Rick Froman wrote:
> I prefer the following definition of faith I found in
> Webster's Third New International Dictionary - Unabridged. It makes a
slight
> modification that I think makes a big difference. The definition of
"faith" is "firm
> or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof".
I don't like this one very much. If the emphasis is on the "firm or
unquestioning" part, it looks like Jeff's notion (I think). But "firm belief
in something for which there is no proof" is a pretty good description of my
situation with respect to such things as the existence of the continent of
Africa, or the fact that if I drop an egg from my balcony tomorrow, it will
crack when it strikes the pavement. Those beliefs are certainly not in the
same kind of epistemological category as my students' belief (on faith) that
they will one day rejoin their lost ancestors in heaven, are they? They (my
beliefs) are certainly not the kind of thing we normally think about when we
talk about holding beliefs "on faith". I've got some pretty good evidence
that Africa exists, and that an egg dropped from my balcony will crack on
striking the concrete below. Webster's definition doesn't properly
distinguish belief on the basis of faith from belief on the basis of
evidence.
> It is not that it doesn't require evidence -- it is that there is not
likely to be any evidence
> forthcoming.
That's a very nice distinction, one that I can agree with.
> I would say that the vast majority of things people hold on
> faith are things for which there is no empirical evidence one way or the
other (I
> know there are some popular, controversial and attention-grabbing
exceptions -- Jeff
> mentioned human origins). What would be disconfirming evidence, for
> example, for the existence of God?
Good points. What concerns me, though, is that after all the talk about
holding such beliefs on faith, some of the "faithful" then proceed to treat
their beliefs as though they're publicly defensible, and even as though
they're already proven, as they try to impose public policy based on those
beliefs (the recent Kansas decision is an example). As someone (Jeff, if I
remember correctly) pointed out, Rawls has argued (and I agree) that the act
of basing public policy on revealed truths or faith-based beliefs (rather
than on empirically tested claims) reduces to "might makes right".
> Most value judgments must be based on some kind of faith
> since there is no empirical evidence one way or the other.
> Is abortion a matter of privacy? Is privacy good? Why?
I've always thought of faith as being about states of the world,
propositions which are "true" and "false". You seem to be extending "faith"
to cover definitions and value judgements here, right? Nothing wrong with
doing so, but if we're going to say that "faith" is a reason for believing
that "privacy is good" (a value judgement), then I want to rethink
everything I'm saying about where I believe faith plays into all of this.
And I'd like there to be a separate term for belief without evidence about
true and false propositions (e.g., the existence of god, which strikes me as
an entirely different sort of belief, quite unlike "privacy is good").
> How are we to make decisions in the absence of empirical
> evidence? Is faith in one's spouse reasonable or should I be concerned
> every time I am out of town that my wife is being unfaithful? I have no
> empirical evidence of her faithfulness and, in fact, there may be some
demographic and
> sociobiological evidence to indicate that she may well be
> unfaithful. She would certainly have sociobiological and demographic
evidence
> to doubt my faithfulness.
Now you're back to talking about true and false propositions (assuming, as
always, a careful operationalization of "faithful"). This example doesn't
seem to go with your earlier argument - it's neither a value judgement nor a
definition. You've lost me here.
> Paul wrote:
>
> > By the way, that last phrase ("The plural of anecdote is
> > not data") came from a TIPSter, I believe. If it's a quote from someone
in
> > particular, I could really use a source.
>
> I occasionally use it as a tag line -- see below with
> reference.
(snip)
> "79.48% of all statistics are made up on the spot." - John A. Paulos
Are you saying that the line I quoted ("The plural of anecdote...") is from
Paulos? If so, is there a particular book or article?
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
