Tom Caylor wrote: > Brent Meeker wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > Brent Meeker writes: > > > > > >>> This cannot be explained away by > > >>> "faith" in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a > > >>> deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such > > >>> beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of simultaneously > > >>> believing x and not-x. > > >>> > > >> Seems like "faith" to me - belief without or contrary to evidence. What > > >> is the "x" you refer to? > > > > > > There is a subtle difference. It is possible to have faith in something > > > stupid > > > and still be consistent. For example, I could say that I have faith that > > > God > > > will answer my prayers regardless of whether he has ever answered any > > > prayers before in the history of the world. However, I think most > > > religious > > > people would say that they have "faith" that God will answer their prayers > > > because that it what God does and has done in the past. In so saying, they > > > are making an empirically verifiable claim, at least in theory. They can > > > be invited > > > to come up with a test to support their belief, which can be as stringent > > > as they > > > like; for example, they might allow only historical analysis because God > > > would > > > not comply with any experiment designed to test him. I suspect that no > > > such > > > test would have any impact on their beliefs because at bottom they are > > > just > > > based on blind faith, but given that they do not volunteer this to begin > > > with, it > > > shows them up as inconsistent and hypocritical. > > > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > OK. But I'd say that in fact almost no one believes something without any > > evidence, i.e. on *blind* faith. Religious faith is usually belief based > > on *selected* evidence; it is "faith" because it is contrary to the total > > evidence. Bruno seems to use "faith" somewhat differently: to mean what I > > would call a working hypothesis. > > > > Brent Meeker > > This gets us to the question that has been pondered here before, a > question that is more appropriate to the general > metaphysical/epistemological thoughts of this List: What does it mean > to believe something? I'd say that you can't really know if you or > someone else really believes something unless you/they act on it. An > act could simply be investing some of our precious limited time to look > at its consequences. I'd say that for that non-trivial period of time > in your life, you had at least somewhat of a belief in it. It is not a > trivial thing to use up some of your life doing something (at least in > my worldview). I think this shows how Bruno's "belief" can be brought > equal in essence (if not necessarily the quantity of investment) to any > other belief. Evidence is relative, and I think is important in > practical terms, but it is not essential to the definition of belief. > > Tom
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
