We Do Have To Take Some Things On Faith

I would say yes. We take all kinds of things on faith because we have to. Things that seem obvious but are essentially unprovable. Just to take one example, I believe in a world external to my mind, populated by real people, not figments of my imagination. I can't prove it, but I take it on faith. ''

Another thing I take on faith is that I can trust causality to be regular. To be sure, there are occasions when causality seems to fail, but I assume that there are explanations vindicating causality. If I assume causality is really irregular, then there's no reason to be logical, is there?

The difference between that kind of faith is that it doesn't form the basis for baseless toxic activities. It doesn't lead me to discriminate against or kill people who don't share my beliefs. In fact, it has no real consequences at all other than to help me live day-to-day.

Believing on faith that there is an all knowing, all powerful, very judgmental, king-like being looming above everything can be used to discriminate falsely between good and bad people with punishments ranging from shunning to eternal hellfire.

Load Previous Replies
  • up

    max stirner

    ** “Faith” has no more place in science than do ‘causality’ or ‘external world’

    Excuse my being brief -- 1) "Faith" in the xian context means 'trust'. 2) Neither the so-called "external" world nor so-called universal (deterministic) causality have anything to do with scientific inquiry, theory creation, experimentation, or theory testing.... 3) "Causality" and logical implication are not related -- they belong to different conceptual categories.

    1) The Latin bible uses ‘fides’ to translate the Greek ‘pistis’ -- trust. In God we trust -- says the dollar bill but that’s not true -- the believer trusts some god-proxy, an “authoritative” text or an “authoritative” person who in the first instance may be a parent indulging in indoctrination.

    Greeks held pistis to be the lowest form of knowledge -- trusting someone who says that ‘X is true’ is vouching for the truth of X. ‘Jesus arose from the dead’ is a true statement because eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus said so; and their testimony has been handed down to us. >> Xians inverting the Greek epistemological scale put “faith” forward as superior to “knowledge”.

    2) Kant taught that he needed to make room for faith (Glaube) by showing the limits of reason. Since reason acting upon sense information can never guarantee a Law of science -- there must be a context which allows for universal determinism required by law likeness.

    Thus Kant opined that without a context providing for spatial relations and without a context for a universal time -- no infinite space or infinite time (in a newtonian interpretation) could arise just from the action of reason upon empirical information.

    Unfortunately for Kant, his contexts -- “categories” to structure reason are meaningless since quantum mechanics offers only a probabilistic causality and newtonianism is false as Einstein’s General Relativity demonstrates. That is, there are in fact no laws of science -- only probable uniformities.

    Philosophy can comment on science only when its practitioners learn science -- the other way round through armchair metaphysics (or worse theology) finally died when newtonianism failed account for radioactivity, black body radiation, photoelectric effect, gravitation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.

    3) Obviously, indeterminism does not make a mockery of logic. Probable uniformities bring events into relationship with one another in spacetime. Logic, on the other hand, is an axiomatic system of statements from which can be derived theorems -- the ancient plane geometry is but one of many logics characterized by logical (not causal) necessity linking its theorems.

    • up

      Tom Sarbeck

      First, choose a dictionary and trust its definition.

      NOAD's (New Oxford American's) first definition is complete trust or confidence in someone or something. (Its remaining definitions refer to religion so I will ignore them.)

      I will try another dictionary; NOAD's first definition persuades me that faith is dangerous and/or foolish.

      • up

        James Cox

        I just assume that things are stable, till they are not, then I test my expectations. Most of the time things are running smoothly, no worries, but there are the outlyers that can cause me to pause and revisit my understanding of how things 'work'. I just figure I am almost always in catchup mode with reality.