The Cellar - View Single Post

piercehawkeye45 · 11-29-2007, 09:02 PM

Ibram's answer is very interesting. It leads me to ponder what is the definition of faith. Does it include assumptions based on previous factual evidence or would that fall under a different word?

Edit- This is rabbit trail post (is that what you call it when you just trail off to nowhere) so bare with me.

Since we assume physics is deterministic and the universal laws do not change, we can say that if I drop a ball of a third story we window, it will not only land, but land in one specific spot. We would say we have faith in universal laws but we have faith in them because every past experience says we have universal laws.

When it comes to faith in a god, we are saying that a god exists without that previous evidence. I won't go into much further.

I think the biggest difference is the first one is basically stereotyping and the other is true faith. If I walk down the street, why do I assume I will not be robbed? I don't because I have walked down that exact street, passed the same people, and have never been robbed so I can stereotype the area as a place I won't get robbed and the people as people I won't get robbed by. This goes with new experiences as well. If I see a person I have never seen before, why do I have faith that they will not rob me even though I have no previous information on that person. I have faith hat he will not rob me because I have walked passed people that resemble him in culture, race, hair color, species, etc, that have not robbed me so I stereotype that he will not rob me. It works the opposite way too. If I have previous experience of being robbed by people that wear red jumpsuits, I will be much more cautious around people with red jumpsuits in the future.

Now, if something I have no previous information about or nothing to relate it too, then we would get into real faith. If a misty 3-dimensional blob randomly appeared in my bedroom, having no previous information to relate it to, any prediction or assumption I make would be based on true faith.

I know that isn't the actual definition, but that is the way I see it. If we deal with that, true faith would inheritly irrational because we have nothing rational to compare it too. Basically a shot in the dark, but I don't know how bad I would consider true faith.

But saying that, I don't know if I would consider believing in a supernatural power true faith since we come to the conclusion of a supernatural being from evidence on Earth. So I guess believing in a supernatural power wouldn't necessarily be irrational since we are basing that off "evidence", but that is only if one accepts the equal possibility of every other scenarios that has the same amount of evidence.

Then we have irrationality of stereotyping. This one is really hard to say, probably depends on how far you stray from the stereotype and how much the new event matches the stereotype. It is of course rational to assume that if you jump up, gravity will pull you back down. But I would call it irrational if you once got robbed by a man that wore a hat and now you assume every man that wears a hat is going to rob you so avoid everyone that wears hats.

blah, this probably makes no sense.

11-29-2007, 09:02 PM	#138
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	Ibram's answer is very interesting. It leads me to ponder what is the definition of faith. Does it include assumptions based on previous factual evidence or would that fall under a different word? Edit- This is rabbit trail post (is that what you call it when you just trail off to nowhere) so bare with me. Since we assume physics is deterministic and the universal laws do not change, we can say that if I drop a ball of a third story we window, it will not only land, but land in one specific spot. We would say we have faith in universal laws but we have faith in them because every past experience says we have universal laws. When it comes to faith in a god, we are saying that a god exists without that previous evidence. I won't go into much further. I think the biggest difference is the first one is basically stereotyping and the other is true faith. If I walk down the street, why do I assume I will not be robbed? I don't because I have walked down that exact street, passed the same people, and have never been robbed so I can stereotype the area as a place I won't get robbed and the people as people I won't get robbed by. This goes with new experiences as well. If I see a person I have never seen before, why do I have faith that they will not rob me even though I have no previous information on that person. I have faith hat he will not rob me because I have walked passed people that resemble him in culture, race, hair color, species, etc, that have not robbed me so I stereotype that he will not rob me. It works the opposite way too. If I have previous experience of being robbed by people that wear red jumpsuits, I will be much more cautious around people with red jumpsuits in the future. Now, if something I have no previous information about or nothing to relate it too, then we would get into real faith. If a misty 3-dimensional blob randomly appeared in my bedroom, having no previous information to relate it to, any prediction or assumption I make would be based on true faith. I know that isn't the actual definition, but that is the way I see it. If we deal with that, true faith would inheritly irrational because we have nothing rational to compare it too. Basically a shot in the dark, but I don't know how bad I would consider true faith. But saying that, I don't know if I would consider believing in a supernatural power true faith since we come to the conclusion of a supernatural being from evidence on Earth. So I guess believing in a supernatural power wouldn't necessarily be irrational since we are basing that off "evidence", but that is only if one accepts the equal possibility of every other scenarios that has the same amount of evidence. Then we have irrationality of stereotyping. This one is really hard to say, probably depends on how far you stray from the stereotype and how much the new event matches the stereotype. It is of course rational to assume that if you jump up, gravity will pull you back down. But I would call it irrational if you once got robbed by a man that wore a hat and now you assume every man that wears a hat is going to rob you so avoid everyone that wears hats. blah, this probably makes no sense.