The Soul

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Blind faith is different from faith as subtle knowledge. Blind faith is believing without question some book or ancient teaching.

What logical path do you think there to be to take you from the former to the latter?

Often we understand certain patterns and forces working in our lives in a very subtle manner without really understanding them clearly.  But we nevertheless know that these forces are there. This knowledge is faith.....because we know there is something but we don't understand it. We may label it as God or whatever, which is besides the point.

Doesn’t work. How do we “know” that rather than just have opinions about it?

[Sriram]

Sriram,

What logical path do you think there to be to take you from the former to the latter?

Doesn’t work. How do we “know” that rather than just have opinions about it?

That is for every person to decide on their own as to what works for them. 

[SusanDoris]

That is for every person to decide on their own as to what works for them.

In which case, they are far more likely to make a rational, realistic, sensible and useful one if they have good, objective evidence-based information onwhich to make that decision, rather than a hotch-potch of subjective, muddled, totally unrealistic ideas gleaned from other people with that sort of muddled thinking.

[Stranger]

That is for every person to decide on their own as to what works for them.

So, not actually knowing at all, just an opinion. Blind faith in your own feelings/wishes/intuition about it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

That is for every person to decide on their own as to what works for them.

As "what works for them" has nothing to do with objective truth, I guess we're agreed then that all faith is blind.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

As "what works for them" has nothing to do with objective truth, I guess we're agreed then that all faith is blind.

Even objective truth needs to be experienced. It is not always as obvious as we think.

For a village full of born blind people Light will be unknown objectively. If a couple of people come along who can see...the blind people will naturally consider them as delusional.

[Stranger]

Even objective truth needs to be experienced. It is not always as obvious as we think.

For a village full of born blind people Light will be unknown objectively. If a couple of people come along who can see...the blind people will naturally consider them as delusional.

Except, as has been explained to you every time you bring up this particularly daft comparison, in exactly the same way as it is possible to provide objective evidence for other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (x-rays, radio waves, etc.) that we can't see, it would be possible to do the same with light to blind people.

There would be no need for anybody to "to decide on their own as to what works for them".

[ekim]

ekim,

You’re conflating the meanings of “faith” here: “a subjective belief I hold because it’s meaningful to me”, vs “an objective belief I hold because there’s reason and evidence to support it”. I have “faith” that my car will start because it’s a reliable car; I don’t have “faith” that a St Christopher hanging from the mirror will prevent accidents.

Whether “transformation” in behaviour happens has nothing to do with it, and nor does the use to which scientific findings are put. The issue is about establishing probable truths, not about comparing the desirability of outcomes.     

No, as this is a Christian topic, I am using what I understand to be the New Testament meaning of the word 'faith'(i.e. persistence with a method)  rather than being synonymous with the word 'belief' as you have put it. The 'belief' you have in your car is most likely based upon a factual assessment of probability.  The 'belief' in the St Christopher is most likely based upon emotional conditioning.    If you see Torridon's reply to me you will see he used the word 'virtue' which I should have thought has everything to do with transformation in behaviour.  Perhaps if the scientists behind Novichok established the probable truth about its use then they might have been more virtuous towards its possible outcome and abandoned its invention.  Highly unlikely I suppose, given the emotional conditioning driving the researchers.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Even objective truth needs to be experienced. It is not always as obvious as we think.

Well, “coherent and investigated so as to be known to be objectively true” rather than “experienced” perhaps, but ok. Experience is, well, just that – an experience. It will often tell you very little about the explanation for the phenomenon you’re experiencing. (That’s where AB keeps going wrong over on the Searching for God thread.)

For a village full of born blind people Light will be unknown objectively. If a couple of people come along who can see...the blind people will naturally consider them as delusional.

That’s hopeless. If the seeing people said something like, “it’s my faith that there is light” they may well be thought delusional, just as they would if they said “it’s my faith that there are dragons”. If though instead they explained the reasoning and evidence that demonstrate light, the blind people would have something other than faith to evaluate.

That’s the problem you see when you privilege faith over just guessing.

[Roses]

This thread has taken off in a way I didn't expect.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

No, as this is a Christian topic, I am using what I understand to be the New Testament meaning of the word 'faith'(i.e. persistence with a method)  rather than being synonymous with the word 'belief' as you have put it. The 'belief' you have in your car is most likely based upon a factual assessment of probability.  The 'belief' in the St Christopher is most likely based upon emotional conditioning.    If you see Torridon's reply to me you will see he used the word 'virtue' which I should have thought has everything to do with transformation in behaviour.  Perhaps if the scientists behind Novichok established the probable truth about its use then they might have been more virtuous towards its possible outcome and abandoned its invention.  Highly unlikely I suppose, given the emotional conditioning driving the researchers.

 

You’re the one who conflated the two meanings to imply a false equivalence, not me.

[BeRational]

I don't think we can eliminate faith completely, it would be impractical.  That is not a reason to elevate faith though, as if faith were a virtue in itself.

Not sure I agree but it depends on how you use the word faith.
I have completely eliminated faith, and have no faith at all in anything.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Well, “coherent and investigated so as to be known to be objectively true” rather than “experienced” perhaps, but ok. Experience is, well, just that – an experience. It will often tell you very little about the explanation for the phenomenon you’re experiencing. (That’s where AB keeps going wrong over on the Searching for God thread.)

That’s hopeless. If the seeing people said something like, “it’s my faith that there is light” they may well be thought delusional, just as they would if they said “it’s my faith that there are dragons”. If though instead they explained the reasoning and evidence that demonstrate light, the blind people would have something other than faith to evaluate.

That’s the problem you see when you privilege faith over just guessing.

I am not saying that people experience light because of faith. I am saying that, as in the case of blind people,  objective truth is not always as obvious as we like to think.  It depends on our faculties and capability. What is obvious to some may be very difficult for some others to know.

What is obvious to some cannot even be communicated or made known to the others. The blind people would need to take the existence of light only on blind faith. 

About faith being subtle knowledge, it works as though some of the blind people can see some flashes  of light now and then but have no clear idea of it.   They then have to take the word of the normal people and build on their own experiences to have some idea of what light is. In this case, they actually know that something exists but that they are unable to experience completely.  This is true faith!    This leads to a yearning to know more and to experience more.
 

[BeRational]

I am not saying that people experience light because of faith. I am saying that, as in the case of blind people,  objective truth is not always as obvious as we like to think.  It depends on our faculties and capability. What is obvious to some may be very difficult for some others to know.

What is obvious to some cannot even be communicated or made known to the others. The blind people would need to take the existence of light only on blind faith. 

About faith being subtle knowledge, it works as though some of the blind people can see some flashes  of light now and then but have no clear idea of it.   They then have to take the word of the normal people and build on their own experiences to have some idea of what light is. In this case, they actually know that something exists but that they are unable to experience completely.  This is true faith!    This leads to a yearning to know more and to experience more.

They would not need blind faith as the existence of sight could be demstrated.

I cannot see x rays or  or infra red but I am convinced the exist.

[Stranger]

...objective truth is not always as obvious as we like to think.

Who thinks it's always obvious? It's often rather difficult to find the objective truth but what is certain is that, if you are ever going to find it, you need an objective method of doing so.

What is obvious to some cannot even be communicated or made known to the others. The blind people would need to take the existence of light only on blind faith. 

Utter nonsense. Do you only believe in x-rays or radio waves because of blind faith?

[torridon]

What is obvious to some cannot even be communicated or made known to the others. The blind people would need to take the existence of light only on blind faith. 

Can't we just give these guys a light meter ?  £15 at Amazon, problem solved, no faith needed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I am not saying that people experience light because of faith. I am saying that, as in the case of blind people,  objective truth is not always as obvious as we like to think.  It depends on our faculties and capability. What is obvious to some may be very difficult for some others to know.

No-one suggested that objective truth is necessarily obvious. What was actually said was that for the purpose of identifying or verifying objective truth faith is no better than just guessing.

It’s not difficult.

What is obvious to some cannot even be communicated or made known to the others. The blind people would need to take the existence of light only on blind faith.

No they wouldn’t for the reasons I explained but, even if that was true, so what? 

About faith being subtle knowledge, it works as though some of the blind people can see some flashes  of light now and then but have no clear idea of it.   They then have to take the word of the normal people and build on their own experiences to have some idea of what light is. In this case, they actually know that something exists but that they are unable to experience completely.  This is true faith!    This leads to a yearning to know more and to experience more.

This is nonsense. If you think that faith beliefs can constitute knowledge (subtle or otherwise), then you have all your work ahead of you to establish how you’d distinguish your wrong guesses from your correct ones. 

And in the unlikely event that you could find such a method, then you’d have done away with faith in any case in favour of something else.

[Anchorman]

Even objective truth needs to be experienced. It is not always as obvious as we think.

For a village full of born blind people Light will be unknown objectively. If a couple of people come along who can see...the blind people will naturally consider them as delusional.

   




You haven't met many blind people, then.

[Sriram]

Can't we just give these guys a light meter ?  £15 at Amazon, problem solved, no faith needed.

How can a light meter or any other instrument prove to a born blind person that light exists?!   He has no idea why the meter is beeping or moving or whatever. Why should he believe that it is because of some mysterious and strange thingy called light that exist everywhere?!  He can do that only on blind faith.

Suppose there is a village full of blind people who have never seen anything for generations. They will live normally as though light does not exist. Their lives will be tailored around their capabilities. If one of them happens to visit another village with normal people he will relate tales of people who have supernatural abilities and strange visions of the world.  The other blind people could be in awe of such new people or they could treat them as charlatans and liars.

If suddenly one of the blind people himself sees some flashes of light that the others don't see, they will treat him either as a delusional believer or as a superior prophet.

Even today we take many things on blind faith.... in scientists.....(both because of their authority and because lots of scientists together agree). Most astronomical  details are taken on faith. Most people have no background in science and maths and no access to  telescopes. We rely only on scientists.  Dark energy, Dark Matter, the big bang, Singularity....are all taken on faith. We have no idea if these things actually exist or maybe even prove to be wrong in course of time.

Therefore  faith is either blind based on what others say.....or faith can be based on ones own intermittent experiences of subtle phenomena. 

[Stranger]

How can a light meter or any other instrument prove to a born blind person that light exists?!   He has no idea why the meter is beeping or moving or whatever. Why should he believe that it is because of some mysterious and strange thingy called light that exist everywhere?!  He can do that only on blind faith.

This is both idiotic and incredibly insulting to blind people - they aren't stupid.

Just as you can assess the objective evidence for (say) x-rays, blind people could assess the evidence for light. I really don't know why you keep repeating the nonsense - it just makes you look stupid.

Even today we take many things on blind faith.... in scientists.....(both because of their authority and because lots of scientists together agree). Most astronomical  details are taken on faith. Most people have no background in science and maths and no access to  telescopes.

Except it isn't blind at all. You make use of the products of science and you can understand how scientific conclusions are reached and how they are checked.

...or faith can be based on ones own intermittent experiences of subtle phenomena.

Which is known to be completely unreliable.

[torridon]

How can a light meter or any other instrument prove to a born blind person that light exists?!   He has no idea why the meter is beeping or moving or whatever. Why should he believe that it is because of some mysterious and strange thingy called light that exist everywhere?!  He can do that only on blind faith.

Suppose there is a village full of blind people who have never seen anything for generations. They will live normally as though light does not exist. Their lives will be tailored around their capabilities. If one of them happens to visit another village with normal people he will relate tales of people who have supernatural abilities and strange visions of the world.  The other blind people could be in awe of such new people or they could treat them as charlatans and liars.

If suddenly one of the blind people himself sees some flashes of light that the others don't see, they will treat him either as a delusional believer or as a superior prophet.

Even today we take many things on blind faith.... in scientists.....(both because of their authority and because lots of scientists together agree). Most astronomical  details are taken on faith. Most people have no background in science and maths and no access to  telescopes. We rely only on scientists.  Dark energy, Dark Matter, the big bang, Singularity....are all taken on faith. We have no idea if these things actually exist or maybe even prove to be wrong in course of time.

Therefore  faith is either blind based on what others say.....or faith can be based on ones own intermittent experiences of subtle phenomena.

The difference between a light meter and personal experiences is that a light meter, like a camera, cannot lie.  A reading on the light meter shows that the phenomenon is real, objective, in a sense, and not just a product of a delusional mind.  This why we build detectors - they are like us but without all the baggage, the prejudices, the longings.  Culturally, it is impractical to eliminate trust completely, but we can take steps to reduce our exposure to risk, and this is why we develop objective methods, to bypass the notoriously unreliable agenda-driven nature of personal anecdote and testimony.

[Sriram]

The difference between a light meter and personal experiences is that a light meter, like a camera, cannot lie.  A reading on the light meter shows that the phenomenon is real, objective, in a sense, and not just a product of a delusional mind.  This why we build detectors - they are like us but without all the baggage, the prejudices, the longings.  Culturally, it is impractical to eliminate trust completely, but we can take steps to reduce our exposure to risk, and this is why we develop objective methods, to bypass the notoriously unreliable agenda-driven nature of personal anecdote and testimony.

How does the beep of a light meter or any such thing prove to a blind man that light exists? It has to be on faith. Most blind people take it on faith and on the fact that their family and people they trust say so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The difference between a light meter and personal experiences is that a light meter, like a camera, cannot lie.  A reading on the light meter shows that the phenomenon is real, objective, in a sense, and not just a product of a delusional mind.  This why we build detectors - they are like us but without all the baggage, the prejudices, the longings.  Culturally, it is impractical to eliminate trust completely, but we can take steps to reduce our exposure to risk, and this is why we develop objective methods, to bypass the notoriously unreliable agenda-driven nature of personal anecdote and testimony.

To declare only one difference as the difference is  to start with a simplistic approach.

Personal experience which is a lie is not a personal experience.

Lie detectors which according to you dont lie and can be used surely to  sort out which is the lie.

Another difference between lie and experience is in a lie you are conscious of making it and in an experience you are conscious of having it.

Similarly one is conscious of making a guess

Where some claim psychological incompetance surrounding experience it is suspicious that this overlays exactly with the objections of naturalists. You yourself Made the prejudiced assumption and assertion that only instruments can tell what is "real".

[Stranger]

How does the beep of a light meter or any such thing prove to a blind man that light exists? It has to be on faith. Most blind people take it on faith and on the fact that their family and people they trust say so.

Drivel. Do you take the existence of radio waves on faith, just because people say they exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel. Do you take the existence of radio waves on faith, just because people say they exist?

As he said, many, many people would have trusted the reports and testimony of others at a time when only a few had radios and I'm sure many at say Fukashima would have acted on others testimony even though they had no Geiger counter and no personal way of detecting radioactive rays because they trusted testimony.