The Permissibility of Faith

[spetey]

Hi folks!

In my experience, when debating with those who believe in God, my interlocutors will inevitably appeal to faith as their justification for belief. (Some don't call it "faith"--some call it "intuition", or "trust" or some such.) I'm very wary of such appeals, because I hear it as "I will continue to believe despite lack of evidence or argument for my position (at least, of the kind that I can share with anyone who disagrees)." I think such behavior is impermissible. Faith to me is just dogmatism, and to me, dogmatism of any kind is very dangerous.

For comparison: imagine, for example, that you met a rabid racist. You give a carefully reasoned argument to the effect that skin color doesn't matter to who a person is or what rights they have, etc. The racist responds: "Although I have no answer to your argument, or arguments that I can share with you for my own position, I just believe; I have faith that my race is superior." You would be at an impasse, right? Should you come to disagree over some important social policy measure, there is no way to reason out your disagreement. Instead you have to see who has more money for PR, or who has more tanks, or what have you. I assume that in these cases we all agree that "faith" is in an important sense impermissible. We think the racist is being dogmatic, and we think that it's destructive not to be open to reasoning.

So why might appeal to faith be permissible when it comes to discussions of religion? Or have I somehow misconstrued what it is to appeal to faith?


spetey

[bernee51]

For example, I believe that my wife does not cheat on me. ... But, I do have certain evidence to point to the fact that she does not cheat. The bridge between the two is faith.

Otseng, I don't know about you but in my relationship this is known as 'trust'. Faith has nothong to do with it. This is trust in my wife and trust in the strength of our committment. Why trust? Because there is evidence of our mutual committment.

Faith, blind or sighted, is, in my case at least, not a factor in my relationship.


cheers

[chrispalasz]

bernee51:

I think it's faith that you have... but I don't think you want to call it that.

Faith and trust are very closely related.

[otseng]

Still, to be frank, I think Christianity must appeal to faith at bottom.

I would wholeheartedly agree.

However, how many fields are totally void of faith? Even in the world of mathematics, one can find faith.

I was watching The Proof, a documentary on Andrew Wiles solving Fermat's Last Theorem. One of the keys to solving it was trying to prove the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture. For years, the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture was used by mathematicians, even though it was not proven to be true. Prior to Wiles, many even thought it was unprovable.

Transcript

STACY KEACH (NARRATOR): In fact, Taniyama-Shimura became a foundation for other theories which all came to depend on it. But Taniyama-Shimura was only a conjecture, an unproven idea, and until it could be proven, all the mathematics which relied on it were under threat.

ANDREW WILES: We built more and more conjectures stretched further and further into the future, but they would all be completely ridiculous if Taniyama-Shimura was not true.

I'm no mathematician, and all the math went over my head, but when I heard that, my eyebrows were raised and I thought, "Even these math geniuses have elements of faith".

[otseng]

Otseng, I don't know about you but in my relationship this is known as 'trust'. Faith has nothong to do with it. This is trust in my wife and trust in the strength of our committment. Why trust? Because there is evidence of our mutual committment.

Isn't trust and faith closely related cousins, if not even siblings? I ask you, what is the difference between faith and trust? Both have an element of unprovability to it and both have an element of certainty in the belief in something.

Even in our usage of the word trust do we see faith.

"In God we trust"

"Trust me"

2Sa 22:3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust

Job 13:15 Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him

Edited to add: Also, even the origin of the word faith reveals a connection with trust. Faith is derived from Latin fides - which means faith, trust.

[harvey1]

My point is that we are not going to be successful at reasoning our way into agreeing on one conceptual scheme that everyone can reason within.

It's points like this where you seem to give up on the possibility of coming to rational agreement on the topic, and that's what makes me suspect that at bottom your belief is based on what can't be shared with others (what I call "faith"). You appeal to the "conceptual scheme" talk of philosophers of science. But you see in science people do manage to convince others of the superiority of one conceptual scheme over another, through (guess what?) reasons that can be shared across both. That's how we come to have "paradigm shifts" (if you insist on seeing things through "conceptual scheme" lenses, which I don't). And I'm pushing for a paradigm shift toward atheism!

Yes, conceptual schemes evolve based on reasons however it is not quite as simple as you suggest. There are many aesthetic factors (i.e., intuitive factors) that must be considered. Some theories of science affect or encourage certain kinds of intuitive-based conceptual schemes that become ingrained ways of thinking. It literally takes the passing of an old generation to see the demise of particular aesthetic view.

But, what causes some aesthetic views to become entrenched and what causes their demise? Reasoning processes? No. It is the pragmatic success of a new theory and the lack of corresponding pragmatic success of the old theory that causes a generation gap (i.e., the youth usually are more susceptible and willing to change conceptual schemes - which might explain why young scientists are often more effective at initiating change in science - just a thought), and this generation gap eventually sees the new conceptual scheme take root - replacing the old conceptual scheme.

You can talk to the 'old generation' to you are blue in the face, but since they are operating on an older conceptual scheme that is out-moded, they simply will not change. It's not because they aren't listening to reasoning, they might be brilliant and logical people like Einstein. Rather, in order to appeal to them you have to appeal to a conceptual scheme that is not logical-based, it is intuitively-based.

This is what is happening in the context of religion. You see it is when trying to reason through a problem that eventually reaches the foundational point of their conceptual scheme that religious people will just cite 'faith', but from my perspective I could say the same about atheists. My entire experience with atheists has been that when reasoning was clearly in the theists' favor, they simply went away. They would not give up their conceptual scheme which is based on this intuitive-feel that God doesn't exist. I don't know, but I suspect that you also have the same intuitive-based conceptual schemes that prevent you from believing in God. You don't see that as a bad thing, in fact you might even see it as being reasonable. Such is the power of conceptual schemes. They lead us to believe we are acting out of reason, when in fact, we are simply acting out the drama that comes with the evolutionary play of life (note: this metaphor is to prepare you for today... ).

[harvey1]

As for faith, to me this term is perhaps one of the most abused, misconstrued terms in religious history. Faith does not imply, and should never imply, a lack of evidence. Faith is what you exercise in response to overriding evidence.The epistle to the Hebrews states it best in my view: "Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see." (Heb. 11:1)
In other words, faith is just having confidence in the things you cannot prove are true. In case of religious faith, it is having confidence in the things you also hope for are true. Faith by itself is not evidence or a reason to believe.

This confuses me greatly... I for one read that quotation as saying that to have faith is to believe in what you hope is true without reasons you can see. (This is a construal I would accept cheerfully.) Finally, you seem to agree with my reading of the epistle to the Hebrews, saying that "faith is just having confidence in the things you cannot prove are true." But I guess the tension I see is here: if you have overriding evidence for a claim, as in your first construal of faith, then don't you also have proof?

No, you don't have proof because the 'overriding evidence' is not based on a formal scheme, or even a 'scientific method' of proof. As Paul said, it is based on seeing certain things as obvious, and if you don't see those things as obvious, then you are without excuse - at least on some matters pertaining to the existence of God. I entirely agree with that. People have allowed themselves to be so caught up in so many smaller details, they are failing to see the bigger picture.

Let me give you an example. There are many contradictions in the Bible, which I suppose you are aware. Now, it is conceivable that the way in which a fundamentals would creatively answer one or two contradictions could possibly be the case (i.e., assuming the recorded event happened). You can always expect the unexpected, and sometimes creative answers to resolving a contradiction just happen to be correct. The problem, though, is that fundamentalists would ask you to believe it for every single case (i.e., hundreds of cases). It simply is not reasonable. In a possible universe, I suppose such could happen (since probability is more favorable to the totally unexpected thing to happen), but not in our typical universe (or what we believe is typical). This, I think, is what Paul is talking about. When you see the preponderous amount of beauty and design in the universe, you should awaken to the concept that God is in the world and God is active in the world. Therefore, this is not an appeal to faith, it really is an appeal to intuitive thought, which coming from my perspective, really shouldn't even be a debate at all. It amazes me, actually, that in the 21st century after all that we know of the world, that people even consider there to be doubts on God's existence. But, such is the case of the world we live.

In more neutral terms, what I want to know is: when is it permissible to believe something for which you can give no publically available reasons? Why is it permissible for the Christian, and not for the racist?

The Christian does have publically available reasons, it is just that when intuitive concepts are not understood, it makes it extremely difficult to teach such things. It is possible, but it takes a lot of work because you to teach the basics as to why you need to consider intuitive thought (e.g., what we are doing), then you have to show which intuitive thoughts are superior, and then you have to show why the other individuals intuitive thoughts are lacking. The same is true for racism. If someone is racist, you can't just cite DNA evidence to show humans all over the planet are all human. That would be talking at them, and not to them. You have to get inside their conceptual scheme, and start showing them how it is based on intuitive judgements and then argue from 'higher' intuitive beliefs in the hope that you can get them to overthrow the 'lower' intuitive view on racism. This, in fact, is what happened. But, it takes so much time and the intuitive views become so ingrained, that the youth are much more readily apt to change and therefore it takes generations for it to occur. That is, it takes an evolution of ideas for change to happen.

[spetey]

Still, to be frank, I think Christianity must appeal to faith at bottom.

I would wholeheartedly agree.

However, how many fields are totally void of faith? Even in the world of mathematics, one can find faith.

Oh yes, I think I know that documentary--a friend of mine is in it, actually. But that's not (what I would call) faith--it's a relatively low degree of credence based on some evidence. For example, though Fermat's hadn't been proven, folks had shown that it held up to very very high numbers. This gave us evidence (even if not up to the standard of formal proof) that Fermat was correct, since it seems even less likely to find a counterexample in even higher numbers (I think).

Sure, they can do branches of mathematics hoping that the foundations are right. That's not faith, it's speculation--like when people say they'll buy pork bellies at $X months from now. When the stakes are high enough you can act on beliefs with relatively low credence, as expected value theory suggests. (Some, like Pascal, say that's why you should believe in God, too--it's not faith, it's a good bet even if the evidence is low. But there are very serious problems with this view--perhaps for another thread.)

All fields bottom out in some root "intuitions" of some kind or another. But that's different from all fields bottoming out in faith. Fields like science and math bottom out in "intuitions" that everyone shares. Or at leat, when they discover some root intuition that isn't shared by everyone--as Russell's paradox did for Frege's Axiom V--then there is a furor of activity to try to put the field on more stable footing. My point is that this doesn't seem to be how things work in (what I would call) faith-based religions, such as Christianity. The root intuitions are not shared by everyone, and there doesn't seem to be any concern about how to settle disagreements with Hindus, say, who have very different ones. This is odd since if either Christianity or Hinduism is true, the stakes are enormous.


spetey

[spetey]

Rather, in order to appeal to them you have to appeal to a conceptual scheme that is not logical-based, it is intuitively-based.

This doesn't follow from what you said before. It may be a psychological fact that people committed to one "conceptual scheme" have a hard time moving out of it even in the face of reason (here Einstein does seem like a good example). If by "intuitively-based" you mean your "higher intuitions" that you can share with others, then I agree with you. But let's be very careful here: when you are speaking of intuitions, are you speaking of ones that can be shared or not? In the case of science, the intuitions can be shared, as the (perhaps slow) conversions to theories demonstrates. What are the "intuitions" you can share in the case of Christianity?

My entire experience with atheists has been that when reasoning was clearly in the theists' favor, they simply went away.

Of course that's been my experience with theists. But, as you say, it's hard to shift out of a mindset.

They would not give up their conceptual scheme which is based on this intuitive-feel that God doesn't exist. I don't know, but I suspect that you also have the same intuitive-based conceptual schemes that prevent you from believing in God. You don't see that as a bad thing, in fact you might even see it as being reasonable.

It depends again on what you mean by intuition--if you're going to use this word a lot, we'd better be very careful. I think I have what I would call reasons for my atheism--reasons I can share with others. If you want to call these "higher intuitions", then fine, but be sure to mark them so. Let's call them "premises" or "shareable intuitions" if you must. And yes, since I have good reasons for my view, I see it as utterly reasonable! I'm asking why and if Christianity is a reasonable view in this sense.

(And thanks for the well-wishes--harvey1 knows I'm opening in a play tonight!)

No, you don't have proof because the 'overriding evidence' is not based on a formal scheme, or even a 'scientific method' of proof. As Paul said, it is based on seeing certain things as obvious, and if you don't see those things as obvious, then you are without excuse - at least on some matters pertaining to the existence of God. I entirely agree with that.

Whoa, that's something. As I read you, you're saying here that I just have to "see something as obvious", and if I don't see it as obvious, then it's my own damn fault, and there's nothing you can do to show me why I should believe it? If this is what you're saying, then you see, this is what I would call a straightforward exampls of an appeal to faith. And you're right, an atheist could do the same (and many do): "it's just obvious that there's no God, and if you don't see that as obvious, it's your own damn fault." Myself, I think that's epistemically irresponsible behavior, on either side of the fence. That's why here in this forum I try to give reasons for my position, instead.

When you see the preponderous amount of beauty and design in the universe, you should awaken to the concept that God is in the world and God is active in the world.

I see a lot of beauty. I don't know what you mean by "design"; if you mean highly functionally organized lifeforms, then I'm surprised at you, such a fan of evolution appealing to the argument from design, tsk tsk. If you mean the "fine-tuning" of the universe, this is for another thread. But the point here is that it is not obvious to me, dunderhead that I am, that a beautiful world implies some supernatural spirit exists. So you'll have to explain it to me.

Therefore, this is not an appeal to faith, it really is an appeal to intuitive thought, which coming from my perspective, really shouldn't even be a debate at all.

So far you have distinguished intuition (in this non-shareable sense) from faith only by saying "intuition is a form of reasoning". But that's like saying "intuition isn't like faith because intuition is good." Do you at root appeal to non-shareable "intuition" or don't you? It sure sounds like it again here.

It amazes me, actually, that in the 21st century after all that we know of the world, that people even consider there to be doubts on God's existence. But, such is the case of the world we live.

I am similarly amazed that people do believe, especially after all we know about the world. As we explain more and more, the corners where people need to posit "God" to solve all the remaining mysteries shrinks and shrinks...

The Christian does have publically available reasons, it is just that when intuitive concepts are not understood, it makes it extremely difficult to teach such things.

Sure, I don't expect this to be solved in an afternoon, either way.

It is possible, but it takes a lot of work because you to teach the basics as to why you need to consider intuitive thought (e.g., what we are doing), then you have to show which intuitive thoughts are superior, and then you have to show why the other individuals intuitive thoughts are lacking.

Again be very careful about "intuitive thought" here, you are equivocating dangerously. Here intuitive thought is superior to something--to what? To what I would call "reasons" (ie something like shareable beliefs that support some further proposition)?

The same is true for racism. If someone is racist, you can't just cite DNA evidence to show humans all over the planet are all human. That would be talking at them, and not to them. You have to get inside their conceptual scheme, and start showing them how it is based on intuitive judgements and then argue from 'higher' intuitive beliefs in the hope that you can get them to overthrow the 'lower' intuitive view on racism. This, in fact, is what happened. But, it takes so much time and the intuitive views become so ingrained, that the youth are much more readily apt to change and therefore it takes generations for it to occur. That is, it takes an evolution of ideas for change to happen.

Well, yes it takes a change of ideas in order for ideas to change. And yes, I agree that you need to try to get inside the racist's "conceptual scheme" in order to help convince them. I construe that as trying to find beliefs that you share with the racist, where you can start. Like, "do you agree that suffering is bad?" "do you agree that people of other races can suffer?" and so on. If they don't agree, you move back to other beliefs where they do agree.

You apparently mean something else by "getting inside someone's conceptual scheme". First, is it possible, according to you? You said earlier it's not, but maybe that was just casual overstatement. Second, if it is possible, how is it done? How might it be done particularly in the case before us?


spetey

[spetey]

A quick postscript:

It is possible, but it takes a lot of work because you to teach the basics as to why you need to consider intuitive thought (e.g., what we are doing), then you have to show which intuitive thoughts are superior, and then you have to show why the other individuals intuitive thoughts are lacking.

Again be very careful about "intuitive thought" here, you are equivocating dangerously. Here intuitive thought is superior to something--to what? To what I would call "reasons" (ie something like shareable beliefs that support some further proposition)?

Sorry, I read your original too fast and misread. Yes, you have to compare the "intuitions" (what I call "reasons") and try to figure out which is better. Agreed. Again I'm very pleased at these moments when we seem to be on the same page about how we have to provide what I would call reasons to each other.

I'm still concerned about other places where you seem to think this is impossible. Can you show me your "intuitions" are superior, given that I don't already have them? (By this I mean, do you have shareable "higher" intuitions you can appeal to in the matter?)


spetey

[otseng]

But that's not (what I would call) faith--it's a relatively low degree of credence based on some evidence.

Hmm, has "faith" even been defined for the purposes of this discussion? If not, then perhaps it would be prudent to do so. (I have also started a thread in Definitions and Explanations on What is "faith"?)

(And thanks for the well-wishes--harvey1 knows I'm opening in a play tonight!)

I wish you success as well.

If you mean the "fine-tuning" of the universe, this is for another thread.

Here is the thread on the Anthropic Principle.