Faith or Facts

@NeitherExtreme,

Icon - I agree that for the sort of truth sought in analytical philosophy we must take something for granted. But I don't think this alters NeitherExtreme's point, which is that for analytical philosophy the foundation of fact is faith.

1 Reply

@Whoever,

I see the faithful are still doing their very best to incriminate factual events and make them faith driven observations..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

I see the faithful are still doing their very best to incriminate factual events and make them faith driven observations..

Ya, umm... I don't go in for this whole idea of trying to link the two either. Fact is the anti-thesis of faith. If we have fact, faith is made completely void. But some refuse to understand or accept that... fact.

1 Reply

@Solace,

i suppose you cant blame them for trying...

1 Reply

@xris,

Solace wrote:

Ya, umm... I don't go in for this whole idea of trying to link the two either. Fact is the anti-thesis of faith. If we have fact, faith is made completely void. But some refuse to understand or accept that... fact.

Some do not accept these claims because we see them as incoherent.

What is a fact, and how do we establish something as a fact? Can we ever eliminate faith entirely from our conception of reality?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Some do not accept these claims because we see them as incoherent.

What is a fact, and how do we establish something as a fact? Can we ever eliminate faith entirely from our conception of reality?

I think this thread has already chewed through a debate about the meaning of the word fact. But fact is just a word to which we attach a meaning. When that meaning is in doubt, one should consult a dictionary. I've yet to see anyone provide information that a dictionary would call "fact" to prove the existence of the divine. If anyone could, I should think that they would have done so by now, or I invite them to do so. But if you're referring to some aspect of faith that does not concern the existence of the divine then I digress, since that is that aspect of faith that I was talking about. For the matter of it, though, in such a case the meaning of the word faith might also be in question.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Yes, the meaning of faith is another important point.

Fact:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
2. something known to exist or to have happened
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

When a "fact" turns out to be false, you realize that all "facts" are taken on faith.

Example... Spontaneous generation was a "fact" of science not too long ago. That "fact" was based on faith in common logic and experience, two things we legitamately rely on all the time. As it turns out, those sources of belief were fallible, and in that case just wrong.

All facts are, at the most basic level, taken on faith- regardless of the dictionary (intuitive) definitions we use in every day speech.

But that's not to say there is no qualitative difference in different sources of belief... For example, personal experience is generally more reliable than second or third hand information.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

Aha! You call logic and experience "those sources of belief". And how right you are.

We take logic on faith. We take experience on faith. It's all a matter of faith.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Okay, I see what you guys are saying. I think that what we need to do is establish, when we speak about faith, to what is it applied. If we're talking about having faith in facts, then that is one matter for discussion. If we're talking about having faith in the divine and whether or not fact can or should apply, then it is another matter entirely. Neither faith nor fact are uni-application words, so we need to establish definitively how the two words apply in the context of this thread, or are we trying to cover all possible uses of the two words?

0 Replies

@MITech,

I don't think it is right to say that we take logic on faith. What we take on faith is the fact that the universe obeys the laws of logic. As Aristotle reminds us in De Interpretatione, however, on this particular article of faith logic can tell us nothing, for it is an empiricial matter.

It's a shame that a discussion of the difference between facts and articles of faith, (if there is one), has turned into a religion vs. anti-religion discussion. A person can believe that every fact is to some degree a matter of faith without needing to have anything to do with religion, as many philosophers have demonstrated. As philosophers surely we should be dispassionately interested in the way things actually are, not worrying about whether what we discover on out intellectual travels will vindicate or annihilate our religious opinions.

The question arises, Is it a fact that every fact is an article of faith? If it is then it isn't, and if it isn't then it is. This suggest to me that there is at least one fact which is not an article of faith. Where it is, however, as Descartes discovered, is not so easy to say.

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Solace:

Solace wrote:

Okay, I see what you guys are saying. I think that what we need to do is establish, when we speak about faith, to what is it applied. If we're talking about having faith in facts, then that is one matter for discussion. If we're talking about having faith in the divine and whether or not fact can or should apply, then it is another matter entirely. Neither faith nor fact are uni-application words...

In general I agree... And I think the position you just described demonstrates that "Faith or Facts" is a false dicotomy, because even facts require faith. So to me the real questions are "What do you put your faith in?", and "Are these sources worthy of that faith?". I would see the blanket-question "Should you have faith?" as a nonsense question, because the answer is: You already do! So "faith" itself isn't a problem, but misplaced faith can be. That's where it gets tricky. :detective:

Whoever:

Whoever wrote:

I don't think it is right to say that we take logic on faith. What we take on faith is the fact that the universe obeys the laws of logic...

I think I understand what you're saying, but in the end I think I'd disagree because we can believe/create faulty logic and not realize it, and logical systems are rarely (if ever) complete and non-contradictory, so accepting any given logical idea is an act of faith. And anyway, skeptical logic itself has a lot to do with the counter-intuitive "everything is faith" conclusion I've come to. Said another way: Logic tells me that logic is taken by faith.

Whoever wrote:

It's a shame that a discussion of the difference between facts and articles of faith, (if there is one), has turned into a religion vs. anti-religion discussion. A person can believe that every fact is to some degree a matter of faith without needing to have anything to do with religion, as many philosophers have demonstrated. As philosophers surely we should be dispassionately interested in the way things actually are, not worrying about whether what we discover on out intellectual travels will vindicate or annihilate our religious opinions.

So far I haven't discussed anything religious, though the original post actually started this out as a religion vs anit-religion discussion (which often turns into a pointless flame war). So actually, I think we're doing fairly well. For what it's worth, I haven't been attacking atheism... There's no way I could actually think that by demonstrating that (A) everything is taken on faith, that I would be proving (B) atheism is wrong. That would be silly. Smile

Whoever wrote:

The question arises, Is it a fact that every fact is an article of faith? If it is then it isn't, and if it isn't then it is. This suggest to me that there is at least one fact which is not an article of faith. Where it is, however, as Descartes discovered, is not so easy to say.

Ah, yes. We've reached a re-worded version of the "absolute truth" problem. Can it be absolutely true that there is not absolute truth? :bigsmile: And here I am as the theist, arguing on the non-absolute side! Surprised

Oh well...

All I can say about this current problem is that my experience leads me to understand that everything I believe is, at some level, taken on faith. And I do see the logical problem I'm left with when I realize this. :brickwall:But logic is only one piece of the puzzle, and besides... what's the alternative?

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

Solace wrote:

Okay, I see what you guys are saying. I think that what we need to do is establish, when we speak about faith, to what is it applied. If we're talking about having faith in facts, then that is one matter for discussion. If we're talking about having faith in the divine and whether or not fact can or should apply, then it is another matter entirely. Neither faith nor fact are uni-application words, so we need to establish definitively how the two words apply in the context of this thread, or are we trying to cover all possible uses of the two words?

Hold on a minute, though. We justify facts via faith; we say 'this is a fact' on pure faith. If belief in the divine has precisely the same justification as belief in fact, then both belief in the divine and belief in a fact are equally appropriate.

Whoever wrote:

I don't think it is right to say that we take logic on faith. What we take on faith is the fact that the universe obeys the laws of logic. As Aristotle reminds us in De Interpretatione, however, on this particular article of faith logic can tell us nothing, for it is an empiricial matter.

Of course we must take logic on faith. What else are we going to do - prove the validity of logic with logic?

Whoever wrote:

The question arises, Is it a fact that every fact is an article of faith? If it is then it isn't, and if it isn't then it is. This suggest to me that there is at least one fact which is not an article of faith. Where it is, however, as Descartes discovered, is not so easy to say.

Every fact must be taken on faith; why assume that this statement excludes itself?

1 Reply

@MITech,

Well, it's not an important point, but I still think the truths of logic are tautological and so need not be taken on faith. The faith problem only arises when we think that logic proves something outside the sytem of logic. If I state Aristotle's three laws and then proceed to calculate a result nothing has been taken on faith. If I say that my result concerns reality itself, however, then I am speaking from faith. I can make up any old rules for a logical system and need have no faith in them, anymore than I need have faith in the rules of Scrabble to play it.

But I see that the statement, 'It is a fact that all facts are articles of faith' need not be self-defeating, as I first suggested.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

We justify facts via faith; we say 'this is a fact' on pure faith.

Yes, I understand. What I am trying to say, however, is that some people also try to justify their faith by saying it is based on facts. So if faith is justifed by facts, yet facts are justified by faith, aren't we in some kind of a loop?

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Yes, I understand. What I am trying to say, however, is that some people also try to justify their faith by saying it is based on facts. So if faith is justifed by facts, yet facts are justified by faith, aren't we in some kind of a loop?

Good point. It's funny how we always seem to end up stuck with this kind of loop in philosophy whenever we get right down to basics. Perhaps this is another of Hofstedter's 'strange loops.'

0 Replies

@MITech,

MITech wrote:

What do you think? Faith: Believing in god or Fact: Science

boagie wrote:

Seeing as there is no necessary connection between truth and belief one can believe whatever one choses to.

Icon wrote:

Faith is something you have because you have evidence towards an idea but not fully supporting it. Faith and belief are very different.

Icon seems to be suggesting that "faith" may or may not be "truth" which is a true definition of the word. ["may or may not be" in other words: We do not know.]

If we accept the premise: Faith and belief are very different.

The logical conclusion suggests that: "belief" ought to be either "true" or false.["ought to be" in other words: We do know.]

I wonder which option Icon equates belief=truth or belief=false?

NeitherExtreme wrote:

accepting any given logical idea is an act of faith. Said another way: Logic tells me that logic is taken by faith.

I would like to see your reasoning.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Of course we must take logic on faith. What else are we going to do - prove the validity of logic with logic?

I think Whoever have a good answer to Didymos Thomas below:

Whoever wrote:

the truths of logic are tautological and so need not be taken on faith. I can make up any old rules for a logical system and need have no faith in them, anymore than I need have faith in the rules of Scrabble to play it.

Well said, however this debate supposed to be "Faith: Believing in God or Fact: Science" therefore I need to says few words:

Instead of using the word "knowledge" or "knowing" with logical proof to support the truthfulness of the claim if one chose to use the word "faith" or "belief" it suggests that the claim has not have enough logical proof yet.

Factual information in science by its nature temporary knowledge until it is proved to be wrong. The important difference needs to be remembered is that, the logical truth is different than scientific truth. For example: The sun will rise tomorrow - is a scientific truth. The sun may not rise tomorrow [for all sorts of known and unknown possibilities] - is a logical truth.

Thanks
democritus

1 Reply

@democritus,

In the Bhagavad-Gita, the argument advanced is that the gaining of true knowledge is one of the ultimate kinds of homage to God (in this case Sri Krishna).

For instance, there is this oft-repeated quote:
...the disciplined man of knowledge
is set apart by his singular devotion;
I am dear to the man of knowledge,
and he is dear to me. 7.17.

And furthermore:
Sacrifice in knowledge is better
than sacrifice with material objects;
the totality of all action
culminates in knowledge, Arjuna. 4.33.

In other words, trust in facts, for from facts can be guided faith. They are no dichotomy.

0 Replies

@MITech,

It is one of the first things I discovered about mysticism is that no dichotomies arise for it. That is, the various well-known intellectual dilemmas that arise for western scholastic philosophy do not arise for it. This is what attracted me to a study of its philosophy.

I agree with democritus that faith presupposes ignorance. That is certainly not a reason to abandon faith, but it is the reason that an honest thinker will never be dogmatic about their faith. Dogmatism and faith are mutually exclusive. When one has knowledge one can abandon faith. I could say I have faith in the fact of the sun rising tomorrow, but I have no faith at all in the fact that it rose today.

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Define truth..define facts..is truth made of facts ? Its a fact i have personal truths that lead me to believe certain things that others who have not got my truths would say are acts of faith....Debate with me about my facts but you wont believe them..I dont believe your facts, so what are we to do?? I dont know..Have faith we are honest with ourselves ..

0 Replies

Faith or Facts

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know