Comments on: What is faith?

By: Christine

Christine — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:50:59 +0000

“If you have strong faith in an idea, you’re saying, ‘It will be very hard or impossible for me to change my mind.’ This is a problem. When a person is closed to critical analysis of their own ideas, it’s tough to trust the other choices they’ve made in their life.”
Is strong faith always a problem? I don’t think so. I think it may be clearer to say that strong faith not accompanied by strong evidence is a problem.
For example, I have strong faith that my mom is rather fond of me, and it will be very hard to me to change my mind. Is this a problem? No, it’s a good thing, because my faith is based on strong evidence.

By: J.Kru

J.Kru — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:30:34 +0000

Andy – thanks for the reply.
All information involves the same number of assumptions. In our example, person A assumes that measured and reproduced situations will produce the same results – i.e. the scientific method – and that those results give us what we call “believable.” Person X, however, assumes that personal experience, feeling, and intuition – i.e. romanticism – give us what we call believable. The scientist can’t prove his method helps us discover truth to the satisfaction of the romantic, and vice versa.
Thus, the suggestion that God healed miraculously doesn’t require any more or less assumptions than the suggestion that it was medicine or spontaneous healing. It just requires a different set of assumptions. It only looks like more assumption to you (Andy) because you share in person A’s worldview, and not X’s. Person X would find the idea that truth must be limited to the physical realm ridiculous.
In other words, you are assuming certain things so far deep down, you don’t realize they are your assumptions – a.k.a. your presuppositions.
This plays out if we look at, say, evidence for the resurrection of Christ. If your presupposition is that every event can be reproduced given the right mass, volume, temperature, etc., you’re never going to see evidence for the resurrection, because that a miracle, which defies your presupposition, is not considered valid evidence in your court.
The author claims that “When someone has faith in something, they have an unjustified alliance with an idea.” But as I have tried to show, everyone has faith in something at some level, which they cannot “prove” to others who do not share their epistemological presuppositions. So I reject that the author can claim that people with faith in something “have an unjustified alliance with an idea.” This would be equally true for the author as well as everyone else, and thus becomes a moot point, undercutting his entire premise, and rendering his proposition and all conclusions invalid.

By: Andy Kaiser

Andy Kaiser — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:07:35 +0000

J.Kru,

Well said. Thanks for explaining further.

So the problem is that "believability" is actually subjective. You and I may have different ways of measuring and judging it.

That's understandable, and if that's your point, I agree.

To better clarify, I've heard this position explained in a different way that, to me, makes more sense. To mangle it together with the original statement you flagged, it would go like this:

"Given multiple opposing claims, the claim more likely to be correct is the one requiring fewer assumptions.”

Sort of an Occam's Razor approach. Certainly not perfect (one could argue about the validity of the assumptions), but I believe it's a good rule of thumb. To use your example, the god healing some cancer and not others requires many more assumptions than the other explanations of medicine or luck.

By: J.Kru

J.Kru — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:09:12 +0000

[Follow up]
In other words, you’re setting up the requirement for evidence in light of plausibility, or “believability.” But take person X and person A. A mutual friend announces to both of them that although he was chock full of cancer, he is now cancer free. Doctors confirm this. The cancer-free friend announces that God healed him after a time of prayer. Person X, who himself claims to have experiences a miraculous healing after prayer, finds this very believable. Person A finds it absolutely unbelievable, as there is no evidence that it was God and not medicine, or just plain luck.
I’m guessing that Andy, or the author, would both agree with person A. But you haven’t really moved the conversation forward because you haven’t provided a frame of reference for evidence that persons A and X can agree upon. You may have your opinions, but you have to prove it.

By: J.Kru

J.Kru — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:41:21 +0000

“The amount of evidence required in order to believe a claim should depend on the initial believability of the claim.”
I disagree that this statement is reasonable or understandable because you have not established what makes something have high or low initial believability. Upon what does “initial believability” hinge?

By: Andy Kaiser

Andy Kaiser — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:20:24 +0000

Let us know what part you don’t understand, or don’t agree with, and we can go from there.

By: J.Kru

J.Kru — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:53:35 +0000

You didn’t explain it. You gave an example.

By: Andy Kaiser

Andy Kaiser — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:43:29 +0000

I think this is an incredibly unbelievable claim. Can you prove it to me?

Sure: keep reading the article! That statement is explained in that paragraph and the one after. Let us know what part you don't understand, or don't agree with, and we can go from there.

Unless you're asking us to disprove your opinion of something. Which is impossible.

Andy

By: J.Kru

J.Kru — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:40:32 +0000

You also have faith – you have an unjustified reliance on science and the scientific method. For example, you say “The amount of evidence required in order to believe a claim should depend on the initial believability of the claim.”
I think this is an incredibly unbelievable claim. Can you prove it to me?

By: Joshua Walker

Joshua Walker — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:19:47 +0000

I like Ben Franklin’s take on faith…
“The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.”

And I think that applies to everything from religion to politics to relationships, etc. When we all open ours eyes and honestly evaluate our beliefs in light of the facts and fight cognitive dissonance within ourselves as fiercely as we can, the world will become a much better place.