|
Post by goz on Jul 20, 2019 4:28:44 GMT
I disagree, and I think that you should not try to quantify or measure an absolute. Consider the nature of belief and what sets it apart by definition. ( as I stated I am taking the first of my two definitions of the word and not the second, so I can understand your confusion. See my comments above. To the theist, belief is and must be an absolute. I disagree. I just skimmed the Wikipedia article on "belief", and it doesn't seem to have to be an absolute. In fact, your "definition" of belief looks like something you made up. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I guess I am a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but I believe that those who are 2 or 3 are theists. If they are asked "do you believe in God" they will answer "yes", even if they are not 100% sure. And that's enough to classify them as theists IMO. I DO see your point, as the definition of belief is problematic to say the least. If you substitute the word for 'faith' my point becomes clearer and posters of faith on here regularly post the absolute nature of their fiath. I don't want to post their names as it is their personal faith, however I think we all know who they are, and they are backed up by a HUGE number of fundamentalists, missionaries, Islamic terrorists and some other religious groups. One would indeed find hard ANY understanding let alone justification for the religious terrorism of today and the past history with beliefs of such an absolute nature as seen in the Crusades, Inquisition reign of Bloody Mary etc etc etc right up to today. You don't think tat those episodes in history and current day atrocities are not 100% absolute belief/faith in their God?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 20, 2019 7:22:42 GMT
You don't think tat those episodes in history and current day atrocities are not 100% absolute belief/faith in their God? I would make 2 points to this: 1. It is worth bearing in mind that there were social/political/economic factors to these atrocities as well e.g. many of the Crusaders were motivated by loot and glory as much or more than they were by religious conviction 2. I don't think anyone here is saying there aren't people with 100% belief/faith. It's just there are people with less strong convictions who could still be considered believers/theists
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 20, 2019 8:18:35 GMT
You don't think tat those episodes in history and current day atrocities are not 100% absolute belief/faith in their God? I would make 2 points to this: 1. It is worth bearing in mind that there were social/political/economic factors to these atrocities as well e.g. many of the Crusaders were motivated by loot and glory as much or more than they were by religious conviction 2. I don't think anyone here is saying there aren't people with 100% belief/faith. It's just there are people with less strong convictions who could still be considered believers/theists If theists have doubts, why are they theists? Isn't entry into 'Heaven' and a place in the afterlife at risk?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 20, 2019 8:27:57 GMT
If theists have doubts, why are they theists? Isn't entry into 'Heaven' and a place in the afterlife at risk? For one thing that's quite a narrow view of theists - not all think it is faith that gets you into an afterlife of sorts. And even of those that do, it's not always the main motivator for their faith. More broadly, it's natural to doubt, many can't help it. But if they believe more than they don't, they're still going to live out the religious life. A person who thinks there is an 80% chance of rain will bring an umbrella with them. A person who is 80% sure there is a God will worship them.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 20, 2019 8:29:49 GMT
You don't think tat those episodes in history and current day atrocities are not 100% absolute belief/faith in their God? I would make 2 points to this: 1. It is worth bearing in mind that there were social/political/economic factors to these atrocities as well e.g. many of the Crusaders were motivated by loot and glory as much or more than they were by religious conviction 2. I don't think anyone here is saying there aren't people with 100% belief/faith. It's just there are people with less strong convictions who could still be considered believers/theists Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 20, 2019 9:28:36 GMT
I would make 2 points to this: 1. It is worth bearing in mind that there were social/political/economic factors to these atrocities as well e.g. many of the Crusaders were motivated by loot and glory as much or more than they were by religious conviction 2. I don't think anyone here is saying there aren't people with 100% belief/faith. It's just there are people with less strong convictions who could still be considered believers/theists Couldn't have said it better myself. Guys! WTF is this faith /belief thing that screwed up the world and then and still does?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 20, 2019 14:04:15 GMT
Couldn't have said it better myself. Guys! WTF is this faith /belief thing that screwed up the world and then and still does? The world isn't screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2019 14:27:33 GMT
I said ages ago we should do away with the theist/atheist/agnostic tripartite split and just express our beliefs as confidence levels on a percentile continuum. "I think it's 5% likely God exists," or "I think it's 99% likely God exists," or whatever. That basically clears up the confusion instantly of where you stand on the issue without all this wasted time on the semantics of three words that have difficulty expressing the full range of possible beliefs people have. IIRC, Dawkins adopted a similar continuum that broke it up into 7 parts... ...Ah, yes, here it is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins'_formulation I think the 1.s and 7.s on that scale are pretty rare (7.s probably rarer). I'm a 6, but a very strong 6. I suspect much of the confusion is caused by the dishonesty (or perhaps stupidity) of some of the people who claim to "lack" belief and who are not willing to recognize what a "lack" of belief would really mean. An "agnostic" by the "correct" use of existing definitions is not a person who has collected evidence and found it to balance so far. An "agnostic" is a person who does not collect evidence on the topic, does not engage the topic. The spectrum does not have a place for a true agnostic or a person who truly "lacks" belief. Arlon is exhibit A on why we need to do away with those three terms.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2019 14:31:12 GMT
I said ages ago we should do away with the theist/atheist/agnostic tripartite split and just express our beliefs as confidence levels on a percentile continuum. "I think it's 5% likely God exists," or "I think it's 99% likely God exists," or whatever. That basically clears up the confusion instantly of where you stand on the issue without all this wasted time on the semantics of three words that have difficulty expressing the full range of possible beliefs people have. IIRC, Dawkins adopted a similar continuum that broke it up into 7 parts... ...Ah, yes, here it is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins'_formulation I think the 1.s and 7.s on that scale are pretty rare (7.s probably rarer). I'm a 6, but a very strong 6. I find this scale problematic for the reasons already outlined on this thread about quantifying faith or the lack of it. Also the definition of faith to the theist as an absolute as you have outlined in No 1. I guess it is slightly more useful for atheism however I find it difficult to quantify faith levels with percentages which must necessarily change over the range of philosophical issues and moralities. Are talking averages? means? medians? I don't remember reading in this thread about how/why it's problematic to quantify faith. Putting a number to your confidence level is just an estimate. Like most things, your skill at estimating your confidence gets better when you do it a lot. I don't know that all theists feel that faith has to be an "absolute 1." There are plenty of traditions where doubt--which would entail something less-than-1.--is one of the central aspects of having faith (see Kierkegaard, eg).
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 21, 2019 7:02:32 GMT
I suspect much of the confusion is caused by the dishonesty (or perhaps stupidity) of some of the people who claim to "lack" belief and who are not willing to recognize what a "lack" of belief would really mean. An "agnostic" by the "correct" use of existing definitions is not a person who has collected evidence and found it to balance so far. An "agnostic" is a person who does not collect evidence on the topic, does not engage the topic. The spectrum does not have a place for a true agnostic or a person who truly "lacks" belief. Arlon is exhibit A on why we need to do away with those three terms. There's an art to identifying people whose opinions do not matter. There's no "doing away" with any terms useful or not. Some people obviously are not using official commentary on relativity when they discuss it. There is a way to spot them. When you see a person debating his "lack" of beliefs, there's another kind easy to spot. There's no harm. They aren't fooling anyone, except maybe other mentally retarded people.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 21, 2019 10:50:55 GMT
Arlon is exhibit A on why we need to do away with those three terms. There's an art to identifying people whose opinions do not matter. There's no "doing away" with any terms useful or not. Some people obviously are not using official commentary on relativity when they discuss it. There is a way to spot them. When you see a person debating his "lack" of beliefs, there's another kind easy to spot. There's no harm. They aren't fooling anyone, except maybe other mentally retarded people. Part of that art is identifying people who waste time over debating semantics, and terms go out of use all the time.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 21, 2019 21:16:13 GMT
I find this scale problematic for the reasons already outlined on this thread about quantifying faith or the lack of it. Also the definition of faith to the theist as an absolute as you have outlined in No 1. I guess it is slightly more useful for atheism however I find it difficult to quantify faith levels with percentages which must necessarily change over the range of philosophical issues and moralities. Are talking averages? means? medians? I don't remember reading in this thread about how/why it's problematic to quantify faith. Putting a number to your confidence level is just an estimate. Like most things, your skill at estimating your confidence gets better when you do it a lot. I don't know that all theists feel that faith has to be an "absolute 1." There are plenty of traditions where doubt--which would entail something less-than-1.--is one of the central aspects of having faith (see Kierkegaard, eg). Call me a pedant, and one of those people who debate semantics, however the word 'faith' as opposed to 'belief' ( which we have agreed can have several meanings) is one of the few abstract nouns that is an absolute, unlike the other one that theists bring up which is 'morality given by God'. People even use to my mind, a tautology of the phrase 'absolute faith'. Faith means a suspension of logic and reason for belief in God, however as you have pointed out this is a controversial viewport. Here is an interesting article discussing it. www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/what-is-faith-peter-boghossian-vs-the-oxford-dictionary
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 21, 2019 21:27:18 GMT
Arlon is exhibit A on why we need to do away with those three terms. There's an art to identifying people whose opinions do not matter. There's no "doing away" with any terms useful or not. Some people obviously are not using official commentary on relativity when they discuss it. There is a way to spot them. When you see a person debating his "lack" of beliefs, there's another kind easy to spot. There's no harm. They aren't fooling anyone, except maybe other mentally retarded people. Perhaps it is long overdue n this board, to have a discussion about whether certain posters here exhibiting Dunning Kruger syndrome and its effects, are considered to be suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance or mental retardation. www.lifepersona.com/what-is-dunning-kruger-syndromeYou and Heeeeey are our poster prom King and Queen for this syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 21, 2019 22:09:42 GMT
I don't remember reading in this thread about how/why it's problematic to quantify faith. Putting a number to your confidence level is just an estimate. Like most things, your skill at estimating your confidence gets better when you do it a lot. I don't know that all theists feel that faith has to be an "absolute 1." There are plenty of traditions where doubt--which would entail something less-than-1.--is one of the central aspects of having faith (see Kierkegaard, eg). Call me a pedant, and one of those people who debate semantics, however the word 'faith' as opposed to 'belief' ( which we have agreed can have several meanings) is one of the few abstract nouns that is an absolute, unlike the other one that theists bring up which is 'morality given by God'. People even use to my mind, a tautology of the phrase 'absolute faith'. Faith means a suspension of logic and reason for belief in God, however as you have pointed out this is a controversial viewport. Here is an interesting article discussing it. www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/what-is-faith-peter-boghossian-vs-the-oxford-dictionary This article provides several definitions of "faith", and none of them is an absolute. Also none of them looks like your definition of "faith". Are you arguing with dictionaries? So far, only one poster on this board claimed to do so, and you rightfully mentioned him as a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. What does this say about you?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 21, 2019 22:33:57 GMT
Call me a pedant, and one of those people who debate semantics, however the word 'faith' as opposed to 'belief' ( which we have agreed can have several meanings) is one of the few abstract nouns that is an absolute, unlike the other one that theists bring up which is 'morality given by God'. People even use to my mind, a tautology of the phrase 'absolute faith'. Faith means a suspension of logic and reason for belief in God, however as you have pointed out this is a controversial viewport. Here is an interesting article discussing it. www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/what-is-faith-peter-boghossian-vs-the-oxford-dictionaryThis article provides several definitions of "faith", and none of them is an absolute. Also none of them looks like your definition of "faith". Are you arguing with dictionaries? So far, only one poster on this board claimed to do so, and you rightfully mentioned him as a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. What does this say about you? It says I have a different view to you, and that I see a couple of posters on this Board who have an absolute faith in God. Why ignore my comment about it being controversial and make it personal about me and my position on this matter?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 22, 2019 0:14:27 GMT
I don't remember reading in this thread about how/why it's problematic to quantify faith. Putting a number to your confidence level is just an estimate. Like most things, your skill at estimating your confidence gets better when you do it a lot. I don't know that all theists feel that faith has to be an "absolute 1." There are plenty of traditions where doubt--which would entail something less-than-1.--is one of the central aspects of having faith (see Kierkegaard, eg). Call me a pedant, and one of those people who debate semantics, however the word 'faith' as opposed to 'belief' ( which we have agreed can have several meanings) is one of the few abstract nouns that is an absolute, unlike the other one that theists bring up which is 'morality given by God'. People even use to my mind, a tautology of the phrase 'absolute faith'. Faith means a suspension of logic and reason for belief in God, however as you have pointed out this is a controversial viewport. Here is an interesting article discussing it. www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/what-is-faith-peter-boghossian-vs-the-oxford-dictionary Now who's fighting the dictionaries? Just please be aware that you are doing it. You are trying to impose characteristics on reality by "writing definitions" that do. I have tried to explain it doesn't work that way. You can't use a definition of terms 1 as proof of anything. No matter what the dictionary says you still have to prove it without depending on the dictionary. My own thoughts on the common usage of faith and belief are that they are identical except that belief is usually applied to mundane things. "I believe you are out of plastic wrap," not "I have faith you are out of plastic wrap." Faith is used for more serious life altering things. "I have faith the people will approve our plan," or "I have faith there is enough gas to get to the next service station (more important than plastic wrap)." Otherwise the two terms mean the same mental action or stance. 1definition of terms: The definition of terms takes place before the debate. It is a matter of mutual arbitrary agreement. In most other settings there is no common definition.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 22, 2019 8:11:34 GMT
This article provides several definitions of "faith", and none of them is an absolute. Also none of them looks like your definition of "faith". Are you arguing with dictionaries? So far, only one poster on this board claimed to do so, and you rightfully mentioned him as a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. What does this say about you? It says I have a different view to you, and that I see a couple of posters on this Board who have an absolute faith in God. Fair enough. There are people who have absolute faith, but not all people have faith that is absolute. "Absolute faith" is not a tautology. Why ignore my comment about it being controversial and make it personal about me and my position on this matter? Because on the one hand you are correct in that the definitions of "faith" may be controversial; on the other hand, some of your posts look to me like you're saying that your definition of "faith" is right, and everyone who does not agree with you is wrong. If I misunderstood your posts in that regard, I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 22, 2019 8:18:14 GMT
It says I have a different view to you, and that I see a couple of posters on this Board who have an absolute faith in God. Fair enough. There are people who have absolute faith, but not all people have faith that is absolute. "Absolute faith" is not a tautology. Why ignore my comment about it being controversial and make it personal about me and my position on this matter? Because on the one hand you are correct in that the definitions of "faith" may be controversial; on the other hand, some of your posts look to me like you're saying that your definition of "faith" is right, and everyone who does not agree with you is wrong. If I misunderstood your posts in that regard, I apologize. She claims to have debated in school, but to have missed something so essential makes it seem unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 22, 2019 14:56:44 GMT
I'd say there's at least a little bit of Dunning-Kruger effect in all of us. More severe cases of course will be completely oblivious to this, pretty much in accordance with the definition of the term.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 22, 2019 22:54:10 GMT
Fair enough. There are people who have absolute faith, but not all people have faith that is absolute. "Absolute faith" is not a tautology. Because on the one hand you are correct in that the definitions of "faith" may be controversial; on the other hand, some of your posts look to me like you're saying that your definition of "faith" is right, and everyone who does not agree with you is wrong. If I misunderstood your posts in that regard, I apologize. She claims to have debated in school, but to have missed something so essential makes it seem unlikely. I have never made such a claim.
|
|