Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
But then Hume comes along and gives us the problem of induction. There is no guarantee that things will happen the same in the future as they had in the past, thus, we have faith that things will happen as they always seem to have. Sure we have good reason to think that things will happen as they did, but we have no proof that they will.
In your sense of "proof" you have no proof that you were born, or that you had parents. But your belief that both are true is completely justified. All proof is justification, but not all justification is proof.
No, I have proof of things that have happened in the past. To think otherwise would be stupid. But I don't have proof of things that will happen in the future based on the past. I have no proof that my girlfriend will stay with me, that I will still have a job, that my friends will still be around, that my car will start, and all of those other things that I have faith that will continue happening into the future based on what has happened in the past. Sure, I am justified in believing that they will, but the belief is not derived from reason, but rather faith.
Why are atheists always evangelizing?
William James went through a period of deep depression. One of the things that he was hung up on was the question of free will. One summer he decided he would believe in free will. He wrote out a sort of pledge that said that he would believe in free will for one year and see if things improved for him. This was an act of faith.
Things improved. The belief worked. Yet there was "no logical proof or material evidence". Maybe someone will argue that things improved for reasons other than his faith in free will and that the whole thing is a false positive. But that simply is not the case. I know what it is like to be paralyzed by some philosophical conundrum even to the point of depression. That is what we are talking about here. (At the moment, I can't find the James quote where he tells the story, so you'll just have to take my word for it.)
Atheists evangelizing? Next thing you know Dennett and Dawkins will be on TV asking for money.:sarcastic:
To be fair to the OP, this thread was originally called "Having faith is moronic" and it was posted in the philosophy of religion section.
You might want to read the book to which a link was provided at the beginning of this essay. There you will find an analysis of James, exposing many problems with his thinking.
First, it may be observed that James confuses actions and beliefs. According to James, hypotheses are potential beliefs, not actions-potential or otherwise ("Let us give the name of hypothesisoption is "the decision between two hypotheses"-that is, a decision between two potential beliefs-not a decision between two potential actions. However, his examples to explain the difference between a forced option and an avoidable option leave something to be desired, for several involve actions, not beliefs. "'Choose between going out with your umbrella or without it'" is a choice between potential actions, not potential beliefs. The same may be said of his examples to explain the difference between a momentous option and a trivial option.
I only have a little time at the moment, it being new years eve and all. Hope yours is happy.
Quote from Burger
Quote:First, it may be observed that James confuses actions and beliefs. According to James, hypotheses are potential beliefs, not actions-potential or otherwise ("Let us give the name of hypothesisoption is "the decision between two hypotheses"-that is, a decision between two potential beliefs-not a decision between two potential actions. However, his examples to explain the difference between a forced option and an avoidable option leave something to be desired, for several involve actions, not beliefs. "'Choose between going out with your umbrella or without it'" is a choice between potential actions, not potential beliefs. The same may be said of his examples to explain the difference between a momentous option and a trivial option.
Believing is a sort of activity. Believing is a habit that can be cultivated. When a belief is cultivated consciously it is a bit like auto-hypnosis which is more recognizable as an activity. Some habits are easier to acquire than others. Some require more effort to establish and maintain. Habits get easier to maintain the longer you've been at them and also harder to break the longer you've been at them. Some beliefs (as well as other actions) are even acquired unconsciously and are never questioned and thus can sometimes be mistaken for knowledge. Knowing is not a habit or an action or if it is, it is more like an autonomic (process like digestion, or the heart beating) once its object (knowledge) has been acquired.
Believing can also be an experiment. We can believe something and find out if believing it has any positive or negative results. An experiment is a type of action. Knowing cannot be described as an experiment.
Faith is knowing.
...
Stopped right there. It is impressive/depressive that people try to advocate things they know are wrong.
How is faith not knowing? You can know something without it being true.
do you have faith in yourself? I'm not sure all faith is blind nor is faith a bad thing. If someone asked me to do something I've never done before, upon accepting it, I would have faith in myself to do it based possibly on things I've done in the past that were similar or just on visualization of the problem or dozens of other reasons.
I don't believe that my faith in God is wrong or blind in that respect, because I feel like there are enough tangential issues, experiences, and evidences to assert that that God is real or that such a believe in not totally blind. It it a much smaller leap than some here would have us believe. In some ways it may actually take a larger leap(or at least as large) of faith to assert the opposite
Also think about all the knowledge we have in the world, how do know that all we have is truthful? Without faith it wouldn't make any sense to believe anything, much less in something. Though we may have proof of our knowledge, how do we know the proof is reliable? Only by faith.