Oh really. Much of our lives are based on faith in something. Remember that just about all future plans rest on the faith that the future will resemble the past.
Why? For the short explanation, why don't you always have faith and never look for evidence of anything? Why don't you put tape over the fuel gauge in your car, and just have faith about how much fuel is in the car? Why not block the speedometer as well, and have faith about how fast you are going? Why bother looking out of the car to see where you are going, instead of having faith about what is outside the car?
Because that would show stupidity. Only morons would do something like that.
Those are all examples of having faith. And they are nothing more than simply having faith.
The simple fact is, it is moronic to have faith about things, and you do not run all of your life on faith because you are not stupid enough to do so. Yet many are willing to take the stupid way on what is claimed to be the most important thing in the world, the existence of god and what it takes to make god happy. Why be stupid about that one thing and not everything else?
It is moronic to deny having any faith, because it would be impossible to live only based on material evidence and logic.
Do you have any reason for that assertion, or do you expect us all to believe it simply because you assert it?
Have you bothered with reading what is at the link from the original post? There are two rather famous essays there on this subject, as well as a relatively new essay on it.
If you want other people to believe that it would be impossible to live only based upon material evidence and logic, you had better provide an argument for it. Simply claiming something gives no reason whatsoever for anyone to pay any attention to the remark.
In fact, your argument lacks both material evidence and logic since it is fallacious to begin with.
If there is a real fallacy, please name it, or, at the very least, explain the error of reasoning. Simply claiming that something is a fallacy is not adequate for philosophical reasoning.
In other words, according to your definition of faith, you have faith in your argument.
Please explain your remark. You have failed to explain what you imagine the argument to be, and have failed to show how faith is a part of it.
I also find it ironic that you are accusing people of being stupid for having faith, and end up being one of those people.
Please explain this remark. You have failed to show that I have in any way demonstrated any faith.
---------- Post added 12-30-2009 at 09:33 PM ----------
Faith is necessary.
Why do you believe that? It is not enough to make a claim; if you expect philosophers to believe you, providing reasons for your assertions are a good idea.
Could you imagine yourself actually being analytical of everything?
Yes. You obviously have not read the book at the link provided in the starting post of this thread.
It would be hard to sit down on a couch without knowing who made it, where it's from, how it's made, what it's made of, et alli.
Not at all. I sit on couches all the time without first forming any belief about who made it, or what is beneath the fabric. I know that many different materials are possible for couches, which will be adequate for the task at hand, and I have no need to form a particular belief about which material is used in a particular instance. And who
made it is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it will support my weight. Do you seriously mean to say, that before sitting on a couch, that you have faith that its inner material is wood, or metal, or whatever specific material that you imagine? And that you have faith that a certain specific individual you imagine made it?
I've tried life without faith and eventually you only end up in an infinite regress.
My most foundational faith is that of transcendental logic [characteristic of God]. I base everything else upon this. And to think at one point in my life that I pondered the law of non-contradiction. . . how foolish I was. . .