be read to be?

Some additional, related reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Problem_of_Induction

[Dretlin]

Define "left-handed"

My right hand is my principle hand.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The proof in THIS thread is substanciated as proof only AFTER proof is seen.  Until then, it remains a "stands to reason" point.  

As pointed out in another thread, you accepted this standard of reasoning there when it favored your position, yet you use the phrase here in a skeptical context.

Consistency may be the hallmark of genius, or the bugbear of small minds, depending on who you cotton to, but it does have the benefit of aiding clear thinking.

[Inevitable Droid]

Didn't someone already post the definition of faith?  There was no proof that anyone would read my words in THIS thread at the point which I posted them.

There was reasonable certainty based on extrapolation from prior direct observations made with your own eyes.  Are you proposing that we define faith as reasonable certainty extrapolated from prior direct observations made with our own eyes?  If you are, then my next question will be, do you have this kind of faith with respect to religious matters?  If instead you aren't proposing anything of the kind, then my next question will be, on what did you base your faith that your words would be read?

[Inevitable Droid]

This discussion so far has provided me with an interesting modality for assessing individual cognition.  I will suggest that individuals can be assessed with respect to what level of measurably probable accuracy they demand with respect to a proposition before being willing to accept that proposition.  Each individual could be plotted along a spectrum, with some arbitrarily selected guideposts looking like so:

1. Demands a measurably probable accuracy of 100%.  Absolute skeptic, perhaps neurotic.

2. Demands a measurably probable accuracy of at least 90%.  Strong skeptic.

3. Demands a measurably probable accuracy of at least 51%.  Weak skeptic.

4. Demands a measurably probable accuracy of at least 40%.  Weak rube/mark.

5. Demands a measurably probable accuracy of at least 10%.  Strong rube/mark.

6. Demands that probable accuracy be measurable but doesn't care if, when measured, it is zero.  Nearly absolute rube/mark.

7. Doesn't demand measurability at all with respect to probable accuracy.  Absolute rube/mark.


Given the above, then, two individuals may differ in either or both of two ways:

1. They may be plotted at different points along the spectrum.

2. They may disagree as to the measurably probable accuracy of a particular proposition.
 
If the first is true, and if it is emphatically true, such that, the distance between the two individuals on the spectrum is vast, then it is pointless for the two individuals to debate any topic whatsoever, as their cognitive functions are just too different.

If the first is false, or if it is only mildly true, such that, the distance between the two individuals on the spectrum is small, then it wouldn't be pointless for the two individuals to debate any topic they saw fit to debate.

[Gawen]

Is it wrong for me to say "I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow morning?"

Yes?
No?
Yes AND no?

After all, I have no evidence that the sun will come over the horizon tomorrow morning. But due to human experience over the last gazillion years, there is a great probability the sun will come over the horizon tomorrow morning. Is this faith?

We got a new manager at work. He'd been here perhaps a month or so, at the time. I was to take a test for a new and higher license (for work) and I'd taken it twice before and failed. I mentioned it to him the day before the third test and he told me he had faith in me that I would pass the test this time. Well, his faith was misplaced...*chucklin*...I failed again.

Dretlin said:

If it was evidence then it would be knowledge and not faith.

That much is true.
And since this was posted in the "Religion" section and not "Philosophy", I'll just have to bring in the theistic side of things...*wicked evil grin*

If theistic belief is an act of faith then the one holding the belief either thinks the evidence against belief outweighs or equals the evidence for belief, or the belief is held without regard for evidence at all. Otherwise, the belief is not an act of faith, but of belief that the evidence is stronger for belief than against.
But some theists chide me for having "faith" in the nonexistence of Gods. That argument is specious because there is a difference between belief through knowledge and faith, which relies on zero knowledge.

Religious faith is a perfect defense against disproof. If an idea or concept or belief is held with faith it simply cannot be disproved. Religious faith has no moral flavour, it is a moral flavour enhancer. Faith is the idea that belief in an idea is good and that doubt is bad. It can be quite circular in that faith is belief in a belief with faith which is a virtue. Faith relies heavily on feeling and not on rationality. If you know without evidence that an idea/concept/belief is right, you can feel it is right, have faith in it and be confident that that faith is well placed...and is a virtue. Looking at that idea or concept with rationality is now interpreted as doubt, and theistically speaking...a sin.

So faith allows an idea/concept/belief with no evidence to anchor in your brain, protected in an unassailable position. And protecting the article of faith from doubt (reason) makes the person feel better, is a virtue, and virtue is its own reward. To me, it is really mindboggling that people still succumb to "faith".

[Persimmon Hamster]

If the first is true, and if it is emphatically true, such that, the distance between the two individuals on the spectrum is vast, then it is pointless for the two individuals to debate any topic whatsoever, as their cognitive functions are just too different.

If the first is false, or if it is only mildly true, such that, the distance between the two individuals on the spectrum is small, then it wouldn't be pointless for the two individuals to debate any topic they saw fit to debate.

A very good analysis, and one I am inclined to agree with.  As a tool to expedite debate, if that is your goal, how would you propose locating people on the scale?  I ask because I think the thing about rubes, weak and strong, is that they would try to evade being located on it by any means necessary or their lack of logical thinking would prevent them from being able to help (even if they wanted to).

[Ihateyoumike]

After all, I have no evidence that the sun will come over the horizon tomorrow morning. But due to human experience over the last gazillion years, there is a great probability the sun will come over the horizon tomorrow morning. Is this faith?

The sun HAS to come up tomorrow morning, otherwise tomorrow morning will not exist.

[Inevitable Droid]

A very good analysis, and one I am inclined to agree with.  As a tool to expedite debate, if that is your goal, how would you propose locating people on the scale?

To be properly rigorous, we'd probably need a test, or series of tests, devised by a clinical psychologist, presumably employing one, two, three, or all four of the following: (1) observation in the wild; (2) experimentation in the lab; (3) survey questionnaires; (4) interviews.  But for purposes of streamlining debate, a soft rigor might often suffice.  For example, the strong skeptic would almost certainly self-identify as such with only a moment's introspection.  That same strong skeptic could almost certainly identify other strong skeptics by the propositions suggested, accepted, or rejected, and could also almost certainly identify strong or weak rube/marks in the same manner.  The value of the analysis would reside in the fact that the strong skeptic could stop wasting time debating rube/marks, as the pointlessness of that whole endeavor would be evident and could drive the decision to disengage earlier rather than later.    

I ask because I think the thing about rubes, weak and strong, is that they would try to evade being located on it by any means necessary or their lack of logical thinking would prevent them from being able to help (even if they wanted to).

I agree that my labels are biased.  I'm open to suggestions as to less emotionally loaded labels.  Would believer be a clear enough label for the opposite of skeptic?  Would it be less biased?

[Davin]

This discussion so far has provided me with an interesting modality for assessing individual cognition.[...]

I think that you'll find that this will actually only describe people on the upper end of your scale and that there is hardly any one on the bottom end of your spectrum. Have you talked to a theist that will take their religion without any evidence, and is also willing to take anything else without any evidence? I have not. I have never met anyone that will just switch beliefs without any or very little evidence. I think you'll find that there is a great amount of inconsistency between what evidence is required for a theist to believe in their religion and the evidence that is required for them to accept that their religion is wrong about things... like how old the Earth is.

Any way, I'm pretty sure this scale will only represent skeptics at the top, progressing into a specific kind of crazy near the bottom.

[elliebean]

This discussion so far has provided me with an interesting modality for assessing individual cognition.[...]

I think that you'll find that this will actually only describe people on the upper end of your scale and that there is hardly any one on the bottom end of your spectrum. Have you talked to a theist that will take their religion without any evidence, and is also willing to take anything else without any evidence? I have not. I have never met anyone that will just switch beliefs without any or very little evidence. I think you'll find that there is a great amount of inconsistency between what evidence is required for a theist to believe in their religion and the evidence that is required for them to accept that their religion is wrong about things... like how old the Earth is.

Any way, I'm pretty sure this scale will only represent skeptics at the top, progressing into a specific kind of crazy near the bottom.

Very true. Indeed, I think the biggest drive towards atheism is a strong desire for consistency in one's application of skepticism. Maybe we should find a way to measure that.

[Inevitable Droid]

I think you'll find that there is a great amount of inconsistency between what evidence is required for a theist to believe in their religion and the evidence that is required for them to accept that their religion is wrong about things... like how old the Earth is.

Interesting.  I interpret you as saying that a theist requires very little evidence to believe in their religion, but would require a great deal of evidence to accept their religion is wrong about things.  Is that what you're saying?  If so, to what do you attribute this double standard?

[Persimmon Hamster]

I think that you'll find that this will actually only describe people on the upper end of your scale and that there is hardly any one on the bottom end of your spectrum. Have you talked to a theist that will take their religion without any evidence, and is also willing to take anything else without any evidence? I have not. I have never met anyone that will just switch beliefs without any or very little evidence. I think you'll find that there is a great amount of inconsistency between what evidence is required for a theist to believe in their religion and the evidence that is required for them to accept that their religion is wrong about things... like how old the Earth is.

Any way, I'm pretty sure this scale will only represent skeptics at the top, progressing into a specific kind of crazy near the bottom.

Very true. Indeed, I think the biggest drive towards atheism is a strong desire for consistency in one's application of skepticism. Maybe we should find a way to measure that.

Hmm.  I could agree that, in many theists, it appears they lack consistency in their application of skepticism.  To put it another way, it appears they require different measurably probable accuracy to accept different propositions.  But why would a person have multiple standards for multiple propositions?

As beings with limited time and resources, no single one of us can truly obtain and evaluate all of the evidence in support of all propositions and determine the probable accuracy of each.  Therefore we necessarily rely on others to do that for us, and we choose which groups to recognize as authorities on various matters.

I would say an absolute rube is a person who accepts anyone as an authority on any topic.  I do believe we could find such people, but they would either all be under 5 years old, or they would suffer from a mental disorder just like Inevitable Droid has suggested an absolute skeptic might.  From birth, I think we begin by defaulting to recognize authority in anyone until we have some reason to do otherwise.

But then there are theists like the one I am talking about in the "Literal Genesis - Why?" thread.  They may rank at the top of the curve in science & math.  They understand how it works, and how to evaluate propositions by the scientific method.  And yet they can still believe in a literal Genesis at the same time.  When it comes to science, they argue these points:
- We can never know what the laws of nature were before recorded history
- We can never know what they will be tomorrow (bubble nucleation?)
- We don't really know what they are now (we continually discover new ideas that render old ideas obsolete -- when will it end?)

In this manner they start to regard the scientific community as having less authority.  Meanwhile, they accept the authority of the church (or perhaps better stated, the Bible).  They do think critically about everything.  They would argue there is as much evidence for believing what it says as for believing anything the scientific community says.  A large community of apologists and scholars "connect the dots" outside of the Bible for them to create the impression of evidence through historical study, genealogy exercises, manipulation of scientific concepts such as the uncertainty principle, etc.  This body grows, amasses more arguments, and reflects skepticism back at the scientific community, and these theists don't have the time to work out the probable accuracy of every last argument for themselves.

Thus they might say they are consistent in their application of skepticism, and that when it comes to the proposition of God they find there to be similar (or greater) measurably probable accuracy than propositions of science.

Maybe elliebean is right.  Maybe the key difference between a theist like that, and myself, is they have less desire for consistency, so they spend less time assessing the accuracy of the propositions they accept.  If they had a stronger desire, they might not only question the scientific community, they might more rigorously question the apologist community as well and find they are giving it more authority than it deserves.

The value of the analysis would reside in the fact that the strong skeptic could stop wasting time debating rube/marks, as the pointlessness of that whole endeavor would be evident and could drive the decision to disengage earlier rather than later.

Why should a strong skeptic want to disengage in debate with a rube?  An absolute rube, sure... but I thought perhaps locating a person on this scale might help us determine how to streamline a debate, not necessarily disengage it.