[Shylock]

Plasmatic, on Nov 25 2008, 04:47 PM, said:

You dont understand the concept of identity. The percieved essentials of the identity of the rational animal is all one needs. Perception of these essentials is the basis of ones expectation. This is NOT faith. Faith again is belief WITHOUT causal justification.

Can you provide the source of this definition of faith as belief without causal justification?

Or should I just take it on faith?

[KendallJ]

Jake_Ellison, on Nov 26 2008, 09:07 AM, said:

Not only did you do selective googleing, until you've found a moronic website that backed up your idea of what the word means by a stupid example at (2) ( The correct version of that sentence would be: He believed that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.), but you left out even meanings that are closer to reality, which appeared on this website. That's dishonest.
Let's look at another, in my opinion more credible, definition at the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary:

We're obviously not talking about "loyalty", so that leaves these definitions:

Perfectly clear, perfectly in tune with Peikoff's definition. (specifically 2b is contained in that definition)

You seem to be confusing the concept "faith" with "belief": Belief can be based on reason, as well as faith. In your previous examples, the belief you mistakenly call "faith" is actually based on reason(proof), not faith. (for instance, you believe, rather than have faith, in your legs working, because of proof: you've seen them work all your life, and nothing changed. Saying that one has faith in rational beliefs is in fact a mistaken use of the term, in proper English, and you wouldn't find it in older, prestigious works of literature.)
Faith is the opposite of reason. Faith is the blind belief in something, as opposed to belief based on reason.

This response completey befuddles me.

a. Shylock was answering someone else's call for a definition. He simply gave the one he was using.

b. he need not differentiate every other one in the list, if he needs to define how he's using the term. He doesn't have to provide an etymological analysis, just pick the ones he asserts he means. So not calling them all out is not necessarily dishonest.

c. "moronic" and "stupid"? Did you really think your point wouldn't stand unless you resorted to name calling? If you want to question the source, question the source.

d. so after all that. Shylock has said he's using 2 possible definitions. One of which is: "2. belief that is not based on proof". You then berate him and when you finally get to your preferred source for definitions, the one you think is closest to Peikoff's usage and it's " b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof ". Umm. whew, glad we used such a better source. I can see how the first definition is so "moronic." They left out "firm." Sounds like you're in violent agreement.

e. The example is valid. The word is used that way. Why not focus on agreeing on the distinction rather than berating for a non-existent lack of dictionary skills?

Yikes, you guys are embarasing. This guy has yet to prove himself a troll, and you guys are really, really out of line.

This post has been edited by KendallJ: 26 November 2008 - 09:10 AM

[KendallJ]

KendallJ, on Nov 25 2008, 05:12 PM, said:

There are 3 axioms: identity, existence, consciousness. Reason is not among them. Can you cite a source for this claim that Rand said Reason was axiomatic?

Shylock, while everyone else is nitpicking you on dictionary definitions, your main claim about Rand rests on the premise I take issue with. Can you please provide a source, and if not, you're going to need to reforumulate your "Faith is axiomatic" line of thinking.

Everyone is correct in saying that what you are calling every day "faith" is not faith in the way you believe in God. They are two species, and two separate concepts you are equivocating. One is understanding known causal relationships, and the other is belief without proof. In Objectivism, identity (and hence causality) is axiomatic. It is not faith to see that things have specific natures, and behave in specific ways. I see that every day, in absolutely everything I sense. When certain causal realationships are known, it is not faith to expect them to hold. Nor is it faith to simply see that cause and effect simply are.

I once had a friend at dinner who proceed to grab the salt shaker and hold it under the table. She said "it takes faith to know where the salt shaker is." My reply was "even my dog (who proceeds to dig under the covers when he sees me hide his stuffy there) knows that's not faith."

This post has been edited by KendallJ: 26 November 2008 - 09:14 AM

[Shylock]

Maarten, on Nov 25 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

True axioms are perceptually evident, but they can also be validated. I don't know how you propose to validate faith as a tool of cognition. It certainly can and has been done for reason: we've proven countless times that it IS man's means of cognition, of survival. How do you want to do that for faith? How does faith (defined as belief in the absence of evidence, or belief contradicted by evidence) allow a man to do that?

Your definition is faulty. How have you arrived at that definition?

Let's take a real-world example, which I will proceed to treat lightly (as I'm not Catholic). To anyone who is offended, please accept my apology for any slight I might inadvertantly make.

The Virgin of Guadalupe

According to the story Juan Diego (his Christian name) was converted to Catholicism and later say a miraculous vision of the Virgin Mary, who instructed him to have a church built on that spot. After some trouble, he managed to relate his supernatural story to the local bishop who demanded proof of this vision. Later Juan Diego encountered the spirit(?) again and was instructed to take roses to the bishop as proof of the vision. Upon presenting these roses to the bishop they were both amazed to see an imagine of "La Virgen de Guadalupe" emblazoned on the mantle he had used to transport the flowers. That mantle has been preserved and the image is still visible without signs of deterioration. The Vatican recognized the miracle in 1745 and The Virgin of Guadalupe is widely recognized as the patron saint of Mexico. Thousands of people faithfully visit the shrine every year and some have claimed miracles as a result of their prayers there (drawn from http://www.cancunste.../guadalupe.htm).

Is this an account of faith? Absolutely. Is it "a belief in the absence of evidence, or belief contradicted by evidence" ? According to the account, the validity of which I have not investigated, there is evidence on which the people base their belief in Guadalupe. Their belief may very well be completely wrong but it is not a belief for which there is no evidence.

[KendallJ]

Shylock, on Nov 26 2008, 10:14 AM, said:

Your definition is faulty. How have you arrived at that definition?

Its the one you proposed. "Belief without proof."

[Jake_Ellison]

KendallJ, on Nov 26 2008, 04:02 PM, said:

c. "moronic" and "stupid"? Did you really think your point wouldn't stand unless you resorted to name calling? If you want to question the source, question the source.

The website is moronic (look into it if you don't believe me, punch up a few definitions), and completely useless. The example is stupid: it seeks to illustrate the exact opposite of what it's supposed to illustrate: the difference between faith and belief.
If you look up the definition of both words(moronic and stupid), hopefully in a different place, you'll find that they fit quite nicely.
Your aversion to calling things what they are is strange, given your obvious intelligence and attention to detail.

I did however not insult Shylock, so there is no need for you to jump to his defence. In fact your decision to do so by dismissing my point is annoying me:

"He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." in a dictionary definition of "faith" is not a valid example: it suggests that faith, rather than rational belief, is used in scientific research.
Of course, I went further than that by saying something that I cannot prove, because it is a somewhat subjective (but widely held) opinion : using "to have faith" to replace "to believe", when it comes to rational ideas or plans such as a scientific hypothesis, is probably wrong, and bad writing at best. However, even though you said nothing to refute even this part of my argument (you just said the example was perfectly valid), it is not necessary to my larger point that the example is stupid: the attempt to link the word faith to the scientific method (in a dictionary of all places) is plenty proof of that.

That said, I consider the matter closed. I'm not going to sit here and explain words. It's really not a fun activity.

[KendallJ]

Shylock, on Nov 26 2008, 10:14 AM, said:

Is this an account of faith? Absolutely. Is it "a belief in the absence of evidence, or belief contradicted by evidence" ? According to the account, the validity of which I have not investigated, there is evidence on which the people base their belief in Guadalupe. Their belief may very well be completely wrong but it is not a belief for which there is no evidence.

Well in order for it to be valid evidence you have to walk through that causal chain. It has to be established. If you can't, then it's not actually evidence.

Your account is a bit like me saying, "yesterday I hit my head and when I did, I saw a bright flash of light. Therefore God." There is a huge gap in your reasoning and until you fill that gap, you don't actually have evidence. BY that logic I can claim anything around me is evidence for God. Oh, wait, that's what the Argument from Design is. It is completely arbitrary.

[Shylock]

KendallJ, on Nov 26 2008, 10:08 AM, said:

Shylock, while everyone else is nitpicking you on dictionary definitions, your main claim about Rand rests on the premise I take issue with. Can you please provide a source, and if not, you're going to need to reforumulate your "Faith is axiomatic" line of thinking.

Everyone is correct in saying that what you are calling every day "faith" is not faith in the way you believe in God. They are two species, and two separate concepts you are equivocating. One is understanding known causal relationships, and the other is belief without proof. In Objectivism, identity (and hence causality) is axiomatic. It is not faith to see that things have specific natures, and behave in specific ways. I see that every day, in absolutely everything I sense. When certain causal realationships are known, it is not faith to expect them to hold. Nor is it faith to simply see that cause and effect simply are.

I once had a friend at dinner who proceed to grab the salt shaker and hold it under the table. She said "it takes faith to know where the salt shaker is." My reply was "even my dog (who proceeds to dig under the covers when he sees me hide his stuffy there) knows that's not faith."

I like your post.

Let's take a theoretical example. Let's say that your friend(sister,cousin,workmate,whatever) invites you to there place on a Monday night to have dinner. Surprise surprise you see two 19-year-old guys with white shirts and little namebadges. You should have known by the bikes outside, I suppose, it's the Mormons. Lo and behold you find out that your gullible friend has recently converted and he is now presenting the gospel to you so you can get saved, too.

You're in a good mood, so you play along for awhile for laughs. Now, I don't know you personally, but I'm figuring you for an athiest type (Ayn Rand was too, wasn't she?) so you challenge these guys to prove that God exists.

Their answer is as follows:
1. Joseph Smith, Jr. (the founder of Mormonism) saw God in a miraculous vision in 18-- (I don't know the exact date).
2. His sidekick Oliver Cowdrey also saw God later in the temple they constructed (along with Joseph).
3. The two missionaries prayed to receive a miraculous confirmation and felt what they call the 'Holy Spirit'
4. Your friend(acquaintance?) also informs you that he had a miraculous dream in which he saw his deceased mother telling him that she had converted to Mormonism in the spirit world.
5. They provide you with a Book of Mormon whose opening page has the local bishop's account of miraculous confirmation of its truthfulness spelled out for you.

Now, I don't know you personally, but I'm guessing that the evidence above-presented wouldn't be enough to convince you to join up to the Mormon faith (using a different definition of the word faith here) but I think that we can all realize that some people will find the evidence presented convincing.

The above hypothetical situation is the primary conversion technique used by that church. It is not atypical. Born-Again Christians normally use a similar 'witnessing' technique to persuade people and I assume the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't that far off from the same basic technique, either.

Witnessing provides enough evidence to lead to faith.
Faith causes the person to take specific actions (making donations, reading the Bible, whatever).
The actions either lead to a better life and/or any improvement noted is attributed to the new activity despite the lack of proof of a causal connection.
The improvements lead to an increase in faith and an increase in activity as the person becomes more and more convinced of the rightness of their path.

[KendallJ]

Jake_Ellison, on Nov 26 2008, 10:39 AM, said:

Your aversion to calling things what they are is strange, given your obvious intelligence and attention to detail.

I did however not insult Shylock, so there is no need for you to jump to his defence. In fact your decision to do so by dismissing my point is annoying me:

Well you might check your premises before you question my psychology. Dictionary's reflect usage. That is why they have so many options. The word is used that way. If you want to claim that it is not, then you need to provide some evidence. You may think it is a poor distinction, but that doesn't make the dictionary wrong for not articulating it. If you really want an etymological debate with the guy, maybe you should start with the OED.

"didn't insult"? uh huh. Shylock, the source you picked is moronic and stupid, but that doesn't say anything about you. Regardless, my question still stands. Why the need? Your point could have been made without it. It is gratuitous use of inflammatory language.

And finally regardless of all that crap, you guys have violently agreed on the definition you want to use. See, that's the really embarrasing part. After dressing him up and down, and calling his website moronic and stupid, when you put everything in the context of what he was trying do, it really doesn't amount to a very strong point. You're off in the weeds, bellowing.

This post has been edited by KendallJ: 26 November 2008 - 09:51 AM

[Shylock]

KendallJ, on Nov 26 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

Well in order for it to be valid evidence you have to walk through that causal chain. It has to be established. If you can't, then it's not actually evidence.

Your account is a bit like me saying, "yesterday I hit my head and when I did, I saw a bright flash of light. Therefore God." There is a huge gap in your reasoning and until you fill that gap, you don't actually have evidence. BY that logic I can claim anything around me is evidence for God. Oh, wait, that's what the Argument from Design is. It is completely arbitrary.

Like I guessed above, I figured you wouldn't be convinced. But let's take another less controversial subject. Someone claims that the city of Troy (as mentioned in the Illiad) really did exist and was sacked in a war with Greece.

Can you really prove that it did or did not exist? Aren't we really looking at the evidence and choosing to either believe or not believe. We can't be 100% sure one way or another, can we?

[KendallJ]

Shylock, on Nov 26 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

I like your post.

Thanks. I'll answer yours when you provide me a source for your claim about Rand's statement as I discussed previously. That or retract it.

[Shylock]

Jake_Ellison, on Nov 26 2008, 10:39 AM, said:

"He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." in a dictionary definition of "faith" is not a valid example: it suggests that faith, rather than rational belief, is used in scientific research.

Science is based on the scientific method.

Observation - Hypothesis - Experimentation - Analysis - Conclusion

I like the scientific method. However, I'm not aware that anyone has proven that it works. Nevertheless, scientists do place a lot of faith in it. So far it hasn't been disproven. That is not the same, however, as claiming that it has been proven.

KendallJ, on Nov 26 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

Thanks. I'll answer yours when you provide me a source for your claim about Rand's statement as I discussed previously. That or retract it.

Ayn Rand's books are not generally available in Peru. Even if they were, they wouldn't be in my language. Accordingly, I can neither confirm nor deny anything she might have said. All my information is second-hand.

[Jake_Ellison]

KendallJ, on Nov 26 2008, 04:49 PM, said:

And finally regardless of all that crap, you guys have violently agreed on the definition you want to use. See, that's the really embarrasing part. After dressing him up and down, and calling his website moronic and stupid, when you put everything in the context of what he was trying do, it really doesn't amount to a very strong point. You're off in the weeds, bellowing.

Both the dictionary example (faith in a hypothesis) and the example Shylock gives later (faith in your legs working in the morning), are using faith to mean a rational expectation that something is likely to work. I violently disagree with that definition. There's nothing embarrassing about that point, and I used strong language to make it, in order to stress my aversion to that specific website, which rarely gets anything right. I'm in a brick house, in the middle of a forrest, with the light of the candle straight as an arrow, proudly pointing towards the sky.

[Shylock]

KendallJ, on Nov 26 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

Its the one you proposed. "Belief without proof."

I hate to be nitpicky, but quoting from your previous post you claimed that faith was:

"...defined as belief in the absence of evidence, or belief contradicted by evidence.

Evidence is not the same as proof.

[Plasmatic]

Quote

Can you provide the source of this definition of faith as belief without causal justification?

Or should I just take it on faith? ......

Like I guessed above, I figured you wouldn't be convinced. But let's take another less controversial subject. Someone claims that the city of Troy (as mentioned in the Illiad) really did exist and was sacked in a war with Greece.

Can you really prove that it did or did not exist? Aren't we really looking at the evidence and choosing to either believe or not believe. We can't be 100% sure one way or another, can we?

The source is the very contexts that the concept refers to and originated from. I dont personally care what is in a dictionary ,if it doesnt fit experience I discard it.


Again you are ignoring the fact that in EVERY example youve given you are enumerating a causal chain of events ,and /or providing examples of evaluated criteria for judgement.

This is NOT what faith is. Otherwise the differentiation between proof and arbitrary declaration is meaningless. Now there are folks who actually do believe in religious myths because they have msintegrated facts. Those are people who given the correct differentiation of the facts will discard those misintegrations. I know because Im an ex minister myself.

This post has been edited by Plasmatic: 26 November 2008 - 10:15 AM

[Shylock]

Jake_Ellison, on Nov 26 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

Both the dictionary example (faith in a hypothesis) and the example Shylock gives later (faith in your legs working in the morning), are using faith to mean a rational expectation that something is likely to work. I violently disagree with that definition. There's nothing embarrassing about that point, and I used strong language to make it, in order to stress my aversion to that specific website, which rarely gets anything right. I'm in a brick house, in the middle of a forrest, with the light of the candle straight as an arrow, proudly pointing towards the sky.

Imagine that we have a man born in some poor tribal village in the Amazon jungle whose members are carefully isolated from modern society to ensure that they don't catch all of our diseases and die. He falls ill. He knows that his father, mother, and other people have used the services of the medicine man in the past with varying levels of success. The medicine man requires him to go without food and water for 2 days and also scares the evil spirits out of him.

Is the hypothetical man's choice to use the services of the medicine man

A) A rational expectation that something is likely to work; or,
B) An irrational blind belief in something for which there is no evidence?

This post has been edited by Shylock: 26 November 2008 - 10:13 AM

[Jake_Ellison]

Shylock, on Nov 26 2008, 04:51 PM, said:

Like I guessed above, I figured you wouldn't be convinced. But let's take another less controversial subject. Someone claims that the city of Troy (as mentioned in the Illiad) really did exist and was sacked in a war with Greece.

Can you really prove that it did or did not exist? Aren't we really looking at the evidence and choosing to either believe or not believe. We can't be 100% sure one way or another, can we?

Thank you. Deciding to use the word "believe" should prove to Kendall once and for all that my point on the definition of faith was well made, and now I agree 100% with your example. It is also a good example of what a hypothesis is: a believe, by a rational person, in something he seeks to prove.

[Shylock]

Jake_Ellison, on Nov 26 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

Thank you. Deciding to use the word "believe" should prove to Kendall once and for all that my point on the definition of faith was well made, and now I agree 100% with your example. It is also a good example of what a hypothesis is: a believe, by a rational person, in something he seeks to prove.

As used in the religious world, there is a difference between belief and faith. The difference is normally illustrated by reading James 2:19 of the Bible (see http://www.biblegate...rch=James+2:19), which states that although demons believe in Christ they don't have faith in him.

Faith is, therefore, defined as a hope, belief, or expectation that motivates someone to take a specific action. An archeologist who is convinced that Troy really existed and goes searching for it is exercising faith.

I believe that Troy existed but I really have better things to do with my time than to try to find it and anyway I'm not well-qualified for that task.

[Jake_Ellison]

Shylock, on Nov 26 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

Imagine that we have a man born in some poor tribal village in the Amazon jungle whose members are carefully isolated from modern society to ensure that they don't catch all of our diseases and die. He falls ill. He knows that his father, mother, and other people have used the services of the medicine man in the past with varying levels of success. The medicine man requires him to go without food and water for 2 days and also scares the evil spirits out of him.

Is the hypothetical man's choice to use the services of the medicine man

A) A rational expectation that something is likely to work; or,
An irrational blind belief in something for which there is no evidence?

Quote

He knows that his father, mother, and other people have used the services of the medicine man in the past with varying levels of success.

Actually, he probably knows nothing(varying levels of success doesn't tell me anything about the methods-it could mean a positive or negative sum of success-I'll assume it's neutral or negative): that means his choice to use the services is B.
If however he were experienced enough, he would know that these methods don't work: then, he would choose rationally. Of course, his choice would be not to use them. A. would never be the answer.

However, if by "varying levels of success" you mean more good than bad, then any human being is perfectly capable of doing the math and realizing this, so it would be A.

To sum it up: I would need to know the exact nature of the medicine man's practices, in oreder to answer your question directly. I answered based on both possibilities.

[Plasmatic]

Quote

As used in the religious world, there is a difference between belief and faith. The difference is normally illustrated by reading James 2:19 of the Bible (see http://www.biblegate...rch=James+2:19), which states that although demons believe in Christ they don't have faith in him.

Faith is, therefore, defined as a hope, belief, or expectation that motivates someone to take a specific action. An archeologist who is convinced that Troy really existed and goes searching for it is exercising faith.

I believe that Troy existed but I really have better things to do with my time than to try to find it and anyway I'm not well-qualified for that task.

Cheif lets not bring biblical etymology into this because all id have to do is point you to the definition of faith in Romans to make my point if I considered it "proof". "the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen" . Meaning that a persons belief/faith is the "evidence" that the thinged hoped for exists. In other words what ever i want to believe is true. The primacy of consciousness.

Causal expectation as with ALL concepts for Objectivist have percieved instances i.e. concretes as referents.