6 ms·

> “faith” in the context of religion means to “believe absent evidence”. I'm pretty sure this definition comes from atheists. I think it's a strawman. I don'

> “faith” in the context of religion means to “believe absent evidence”. I'm pretty sure this definition comes from atheists. I think it's a strawman. I don't know any religious person who thinks they believe without any evidence.

krapp 3y ago
It comes from the Bible, for instance in Hebrews - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
- kybernetikos 3y ago
  And you get from that "believing absent evidence"? I get from that that faith is where your confidence in the logical conclusions of your belief gives you impetus to turn your hope into action. Faith isn't to do with why you believe, its to do with what you do with that belief, and the separate question of why you believe of course involves evidence.
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    > its to do with what you do with that belief No, that is simply what follows from having faith as is demanded of adherents. Faith in itself does not mean that. Faith is to fully believe by choice, and if one does, then it necessitates that they do what is demanded of followers.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - wredue 3y ago
    No see. Now you’re taking a third definition of faith and mangling it to shift the goal posts. This is a constant thing we see among religion argument. I do agree with you that “faith” is often defined in this way, but it is absolutely not the definition we are discussing.
    - kybernetikos 3y ago
      > I do agree with you that “faith” is often defined in this way, but it is absolutely not the definition we are discussing. Well yeah, because it's in the Bible that way, and a lot of the people you're talking about are Christian. It's fine for people to have different definitions of things as long as they agree when arguing. But just as I'm not talking about your definition of faith when you say 'faith', you're not talking about my definition of 'faith' when you say 'faith'. If you want to talk about 'belief absent evidence', I agree that's a bad thing, so there's probably no argument there. Furthermore, I think the vast majority of religious people think they do have evidence for their belief and don't agree that they have 'belief absent evidence'. Perhaps they're using the word wrong, but that's not a real area of disagreement.
wredue 3y ago
It is not. I would welcome you to watch actual debates. This definition of faith is what happens when arguments are defeated. The response will always be “Well that’s where you have to have faith”
- kybernetikos 3y ago
  That doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the faith they are advocating.
  - wredue 3y ago
    When the evidence you present is defeated and you respond “that’s where you have to have faith”, that is literally “belief absent evidence”. That’s not even counting the types of “evidence”. Like “ nature is beautiful” and “bananas fit in your hand and angle toward your mouth”.
    - ganzuul 3y ago
      It is an invitation to evolve your imagination.
      - wredue 3y ago
        “Evidence” is not “imaginary”.
        ganzuul 3y ago
        This whole thing with AI is imagination becoming reality. This is not an age of reductionism.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > The response will always be You are not actually omniscient, it only seems like you are, and you have faith in your perception (as you have been taught to by the ideology you were raised in).
slothtrop 3y ago
> I don't know any religious person who thinks they believe without any evidence. That is what faith is by definition. You can't redefine the term, whether you have faith or not. Subjective experience is not empirical evidence i.e. evidence, colloquially used. Even on the individual level there's a willful interpretation involved. They might play the semantic game of calling it evidence, but it isn't.
rhelz 3y ago
That definition actually comes from the epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 11. It’s a way, way less poetic way of saying “Faith is evidence of things not seen, and the essence of things hopes for.” And then the chapter goes on to give examples of people who had faith—none of which did what they did or believed the way they do because of anything describable as what would count as evidence in science, or a court of law. This is not to say that the faithful are irrational or even that they are wrong. The faithful have good reasons to believe as they do, but those reasons are not confirmed by evidence. Why is this so important? Well, what do you do when all the evidence says you are doomed to fail? Or that there is no way out? Do you give up? Or does your hope, as Hebrews says, consist of things not seen? If the faithful insist that their faith is confirmed like any other belief is confirmed, they will miss the whole point of faith, and when the time comes that they need that kind of faith, they find they don’t have it.
- kybernetikos 3y ago
  I think there's a big big stretch between "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." and "faith is belief absent evidence", and lots of room for different opinions in there.
  - rhelz 3y ago
    I think one of the reasons there are so many opinions is because people give different meanings to the words “faith” and “evidence.” Here is the difference for me: A teacher has two students, and she firmly believes they both can succeed in her class, and in life. 1. The first student has a history of getting good grades, has engaged parents, secure home, etc. The teacher takes this as EVIDENCE that the student will succeed. 2. The second student has always gotten very bad grades. He gets in trouble a lot. His parents are disengaged and have trouble keeping food on the table. Nevertheless, the teacher has an unshakable belief that this student can succeed. In complete contradiction to every piece of objective evidence. Because she has FAITH in the kid. There is a huge difference between those two ways of coming to a belief. This difference should not just be glossed over. Both kinds of ways of coming to believe are essential to human existence. Sometimes, the apropos thing to do is throw out all the evidence. Sometimes the most rational thing to do is have the courage to keep going by faith.
haswell 3y ago
The definition of "evidence" is what then comes under scrutiny. The person of faith believes evidence in the form of 1st person subjective experience is sufficient to justify their beliefs. The person of science believes evidence must meet a fundamentally different set of criteria. There are two different language games being played, with each player insisting their ruleset is the right one.
- kybernetikos 3y ago
  Yes, I think this is the right argument to have - what constitutes acceptable evidence for an individual to believe something, and what evidence is there, rather than trying to say faith is by definition stupid and therefore people who have faith are stupid, which as I say is a strawman.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > The person of faith believes evidence in the form of 1st person subjective experience is sufficient to justify their beliefs. > The person of science believes evidence must meet a fundamentally different set of criteria. Ironically, these two claims are themselves are both faith based, necessarily - those who make such claims do not have access to the fact of the matter on either of these (because it is not possible to attain), thus the mind injects predictions (based on its training) into the individual's stream stream of "reality", and the individual falls for it (as their culture has taught them to). Science even teaches this stuff, which makes the whole thing even more hilarious. The Rationalist community (SSC, LessWrong) has an excellent approach to it (too bad they also forget their scriptures): ~"we are not rationalists, we are aspiring rationalists". Meanwhile: how many innocent Humans died around the world today while us super smart Westerners are living it up in a state of unrealized delusion and unearned decadence?
- ganzuul 3y ago
  Evidence “number go up”. But when is information actionable? Faith in the ultimate analysis has existence independent of evidence.

krapp 3y ago

It comes from the Bible, for instance in Hebrews - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

kybernetikos 3y ago
And you get from that "believing absent evidence"? I get from that that faith is where your confidence in the logical conclusions of your belief gives you impetus to turn your hope into action. Faith isn't to do with why you believe, its to do with what you do with that belief, and the separate question of why you believe of course involves evidence.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  > its to do with what you do with that belief No, that is simply what follows from having faith as is demanded of adherents. Faith in itself does not mean that. Faith is to fully believe by choice, and if one does, then it necessitates that they do what is demanded of followers.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- wredue 3y ago
  No see. Now you’re taking a third definition of faith and mangling it to shift the goal posts. This is a constant thing we see among religion argument. I do agree with you that “faith” is often defined in this way, but it is absolutely not the definition we are discussing.
  - kybernetikos 3y ago
    > I do agree with you that “faith” is often defined in this way, but it is absolutely not the definition we are discussing. Well yeah, because it's in the Bible that way, and a lot of the people you're talking about are Christian. It's fine for people to have different definitions of things as long as they agree when arguing. But just as I'm not talking about your definition of faith when you say 'faith', you're not talking about my definition of 'faith' when you say 'faith'. If you want to talk about 'belief absent evidence', I agree that's a bad thing, so there's probably no argument there. Furthermore, I think the vast majority of religious people think they do have evidence for their belief and don't agree that they have 'belief absent evidence'. Perhaps they're using the word wrong, but that's not a real area of disagreement.

wredue 3y ago

It is not. I would welcome you to watch actual debates. This definition of faith is what happens when arguments are defeated. The response will always be “Well that’s where you have to have faith”

kybernetikos 3y ago
That doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the faith they are advocating.
- wredue 3y ago
  When the evidence you present is defeated and you respond “that’s where you have to have faith”, that is literally “belief absent evidence”. That’s not even counting the types of “evidence”. Like “ nature is beautiful” and “bananas fit in your hand and angle toward your mouth”.
  - ganzuul 3y ago
    It is an invitation to evolve your imagination.
    - wredue 3y ago
      “Evidence” is not “imaginary”.
      - ganzuul 3y ago
        This whole thing with AI is imagination becoming reality. This is not an age of reductionism.
mistermann 3y ago
> The response will always be You are not actually omniscient, it only seems like you are, and you have faith in your perception (as you have been taught to by the ideology you were raised in).

slothtrop 3y ago

> I don't know any religious person who thinks they believe without any evidence. That is what faith is by definition. You can't redefine the term, whether you have faith or not. Subjective experience is not empirical evidence i.e. evidence, colloquially used. Even on the individual level there's a willful interpretation involved. They might play the semantic game of calling it evidence, but it isn't.

rhelz 3y ago

That definition actually comes from the epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 11. It’s a way, way less poetic way of saying “Faith is evidence of things not seen, and the essence of things hopes for.” And then the chapter goes on to give examples of people who had faith—none of which did what they did or believed the way they do because of anything describable as what would count as evidence in science, or a court of law. This is not to say that the faithful are irrational or even that they are wrong. The faithful have good reasons to believe as they do, but those reasons are not confirmed by evidence. Why is this so important? Well, what do you do when all the evidence says you are doomed to fail? Or that there is no way out? Do you give up? Or does your hope, as Hebrews says, consist of things not seen? If the faithful insist that their faith is confirmed like any other belief is confirmed, they will miss the whole point of faith, and when the time comes that they need that kind of faith, they find they don’t have it.

kybernetikos 3y ago
I think there's a big big stretch between "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." and "faith is belief absent evidence", and lots of room for different opinions in there.
- rhelz 3y ago
  I think one of the reasons there are so many opinions is because people give different meanings to the words “faith” and “evidence.” Here is the difference for me: A teacher has two students, and she firmly believes they both can succeed in her class, and in life. 1. The first student has a history of getting good grades, has engaged parents, secure home, etc. The teacher takes this as EVIDENCE that the student will succeed. 2. The second student has always gotten very bad grades. He gets in trouble a lot. His parents are disengaged and have trouble keeping food on the table. Nevertheless, the teacher has an unshakable belief that this student can succeed. In complete contradiction to every piece of objective evidence. Because she has FAITH in the kid. There is a huge difference between those two ways of coming to a belief. This difference should not just be glossed over. Both kinds of ways of coming to believe are essential to human existence. Sometimes, the apropos thing to do is throw out all the evidence. Sometimes the most rational thing to do is have the courage to keep going by faith.

haswell 3y ago

The definition of "evidence" is what then comes under scrutiny. The person of faith believes evidence in the form of 1st person subjective experience is sufficient to justify their beliefs. The person of science believes evidence must meet a fundamentally different set of criteria. There are two different language games being played, with each player insisting their ruleset is the right one.

kybernetikos 3y ago
Yes, I think this is the right argument to have - what constitutes acceptable evidence for an individual to believe something, and what evidence is there, rather than trying to say faith is by definition stupid and therefore people who have faith are stupid, which as I say is a strawman.
mistermann 3y ago
> The person of faith believes evidence in the form of 1st person subjective experience is sufficient to justify their beliefs. > The person of science believes evidence must meet a fundamentally different set of criteria. Ironically, these two claims are themselves are both faith based, necessarily - those who make such claims do not have access to the fact of the matter on either of these (because it is not possible to attain), thus the mind injects predictions (based on its training) into the individual's stream stream of "reality", and the individual falls for it (as their culture has taught them to). Science even teaches this stuff, which makes the whole thing even more hilarious. The Rationalist community (SSC, LessWrong) has an excellent approach to it (too bad they also forget their scriptures): ~"we are not rationalists, we are aspiring rationalists". Meanwhile: how many innocent Humans died around the world today while us super smart Westerners are living it up in a state of unrealized delusion and unearned decadence?
ganzuul 3y ago
Evidence “number go up”. But when is information actionable? Faith in the ultimate analysis has existence independent of evidence.