Misconception Faith vs. Reason

[007]

Right back atchya bub.

HA! Sounds like you've run out of steam... :happy2:

"I know you are but what am I... naa nrr naa nrr naaaaa nrrrr" ... :rotflmao:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

HA! Sounds like you've run out of steam... :happy2:

"I know you are but what am I... naa nrr naa nrr naaaaa nrrrr" ... :rotflmao:

Actually I was trying to avoid letting you completely derail a thread I was enjoying. I thought we had an unspoken agreement of sorts. But hey, if you'd prefer to go back to our old ways of dropping in on threads with no intention other than to provoke each other, lemme know. I'll get my super big fonts, CAPSLOCK KEY, AND BRIGHT COLORS READY.

Don't confuse my restraint with a lack of steam.

Now, if you wouldn't mind, contribute something regarding the misconception between faith and reason, or shut the fuck up and leave us to our babbling thread of hypotheticals. No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read this anyways. Thanks.

 

[007]

I thought we had an unspoken agreement of sorts.

So that's what you "thought" aye? Then why did you open your sassy little cake hole here?

So don't give me this "you want to start" bullshit skippy. "YOU" are the one throwing your cocky little smartass cracks at me! I didn't even address you personaly in this thread, and you come all unglued. Who's got the "thin skin" here?

Grow the fuck up clay. You can get old fast.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So that's what you "thought" aye? Then why did you open your sassy little cake hole here?

So don't give me this "you want to start" bullshit skippy. "YOU" are the one throwing your cocky little smartass cracks at me! I didn't even address you personaly in this thread, and you come all unglued. Who's got the "thin skin" here?

Grow the fuck up clay. You can get old fast.

You mean the thread where you talked about all the pussy you get at 50 years old? Whatever. Now that I look at it, I see you were just bored on a Saturday night. I'll keep that in mind next weekend.

Pay attention: I was making a joke, or at the very least NOT ridiculing your completely ridicule-deserving post, with my checkers-chess post. You, on the other hand, come in here all high and mighty like you can actually comprehend the discussions going on and talk down to everyone participating. The two are not equal, except in your childish head.

So. Let's recap. You get a whole bunch of pussy, and you're 50 years old. I made a post you didn't think was funny, but also in no way insulted or ridiculed you. You also think this thread is rediculous and full of silly conjecture, and decided to let us all know about it. Thanks. You're quite a guy.

Now that we've got it cleared up that your post was some sort of rediculous "haha I got you back" bullshit, you can move on with your life of smiting faggot illegal aliens and banging fugly hoes, and I can move on with my life of unfunny jokes and silly, hypothetical, conjecture-filled posts.

But thanks for stopping by, it's always a pleasure talking to you.

 

[007]

You mean the thread where you talked about all the pussy you get at 50 years old? Whatever. Now that I look at it, I see you were just bored on a Saturday night. I'll keep that in mind next weekend.

Pay attention: I was making a joke, or at the very least NOT ridiculing your completely ridicule-deserving post, with my checkers-chess post. You, on the other hand, come in here all high and mighty like you can actually comprehend the discussions going on and talk down to everyone participating. The two are not equal, except in your childish head.

So. Let's recap. You get a whole bunch of pussy, and you're 50 years old. I made a post you didn't think was funny, but also in no way insulted or ridiculed you. You also think this thread is rediculous and full of silly conjecture, and decided to let us all know about it. Thanks. You're quite a guy.

Now that we've got it cleared up that your post was some sort of rediculous "haha I got you back" bullshit, you can move on with your life of smiting faggot illegal aliens and banging fugly hoes, and I can move on with my life of unfunny jokes and silly, hypothetical, conjecture-filled posts.

But thanks for stopping by, it's always a pleasure talking to you.

Oh boy clay... you're so funny! Ha ha, ho ho, stop, my sides hurt. You're "slaying me with the words you HAVE".

So you can piss farther than I can, I think we established that a long time ago. You love to argue, and if you're bored, you'll start something just for the sake of having an arguement.

Well, like I said, you get old fast, and I'm not into your brand of smartass. There's no rhyme or reason to it. You're arrogant, condescending, and I can tell you think you're pretty superior to most everyone here. So I'll let you get back to your little game.

And I won't even comment on your remarks about my female companionship. I'm comfortable with the truth, and couldn't give a fuck less what kind of shit you want to talk about it. It makes me think you've got plenty of troubles with women in your own life.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Oh boy clay... you're so funny! Ha ha, ho ho, stop, my sides hurt. You're "slaying me with the words you HAVE".

So you can piss farther than I can, I think we established that a long time ago. You love to argue, and if you're bored, you'll start something just for the sake of having an arguement.

Which is pretty much EXACTLY what you did in this thread.

Well, like I said, you get old fast, and I'm not into your brand of smartass. There's no rhyme or reason to it. You're arrogant, condescending, and I can tell you think you're pretty superior to most everyone here. So I'll let you get back to your little game.

Oh please. You sound like a wounded puppy.

And I won't even comment on your remarks about my female companionship. I'm comfortable with the truth, and couldn't give a fuck less what kind of shit you want to talk about it. It makes me think you've got plenty of troubles with women in your own life.

You won't comment, but then you do. Think whatever you want pops. Do what makes you feel gooooooooooooood. Slap it and riiiiiiiiiiiiide the wave.

 

[007]

Which is pretty much EXACTLY what you did in this thread.Oh please. You sound like a wounded puppy.You won't comment, but then you do. Think whatever you want pops. Do what makes you feel gooooooooooooood. Slap it and riiiiiiiiiiiiide the wave.

Whatever clay.... :talk2:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Whatever clay.... :talk2:

 

[no1tovote4]

You guys are getting a bit off-topic. Let's talk about Faith v. Reason and miss out on all the internal bickering so more than you guys can enjoy the thread.

 

[007]

You guys are getting a bit off-topic. Let's talk about Faith v. Reason and miss out on all the internal bickering so more than you guys can enjoy the thread.

I thought dmp's reply that "faith" was the best answer I'd read, and I got my head bit off for it.

Go ahead no1, take it away...

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I thought dmp's reply that "faith" was the best answer I'd read, and I got my head bit off for it.

Go ahead no1, take it away...

Oh yes, innocent little you.

 

[no1tovote4]

I thought dmp's reply that "faith" was the best answer I'd read, and I got my head bit off for it.

Go ahead no1, take it away...

LOL. I posted several times, but it was in the middle of your little argument so it generally got ignored. I'll live with that. I was just getting bored with the whole "You are Baaad!" "No, You are Baaad!" debate...

Anyway, I believe that I have shown that without faith (little f) our existence would be very difficult and most would have no way to interact with others.

 

[Annie]

LOL. I posted several times, but it was in the middle of your little argument so it generally got ignored. I'll live with that. I was just getting bored with the whole "You are Baaad!" "No, You are Baaad!" debate...

Anyway, I believe that I have shown that without faith (little f) our existence would be very difficult and most would have no way to interact with others.

There are threads like that? I haven't read through this, is it one?

 

[LOki]

I think one would need to differentiate between different types of faith.

I don't, allow me to discuss below. As I do, please reference the definition agreed upon by The ClayTaurus and I for the purposes of this discussion.<blockquote>FAITH:
Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.</blockquote>

We have faith that a chair will be there when we sit.

Not by the definition agreed upon. I understand, that for you, the issue is contentious, but the distinction is being made between "belief" and "faith." Such that "faith" is a category of "belief."

There is a miniscule probability that it will break, move, or even just cease to be a chair... Yet we are still sure our furniture is relatively permanent fixtures.

Thus, there is a basis in evidence for believing in the chair and it's capacity to function properly as a chair--a belief that would be dispelled (in the case of that particular chair, at least) by contrary evidence.

I would differentiate this way:

Faith (capital F): A religious or non-religious belief system based on unproven and unprovable assertions. Examples: There is no God... Or God is named Bob... Both of these are as unprovable as they are unproven.

faith (small f): A belief based on experience and understanding, necessary to be able to run a life at a level where we can effect the world....

Your (F)aith definition is a reaffirmation of the definition agreed upon already with the conditionality of "religious" added making it at minimum partially self referential, and at worst, establishes by definition, without providing a valid argument (your example is a tautolgy of the worst question begging kind) that the validity of religion cannot be proven under any circumstances.

I find that to be intellectually repugnant.

Your (f)aith definition is simply "belief" spelled and pronounced differently without establishing the need for a distinction. I understand the desire to have terminology that clearly distinguishes beliefs based in evidence, or valid logic. I would have submitted "objective belief" if "objective" did not carry an unfairly presumptive connotation; but having already distinguished "faith" I see no need to further distinguish unless there is a third means to aquire "conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing."

Fair enough?

For the purposes of further comment, I will beg to presume you can accept the above. Feel free to correct and modify as necessary.

It is not "reason" to say that God doesn't exist. There is equal evidence for that assertion as to say for certainty that God does exist. They are both unprovable.

It takes Faith to assert with certainty either statement as a "fact".

Although not in contention, agreed.

Without the small (f) faith that I spoke of earlier, one could never be reasonably assured that they are actually speaking to a person rather than a figment of their imagination. They couldn't be assured that a door was there, they'd have to check on every occassion. One could not be assured that what they see is fact because seeing is not really evidence of something's existence.

Without this minute amount of faith one would be almost incapable of effecting their own life in a positive way at all. Imagine having to question each new person you meet to ask them to prove they are real.. Would you be able to get a job? Would you eat, and why?

Yes. Per the definition agreed upon by The ClayTaurus and myself, that evidence of a reality should lead to belief in the reality is stipluated.

Anyway, I believe that I have shown that without faith (little f) our existence would be very difficult and most would have no way to interact with others.

Yes. Denial of the evidence of reality certainly makes existence difficult, if not from the nihilistic reasoning of the deinial of the reality of one's own existence, but ceretainly from denial of the interaction of the self with the remainder of existence.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You guys are getting a bit off-topic. Let's talk about Faith v. Reason and miss out on all the internal bickering so more than you guys can enjoy the thread.

No1, Board Enjoyment Monitor.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't, allow me to discuss below. As I do, please reference the definition agreed upon by The ClayTaurus and I for the purposes of this discussion.<blockquote>FAITH:
Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.</blockquote>Not by the definition agreed upon. I understand, that for you, the issue is contentious, but the distinction is being made between "belief" and "faith." Such that "faith" is a category of "belief."
Thus, there is a basis in evidence for believing in the chair and it's capacity to function properly as a chair--a belief that would be dispelled (in the case of that particular chair, at least) by contrary evidence.
Your (F)aith definition is a reaffirmation of the definition agreed upon already with the conditionality of "religious" added making it at minimum partially self referential, and at worst, establishes by definition, without providing a valid argument (your example is a tautolgy of the worst question begging kind) that the validity of religion cannot be proven under any circumstances.

I find that to be intellectually repugnant.

It was a simplified defining. Basically I was finding out what the limits of the discussion are. However I made no assertion whatsoever that relgion cannot be proven under any circumstances. I only asserted that we have equal scientific evidence in both directions...

Your (f)aith definition is simply "belief" spelled and pronounced differently without establishing the need for a distinction. I understand the desire to have terminology that clearly distinguishes beliefs based in evidence, or valid logic. I would have submitted "objective belief" if "objective" did not carry an unfairly presumptive connotation; but having already distinguished "faith" I see no need to further distinguish unless there is a third means to aquire "conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing."

Fair enough?

Fair enough. Once again, finding out what the parameters of the discussion are without the need to read every little point and off-topic post along the way. This helps. However, I wasn't speaking to the actual reality of the chair, I was speaking to the belief that it will function as a chair when we do actually have evidence to the contrary in some cases. We still, most often, trust (have faith, or a belief) the chair to function as a chair though we know they sometimes fail. This causes many funny scenes on our own televisions in physical comedies that cause many to laugh because their faith (belief) was not well-founded.

For the purposes of further comment, I will beg to presume you can accept the above. Feel free to correct and modify as necessary.Although not in contention, agreed.

Yes. Per the definition agreed upon by The ClayTaurus and myself, that evidence of a reality should lead to belief in the reality is stipluated.

Yes. Denial of the evidence of reality certainly makes existence difficult, if not from the nihilistic reasoning of the deinial of the reality of one's own existence, but ceretainly from denial of the interaction of the self with the remainder of existence.

Once again, I spoke of more than just evidence. There is evidence that some people have aural and visual hallucinations of people that are as real to them as "reality". How can you always be sure that you are not suffering from those particular medical and psychological issues, that your version of reality actually corresponds with the observations of others? This takes a certain leap of faith (you want to call it belief) so that we can actually function in society. This too has shown to have failed in many circumstances. Denying that evidence and working with an assurance that what we see is reality we are taking another leap of faith.

 

[LOki]

But I submit to you that some people are unable to fuction merely by saying "I don't know."

Some people are unable to function without a dose of heroin either. I really do not wish to take faith to the "opiate of the masses" conclusion if better conclusions can be made that defy the notions that human can't "handle" the truth. That they are incapable of dealing with reality on it's terms.

I can't operate in my relationship by constantly saying to myself "I don't know if she's cheating on me or not. I'm kind of sure, to a certain degree, but I don't know and I may never know." It makes my mind wander and expend thoughts and energy on all sorts of unnecessary hypotheticals. Having faith in her squashes that.

I would still disagree. I have a relationship, and my informal stament of certainty in my spouse's fidelity does not contain the concept of 100%. It does however, contain that notion that the difference between by certainty, and 100% certainty is not significant to me. That degree that I am certain contains more than enough value to me that by comparison, the remainder that is uncertain, is certainty not worth the effort to verify. I just don't need perfect certainty--under any guise.

Now I suppose you could argue that one could train oneself to not let uncertainty so drastically interfere with normal human operation, but I would counter that that is not within the normal confines of human intuition.

HAHAHA! Without stipulating that I am normal, I seem to be arguing that within the normal confines of human intuition, one must train oneself to not let uncertainty so drastically interfere with normal human operation.

To accept the unexpected as being unexpected, is not a difficult chasm to leap. To accept the unexplained as being unexplained is no more difficult.

What is difficult, what requires work, integrity, focus, courage, and values is to apply impeccably, ones rational faculty to find an explaination, rather than summon one out of ones kindnesses, joys, contentments, loves, fears, hatreds, resentments, cruelties, or other irrationalities.

Well I question the point of faith in the face of knowledge and valid logic as well. I mean, if I see her in the act of cheating, faith is pretty much thrown out the door.

Does confirmation in evidence and valid logic also throw faith out the door?

If so, does that diminish the value of her fidelity? Does it diminish the validity of the relationship?

I sincerely hope not.

I think for many, faith steps in as the subsitute for being in constant doubt about nearly everything.

You seem to be making my case that "faith" really replaces "I don't know" or "I am uncertain."

And while faith certainly fosters intellectual laziness and a lack of curiousity for La Verdad (the unquestionable one) among some, that does not invalidate faith, but rather exemplifies those who use faith incorrectly. IMO.

What does validate faith?

Is it evidence or valid logic? If so, once validated does such conviction in the reality of something remain faith?

If not, does that diminish the value of the conviction?

If evidence and valid logic do NOT validate faith, is it the denial of evidence and valid logic that does?

If so, does that diminish the value of the conviction?

My description almost leaves faith's role as a coping mechanism of sorts.

Maybe it is.

If it is, and I reiterate that I am reluctant to follow this argument, is it appropriate to judge negatively those who use "faith" to cope with their uncertainties as others use different perceptual barriers to cope with theirs.

It is not a requirement for each and every human, but that does not mean it is a requirement for none of them.

Where in those humans, does that requirement reside? Is that place where faith resides necessarily a function of being human such that it must be filled with faith?

It depends. Again, I'm not sure you can answer that with a yes or a no for every person.

Let's not answer for every person.

When we consider a horse, we do not consider every horse including those that are lame, or sick, or have been mistreated, starved or injured beyond allowing the horse to exist as a horse--we consider a horse. The irrelevant details of size and color may differ in our mind's eye, but we remain consistent with each other in the salient details. Likewise, let's discuss persons, and the question of "need for faith" in the same manner.

I re-submit the question: Where in those humans, does that requirement [for faith] reside? Is that place where faith resides necessarily a function of being human such that it must be filled with faith?

 

[LOki]

It was a simplified defining. Basically I was finding out what the limits of the discussion are. However I made no assertion whatsoever that relgion cannot be proven under any circumstances. I only asserted that we have equal scientific evidence in both directions...

Fair enough. Once again, finding out what the parameters of the discussion are without the need to read every little point and off-topic post along the way. This helps.

Discussion repised, and then it's only a few pages to be current.

However, I wasn't speaking to the actual reality of the chair, I was speaking to the belief that it will function as a chair when we do actually have evidence to the contrary in some cases. We still, most often, trust (have faith, or a belief) the chair to function as a chair though we know they sometimes fail. This causes many funny scenes on our own televisions in physical comedies that cause many to laugh because their faith (belief) was not well-founded.

Once again, I spoke of more than just evidence. There is evidence that some people have aural and visual hallucinations of people that are as real to them as "reality". How can you always be sure that you are not suffering from those particular medical and psychological issues, that your version of reality actually corresponds with the observations of others? This takes a certain leap of faith (you want to call it belief) so that we can actually function in society. This too has shown to have failed in many circumstances. Denying that evidence and working with an assurance that what we see is reality we are taking another leap of faith.

HAHAHA! I think I just started questioning all this myself! See above replies to The ClayTaurus.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Some people are unable to function without a dose of heroin either. I really do not wish to take faith to the "opiate of the masses" conclusion if better conclusions can be made that defy the notions that human can't "handle" the truth. That they are incapable of dealing with reality on it's terms.

But "dealing with reality" is subjective. What defines the correct way to deal with reality, or the correct level of minutia which to toil over so as to be dealing with reality. It's not something you can just say this person IS dealing with reality. This person is NOT dealign with reality.

I would still disagree. I have a relationship, and my informal stament of certainty in my spouse's fidelity does not contain the concept of 100%. It does however, contain that notion that the difference between by certainty, and 100% certainty is not significant to me. That degree that I am certain contains more than enough value to me that by comparison, the remainder that is uncertain, is certainty not worth the effort to verify. I just don't need perfect certainty--under any guise.

But how do you know that? For every hour of time you've not spent with your spouse, any number of possibilities exist. I think you're either mistating the quantity of difference between certainty and 100% certainty, or not evaluating whether or not faith allows you to reach certainty and then 100% certainty after that. The trust you place in a person is faith-based. You trust someone to do something or act a certain way in the future. You have no way of guaranteeing that will happen. This is the role of faith.

HAHAHA! Without stipulating that I am normal, I seem to be arguing that within the normal confines of human intuition, one must train oneself to not let uncertainty so drastically interfere with normal human operation.

I'm not sure that's a practical solution, unfortunately.

To accept the unexpected as being unexpected, is not a difficult chasm to leap. To accept the unexplained as being unexplained is no more difficult.

I disagree. You're projecting your own abilities onto the general population. That's like saying "coping with death is hard" or "a broken leg doesn't hurt very much."

What is difficult, what requires work, integrity, focus, courage, and values is to apply impeccably, ones rational faculty to find an explaination, rather than summon one out of ones kindnesses, joys, contentments, loves, fears, hatreds, resentments, cruelties, or other irrationalities.

Absolutely.

Does confirmation in evidence and valid logic also throw faith out the door?

Of course.

If so, does that diminish the value of her fidelity? Does it diminish the validity of the relationship?

The removal of faith? I suppose in this example, yes. Once my faith in her fidelity is gone, so too is the relationship. Fidelity is not something which can ever be validated. Fidelity can only be invalidated conclusively.

I sincerely hope not.

I'm not sure I follow.

You seem to be making my case that "faith" really replaces "I don't know" or "I am uncertain."

To some extent, I suppose I am. When I spoke earlier on the issue, my point was that having faith in something does not imply that a drive for validation is therefore disabled. If you'd allow, I'll qualify:

Faith is a replacement for "I don't know" if one assumes that the drive for Truth is equal in both situations.

What does validate faith?

Some things which require faith are no capable of being validated. Fidelity being one. But validation of faith merely lies in conclusive evidence that the faith is correct.

Is it evidence or valid logic? If so, once validated does such conviction in the reality of something remain faith?

Good question. If I give you a videotape with audio of your spouse cheating, and you deny it to be true and continue on with life as such, is that still faith? If it is, I'd submit that's a lazy, poor implementation of faith. I'm not sure I'd call it truth, by our definition, however. Perhaps a sub-definition: faith via denial. At the same time, is faith present unnecessarily? If I have faith the Pistons will win game 5 of the Pistons-Heat series, and then they win the game, do I still have faith in them winning the game? Assuming I actually witness the game, and witness the final outcome, I no longer require faith, as I have validated my faith with conclusive evidence. Whether or not faith subsists afterwards, unnecessarily, I'm not sure. I'd like to say no, but I'm just not sure.

If not, does that diminish the value of the conviction?

No. Conclusive evidence is just that: conclusive.

If evidence and valid logic do NOT validate faith, is it the denial of evidence and valid logic that does?

I'm not sure this question is relavent, given my previous responses, but if it is, I'm not sure i follow.

If so, does that diminish the value of the conviction?

Again, I think I've rendered this irrelevant.

Maybe it is.

If it is, and I reiterate that I am reluctant to follow this argument, is it appropriate to judge negatively those who use "faith" to cope with their uncertainties as others use different perceptual barriers to cope with theirs.

I would say faith is a coping mechanism that requires responsible application. Irresponsible usage is worthy of negative judgment.

Let's not answer for every person.

But it's more fun to put words in everyone else's mouths!

When we consider a horse, we do not consider every horse including those that are lame, or sick, or have been mistreated, starved or injured beyond allowing the horse to exist as a horse--we consider a horse. The irrelevant details of size and color may differ in our mind's eye, but we remain consistent with each other in the salient details. Likewise, let's discuss persons, and the question of "need for faith" in the same manner.

But my point is I don't believe this is a topic that can be discussed in such a manner. Can you speak of emotion in such a general way? To approach the issue as you suggest is to remove the very human component to faith: individuality.

I re-submit the question: Where in those humans, does that requirement [for faith] reside? Is that place where faith resides necessarily a function of being human such that it must be filled with faith?

Again. Faith is not merely a round peg that goes into the round hole of the human as a being. This question has a very anatomical feeling to it. The leg bone's connected to the thigh bone's connected to the faith bone. Faith may not be something that is capable of being adequately or accurately described in such a tangible manner.


Tell me, do you, personally, ever believe faith is a GOOD thing? I think we'd both agree that faith can serve as a BAD thing. But what about GOOD?

 

[LOki]

But "dealing with reality" is subjective. What defines the correct way to deal with reality, or the correct level of minutia which to toil over so as to be dealing with reality. It's not something you can just say this person IS dealing with reality. This person is NOT dealign with reality.

Apologies. Mixed synonyms. Allow me to reword for clarity:<blockquote>Some people are unable to function without a dose of heroin either. I really do not wish to take faith to the "opiate of the masses" conclusion if better conclusions can be made that defy the notions that human beings can't function within reality without perceptual barriers between them and reality--that human beings are incapable of interacting effectively with reality withour it being sugar-coated.</blockquote>Failing to deal with reality is NOT subjective. Not at all. The ultimate indication of failure to deal with reality is death. Step out into speeding traffic and die. Jump from a bridge and die. This not to dismiss lesser penalties, but those penalties have objective effects, even if our judgment of those effects is subjective. Reality is objective. What we do in reality is real, and therefore it too is objective--what we percieve may not be objective, and our motives may not be objective, but the reality of our perceptions, and our motives are objective--they are real things that can be compared to other parts of reality, confirmed and validated by reality. They don't have to be, and IMO, ought not be, judged by the caprices derived out of fear of our imperfections. Those imperfections are real too, and the limitations they impose upon us can be taken into account.

I would still disagree. I have a relationship, and my informal stament of certainty in my spouse's fidelity does not contain the concept of 100%. It does however, contain that notion that the difference between by certainty, and 100% certainty is not significant to me. That degree that I am certain contains more than enough value to me that by comparison, the remainder that is uncertain, is certainty not worth the effort to verify. I just don't need perfect certainty--under any guise.

But how do you know that? For every hour of time you've not spent with your spouse, any number of possibilities exist. I think you're either mistating the quantity of difference between certainty and 100% certainty, or not evaluating whether or not faith allows you to reach certainty and then 100% certainty after that. The trust you place in a person is faith-based. You trust someone to do something or act a certain way in the future. You have no way of guaranteeing that will happen. This is the role of faith.

You cannot just dismiss what I said, and replace it with what you'd wished I'd said, and then tell me I can't have my conclusion.

My relationships (the close ones) are not based upon the value of what is unknown to me in other people--rather, it is based upon what I know. The character, qualities, and values that I can verify to exist, have verified exist, and continue to verify exist are the sole critera. I demand that those who love and care for me do so for me on the same terms. This is not to devalue humanity, but it is to say that humanity is a rather common commodity amongst humans--that humanity includes frailties and imperfections, strength and virtues certainly, but the certainty of those are NOT reasons, or the measures, by which my relationships are established, and the "unknown" where the potentiality those frailties and imperfections of those I love might harm me is cetainly not considered. It is the exceptional difference, verifiable and verified constantly, that I weigh. I just don't judge others, or the nature of my relationship to them, on unknown variables.

I'm not sure that's a practical solution, unfortunately.I disagree.

It's imminently practical and practicable.

You're projecting your own abilities onto the general population. That's like saying "coping with death is hard" or "a broken leg doesn't hurt very much."

X=X; fire burns; the unexpected is unexpected; and the unexplained is unexplained. Completely sensible, and not projecting. But I am enjoying the image of possessing the super-hero power of aknowledging that reality is pretty much just the way it seems to be.

Absolutely.

Good. Then how about this: Is it preferrable to apply impeccably, one's rational faculty to find an explaination, rather than summon one out of ones kindnesses, joys, contentments, loves, fears, hatreds, resentments, cruelties, or other irrationalities?

Does confirmation in evidence and valid logic also throw faith out the door?

Of course.

If so, does that diminish the value of her fidelity? Does it diminish the validity of the relationship?

The removal of faith? I suppose in this example, yes. Once my faith in her fidelity is gone, so too is the relationship. Fidelity is not something which can ever be validated. Fidelity can only be invalidated conclusively.

I sincerely hope not.

I'm not sure I follow.

The question asked is "Does confirmation, in evidence or valid logic, of the fidelity of your GF/wife destroy the faith in fidelity?

I believe your answer was "yes."

Then, does such confirmation in her fidelity diminish the value of her fidelity; does it diminish the value of the relationship? I sincerely hoped not.

I believe your answer was "yes" again, but I believe you misunderstood the questions, so please revise if necessary.

I predict that you will reassert that fidelity cannot be validated by evidence (and I'll disagree) but it's beside the point, which is: Is it the faith that makes the relationship valid, or does the relationship validate the faith? Does the faith make the relationship real and valuable, or is the verifiable elements of the relationship, and your relationship's value to you, and most importantly, the value you hold in the relationship and the verifiable elements of the relationship that validate the parts that you don't know about but believe are true--those parts that you placed the term "faith" in?

To some extent, I suppose I am. When I spoke earlier on the issue, my point was that having faith in something does not imply that a drive for validation is therefore disabled. If you'd allow, I'll qualify:

Faith is a replacement for "I don't know" if one assumes that the drive for Truth is equal in both situations.

I can assume, for now, that the drive for Truth is equal with or without, but I'll ask: When one "knows" without requiring evidence or logic to validate said "knowledge", at what point, and upon what criteria, does one establish that evidence or valid logic can refute OR confirm such knowledge?

What does validate faith?

Some things which require faith are no capable of being validated. Fidelity being one. But validation of faith merely lies in conclusive evidence that the faith is correct.

So you say. I'll wait for your resposes to the above.

Also, I'm not speaking of the "things" that require faith--separate issue, and maybe we'll discuss our differences about validating fidelity when we get to it. First I'd like to nail down validating "faith."

Good question. If I give you a videotape with audio of your spouse cheating, and you deny it to be true and continue on with life as such, is that still faith? If it is, I'd submit that's a lazy, poor implementation of faith.

Nonsense. I can question the evidence. If the validity of the evidence is in contention, then room exists for faith (if, of course evidence can invalidate faith).

I'm not sure I'd call it truth, by our definition, however. Perhaps a sub-definition: faith via denial.

Do you wish to alter our definition of faith to exclude denial of evidence? If so, I'd like to be sure of the grounds for this alteration.

At the same time, is faith present unnecessarily? If I have faith the Pistons will win game 5 of the Pistons-Heat series, and then they win the game, do I still have faith in them winning the game? Assuming I actually witness the game, and witness the final outcome, I no longer require faith, as I have validated my faith with conclusive evidence. Whether or not faith subsists afterwards, unnecessarily, I'm not sure. I'd like to say no, but I'm just not sure.

Then let us exclude simple conjecture of the future from the discussion. Asserting faith in their ability to win, is separate from assertions that they will win IMO. Yet, such assertions, like believing you'll win the lottery, very much confirm reality's independence from what we simply believe (regardless of evidence, valid logic, or the lack thereof) reality to be. IOW, we cannot just simply "believe" real things into existence.

No. Conclusive evidence is just that: conclusive.

Ok. At this point, due much to the limitations of cut&paste and the peculiar quote function of this board, I sense there may be some confusion now--allow me to recreate my questions and paraphrase your responses for your review and adjustment:<blockquote>Can evidence or valid logic validate faith? The ClayTaurus: Yes.

And I would agree.

Once validated by evidence or valid logic, does such conviction in the reality of something remain faith?The ClayTaurus: Yes, but it's a crappy sort of faith.

I would say no, that now having validation in evidence or valid logic, what was faith is no longer faith--but I would agree that denial of evidence or valid logic that validates the certainty in the of the reality of some thing constitutes a crappy sort of faith--but faith none-the-less.

If evidence or valid logic does not vaildate faith, does that diminish the value of the conviction?The ClayTaurus: No.

And I would disagree, but this is about where I think the exchange gets fuzzy, for the above mentioned reasons, as you get into the term "conclusive."

So, I will await your reply.

If evidence and valid logic do NOT validate faith, is it the denial of evidence and valid logic that does?The ClayTaurus: Yes, but it's a crappy kind if faith as I said before.

And I agree, as before.

If so, does that diminish the value of the conviction?The ClayTaurus: Yes.

And I agree.</blockquote>Don't let me be unfair to you--fix this where it needs it.

I would say faith is a coping mechanism that requires responsible application. Irresponsible usage is worthy of negative judgment.

I like this answer! What constitutes responsible application of "faith."

I'm going to argue that responsible application of "faith" is aknowledging that "faith" is a substitute for "I don't know"; and when irresponsibly applied, "faith" falsely connotes "knowledge" as fact, where there is no such knowledge.

But it's more fun to put words in everyone else's mouths!

Ok, let's do it then!

But my point is I don't believe this is a topic that can be discussed in such a manner. Can you speak of emotion in such a general way? To approach the issue as you suggest is to remove the very human component to faith: individuality.

Again. Faith is not merely a round peg that goes into the round hole of the human as a being. This question has a very anatomical feeling to it. The leg bone's connected to the thigh bone's connected to the faith bone. Faith may not be something that is capable of being adequately or accurately described in such a tangible manner.

Nonsense. We can talk about faces, despite each being individual. We can still intelligently discuss all the individual parameters of individual faces without denying the individuality of each face. We can discuss the function of eyes, without limiting what a person looks at, what books he reads, what things he finds beautiful.

We can discuss the function of taste without limiting what a person individually eats, or finds, as a unique individual especially toothsome. Likewise, I could ask "Where in those humans, does that requirement [for food] reside? Is that place where [food] resides necessarily a function of being human such that it must be filled with [food]?"

I suspect you wouldn't claim that individual tastes for hotdogs or donuts restricts our discussion for the human need for food. I suspect that the restrictions a diabetic, or cardiac disease victim abides by would not be an impediment to our discussion.

I say we can discuss the function of faith without demanding individual knowledge of the subject of a person's faith. So I'll ask again:<blockquote>Where in those humans [who need, as you assert, faith], does that requirement for faith reside? Is that place where faith resides necessarily a function of being human such that it must be filled with faith?</blockquote>

Tell me, do you, personally, ever believe faith is a GOOD thing? I think we'd both agree that faith can serve as a BAD thing. But what about GOOD?

Right now, all I can assert for sure is that at it's best, faith is harmless. I'm feeling rather shakey about *that* though.