Sep 25 2012: Thanks for the clarification. I think what you have put forward is a terrible definition of faith.
1. It begs the question of God's existence: It has an internal assumption.
2. It does not cover all cases where faith is commonly used, e.g. belief in other gods.
3. It leaves the open question of how we can test if something is a matter of faith. How do we know what god reveals? I have no problem with looking for evidence in nature, but what do you mean by 'know[ing]... through spiritual experience'?
Sep 25 2012: You intrigue me with your tales of invisible pinkness... do tell!
OK, serious. The problem with this topic is that is is often easy to say what is faith and what is not, but more difficult to explain the test by which something is decided to be faith. I think we can agree that belief in the existence of a god or gods is a matter of faith, belief in an afterlife is faith, belief in the temporary subversion of the laws of physics (miracles) is faith, belief in the healing power of prayer is faith. (stop me if you disagree).
Surely, since you have analysed and rejected other religions, you must believe them to be without supporting evidence or internally inconsistent. Would it be fair to say that you consider the faith beliefs of other religions to be examples of irrational beliefs, or do you believe them to be rational beliefs, in which case, why do you not belief them?
Sep 24 2012: So... are you putting forward this definition of faith?
"the ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed."
and is it: "(The ascent of the mind), OR (understanding of the truth of what God has revealed)"
or is it "The ((ascent of the mind to) OR (understanding of)) the truth of what God has revealed"
or: "The ((ascent of the mind to) OR (understanding to the truth of)) what God has revealed"
Sep 23 2012: Thanks for your reply. It's always nice to hear from scientists: One can be near certain of their respect for the importance of truth.
It is interesting to see how the definitions of words has changes over the centuries. The Webster 1904 seems to be very much a product of Christendom of the time. It reminds me a little of P. Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy in which science is called 'experimental theology' in an alternative world. Webster's definition begs the question of the existence of a god, and would be completely stumped when it comes to the modern use of 'faith' as it applies to all world religions. Furthermore, it uses the metaphorical idea of ascending ones mind, referencing the idea that god is somewhere 'up' there. Are you suggesting this is still a valid or useful definition?
Sep 23 2012: I would appreciate a more detailed answer to Mariangela's question : "There are many religions in the world that have inner consistency. I would guess you believe in just one. Why?".
You seem to be saying that you analysed the available evidence to come to a conclusion that Xianity is 'worth believing'. Was it simply that you found Xianity to be 'internally consistent', see my comment above, or did you find actual evidence to suggest its claims are true? Have you found any inconsistencies in other religious faiths and beliefs which have caused you to dismiss them as impossible? I would be interested to know.
Sep 23 2012: Inner consistency is a binary quality. Something is either internally consistent, or there are inconsistencies. If something is NOT internally consistent, then it is impossible. E.g. The classical 'Invisible Pink Unicorn' is impossible, because it is not internally consistant: something cannot be simultaneously invisible and pink. Conversely, whatever IS internally consistent is possible. However:
1. That something is possible does not mean it is likely (It is possible that I win the lottery next week).
2. That something is possible does not mean there is any reason to believe that is is true (it is possible that polar bears are actually aliens in disguise).
3. What hypothesis are you putting forward as internally consistent?
"What you reveal here is atheism lack of thinking and indoctrination"
Yah boo sucks to you!...
Sep 18 2012: It's not a question thread, it's a debate: I have put forward a proposition and I am defending it!
However, to open up the debate I asked for alternative explanations and definitions of faith (the kind of faith that is cited when proposing supernatural phenomenon), in order to explore peoples views, and see if there were any arguments that I hadn't yet heard.
If I have misunderstood your example, please go back and explain what you mean by your example with the job and the clothes. If there is a deeper meaning that was lost on me, then I apologise for the flippancy of my original answer.
Sep 17 2012: Surely masculine is the generalized behaviour and condition of all men, and feminine the generalized behaviour and condition of all women. Therefore, if women change, what it is to be feminine changes. But let's leave that aside
'Should' implies there is a correct level of testosterone in women. Could you tell us what this is, how it was decided, and if there are side-effects from having a testosterone level which deviates from this. Also, are you saying that levels of testosterone in women have been increasing over time, or are you saying simply that different experiences and exposures can (partly) account for the testosterone variation within a stable profile.
I'm afraid my experience in this area extends only as far as dog-whelk psudopenises (pun not intended), but it sounds interesting.
Sep 17 2012: "Is calling into question rationality, fair, without first understanding intelligence itself?"
Could you expand upon what you mean here. I'm not sure I can do the question justice without first knowing what it is you are suggesting we need to understand about intelligence, and how this relates to rationality.
"In longevity of actions, fundamental faith in thought - proves irrational and biased - while - consciously refusing alternative considerations to 'said' thought(s)."
I find this argument intriguing, though rather opaque. 'longevity' as in 'length of time'? Also, are you referring to a particular 'thought', a place-marker 'thought' or the process of thinking in general? An expansion and explanation would be useful.
TEDCred score: +0.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Is Faith inherently irrational?
1. It begs the question of God's existence: It has an internal assumption.
2. It does not cover all cases where faith is commonly used, e.g. belief in other gods.
3. It leaves the open question of how we can test if something is a matter of faith. How do we know what god reveals? I have no problem with looking for evidence in nature, but what do you mean by 'know[ing]... through spiritual experience'?
A reply on Conversation: Is Faith inherently irrational?
OK, serious. The problem with this topic is that is is often easy to say what is faith and what is not, but more difficult to explain the test by which something is decided to be faith. I think we can agree that belief in the existence of a god or gods is a matter of faith, belief in an afterlife is faith, belief in the temporary subversion of the laws of physics (miracles) is faith, belief in the healing power of prayer is faith. (stop me if you disagree).
Surely, since you have analysed and rejected other religions, you must believe them to be without supporting evidence or internally inconsistent. Would it be fair to say that you consider the faith beliefs of other religions to be examples of irrational beliefs, or do you believe them to be rational beliefs, in which case, why do you not belief them?
A reply on Conversation: Is Faith inherently irrational?
"the ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed."
and is it: "(The ascent of the mind), OR (understanding of the truth of what God has revealed)"
or is it "The ((ascent of the mind to) OR (understanding of)) the truth of what God has revealed"
or: "The ((ascent of the mind to) OR (understanding to the truth of)) what God has revealed"
A reply on Conversation: Is Faith inherently irrational?
It is interesting to see how the definitions of words has changes over the centuries. The Webster 1904 seems to be very much a product of Christendom of the time. It reminds me a little of P. Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy in which science is called 'experimental theology' in an alternative world. Webster's definition begs the question of the existence of a god, and would be completely stumped when it comes to the modern use of 'faith' as it applies to all world religions. Furthermore, it uses the metaphorical idea of ascending ones mind, referencing the idea that god is somewhere 'up' there. Are you suggesting this is still a valid or useful definition?
A reply on Conversation: Is Faith inherently irrational?
You seem to be saying that you analysed the available evidence to come to a conclusion that Xianity is 'worth believing'. Was it simply that you found Xianity to be 'internally consistent', see my comment above, or did you find actual evidence to suggest its claims are true? Have you found any inconsistencies in other religious faiths and beliefs which have caused you to dismiss them as impossible? I would be interested to know.
A reply on Conversation: Is Faith inherently irrational?
1. That something is possible does not mean it is likely (It is possible that I win the lottery next week).
2. That something is possible does not mean there is any reason to believe that is is true (it is possible that polar bears are actually aliens in disguise).
3. What hypothesis are you putting forward as internally consistent?
"What you reveal here is atheism lack of thinking and indoctrination"
Yah boo sucks to you!...
A reply on Conversation: Is Faith inherently irrational?
However, to open up the debate I asked for alternative explanations and definitions of faith (the kind of faith that is cited when proposing supernatural phenomenon), in order to explore peoples views, and see if there were any arguments that I hadn't yet heard.
If I have misunderstood your example, please go back and explain what you mean by your example with the job and the clothes. If there is a deeper meaning that was lost on me, then I apologise for the flippancy of my original answer.
A reply on Conversation: Is Faith inherently irrational?
A comment on Conversation: Do you think in our efforts to have equality that women are now to masculine?
'Should' implies there is a correct level of testosterone in women. Could you tell us what this is, how it was decided, and if there are side-effects from having a testosterone level which deviates from this. Also, are you saying that levels of testosterone in women have been increasing over time, or are you saying simply that different experiences and exposures can (partly) account for the testosterone variation within a stable profile.
I'm afraid my experience in this area extends only as far as dog-whelk psudopenises (pun not intended), but it sounds interesting.
A reply on Conversation: Is Faith inherently irrational?
Could you expand upon what you mean here. I'm not sure I can do the question justice without first knowing what it is you are suggesting we need to understand about intelligence, and how this relates to rationality.
"In longevity of actions, fundamental faith in thought - proves irrational and biased - while - consciously refusing alternative considerations to 'said' thought(s)."
I find this argument intriguing, though rather opaque. 'longevity' as in 'length of time'? Also, are you referring to a particular 'thought', a place-marker 'thought' or the process of thinking in general? An expansion and explanation would be useful.