|
Post by Transcix on Apr 11, 2014 12:59:24 GMT -5
If faith implies absence of knowledge about something coupled with a conviction about that something's nature or outcome, then what is the point of faith?
Admittedly in face of legitimately arduous circumstances it's merciful to have some emotional lifeline, but why would simple hope (rather than faith) not be sufficient?
Isn't it dangerous to find foundation in not knowing, doesn't this run counter to exploration, open-mindedness and self-awareness?
Does faith perhaps have a different meaning for you, in which it's not contrary to logic but perfectly compatible with it? If so, how comfortable are you in employing the word "faith" to describe it?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 11, 2014 13:17:12 GMT -5
If faith implies absence of knowledge about something coupled with a conviction about that something's nature or outcome, then what is the point of faith? Admittedly in face of legitimately arduous circumstances it's merciful to have some emotional lifeline, but why would simple hope (rather than faith) not be sufficient? Isn't it dangerous to find foundation in not knowing, doesn't this run counter to exploration, open-mindedness and self-awareness? Does faith perhaps have a different meaning for you, in which it's not contrary to logic but perfectly compatible with it? If so, how comfortable are you in employing the word "faith" to describe it? As far as faith is concerned, it's not a popular word around here and while there might be other definitions there are few advocates. As far as "not knowing" is concerned however, the way that this term is generally used, even by those that would disagree over the details, the idea doesn't involve faith in any form. "Not knowing" isn't about a conviction about anything, it isn't about taking some idea as true counter to evidence or logic. What "not knowing" is about in these parts is perhaps better approached from the other direction, in terms of the question, what is it that you really know?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 11, 2014 13:47:05 GMT -5
I just read an article by a Christian blogger, and some of the responses and as always, I've come up feeling confused as to the difference between hope and faith. My own mind pictures rungs on a mystical ladder or something like that. To me, they seem too darned similar to separate them very well. But, I think it's pretty clear that most if not all of us 'exercise' some hope and/or faith at various times in our lives. I guess it's emotion-related but that would tend to suggest that 'trust' is also one of those words that sort of defy a truly accurate definition.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 11, 2014 14:52:00 GMT -5
Faith can mean a lot of different things, but the context here is similar to what it is in the field of science. A scientist makes a truth claim. Another scientist can either be skeptical of the claim or have faith that it's true, but faith is usually temporary until the second scientist can replicate the experiment and verify the truth claim (thereby gathering empirical evidence through direct experience).
Many non-dual teachers make claims about what will happen if someone does self-inquiry, ATA, zazen, mindfulness, etc. Their students may have faith that the claims are true because they can see the effects of the practice and/or self-realization of the teachers. They may take up a practice, or change how they interact with the world, based on their faith that doing so will result in various types of direct experience and future understanding. This kind of faith is not blind faith nor is it a leap of faith.
As for the phrase "not knowing," it usually points to shutting off intellectual knowing in favor of direct knowing through sensory perception. Knowing what a tree IS, non-conceptually, is radically different from knowing an image, idea, or symbol that represents a tree as an abstract distinction.
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Apr 11, 2014 15:03:17 GMT -5
As far as faith is concerned, it's not a popular word around here and while there might be other definitions there are few advocates. I'm surprised, that's nice to hear. My approach to 'not knowing' is exactly as you say a deconstructive process, rooted in logic of course, and keeping in mind the adage that to say nothing can be known for certain is itself a certainty and must be false. I hope we're not all devil's advocates here, that would take the fun out of it, having nothing to shoot down!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 11, 2014 15:45:03 GMT -5
As far as faith is concerned, it's not a popular word around here and while there might be other definitions there are few advocates. I'm surprised, that's nice to hear. My approach to 'not knowing' is exactly as you say a deconstructive process, rooted in logic of course, and keeping in mind the adage that to say nothing can be known for certain is itself a certainty and must be false. I hope we're not all devil's advocates here, that would take the fun out of it, having nothing to shoot down! Yes "nothing can be known for certain" is an explicitly self-referential statement that negates itself. Are you familiar with the idea of "belief swapping"?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 11, 2014 21:35:17 GMT -5
I just read an article by a Christian blogger, and some of the responses and as always, I've come up feeling confused as to the difference between hope and faith. My own mind pictures rungs on a mystical ladder or something like that. To me, they seem too darned similar to separate them very well. But, I think it's pretty clear that most if not all of us 'exercise' some hope and/or faith at various times in our lives. I guess it's emotion-related but that would tend to suggest that 'trust' is also one of those words that sort of defy a truly accurate definition. I basically agree. Faith may be closer to trust than it is to hope. Hope may be more like wishing for a specific outcome, while faith seems more like accepting the truth of something without evidence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 11, 2014 21:40:55 GMT -5
As far as faith is concerned, it's not a popular word around here and while there might be other definitions there are few advocates. I'm surprised, that's nice to hear. My approach to 'not knowing' is exactly as you say a deconstructive process, rooted in logic of course, and keeping in mind the adage that to say nothing can be known for certain is itself a certainty and must be false. I hope we're not all devil's advocates here, that would take the fun out of it, having nothing to shoot down!In an attempt to fulfill your hope.....the idea that 'to say nothing can be known for certainty is a certainty that must be false' (though how could one be certain of that?) is what we call around these here parts, TMT. (too much thinking)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 11, 2014 23:26:28 GMT -5
I just read an article by a Christian blogger, and some of the responses and as always, I've come up feeling confused as to the difference between hope and faith. My own mind pictures rungs on a mystical ladder or something like that. To me, they seem too darned similar to separate them very well. But, I think it's pretty clear that most if not all of us 'exercise' some hope and/or faith at various times in our lives. I guess it's emotion-related but that would tend to suggest that 'trust' is also one of those words that sort of defy a truly accurate definition. I basically agree. Faith may be closer to trust than it is to hope. Hope may be more like wishing for a specific outcome, while faith seems more like accepting the truth of something without evidence. Ha! ... of course it is! I was just gonna express that ... (** pushes pause button in anticipation of T's answer re "belief swapping" **)
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Apr 12, 2014 0:49:54 GMT -5
I am not familiar with this swapping of the belief. the idea that 'to say nothing can be known for certainty is a certainty that must be false' (though how could one be certain of that?) is what we call around these here parts, TMT. (too much thinking) It seems to me a priori logic such as this is just the opposite of too much thinking, normally it's so hard to deliver such a clean, succinct morsel. Your question in parenthesis doesn't follow by the way, not sure if you were kidding or not.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 12, 2014 1:28:42 GMT -5
I am not familiar with this swapping of the belief. the idea that 'to say nothing can be known for certainty is a certainty that must be false' (though how could one be certain of that?) is what we call around these here parts, TMT. (too much thinking) It seems to me a priori logic such as this is just the opposite of too much thinking, normally it's so hard to deliver such a clean, succinct morsel. Your question in parenthesis doesn't follow by the way, not sure if you were kidding or not. Logic can detect a contradiction between premises. It is not logic that tells you which premise is the wrong one. You have too much faith in Logic.
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Apr 12, 2014 1:36:36 GMT -5
Logic can detect a contradiction between premises. It is not logic that tells you which premise is the wrong one. You have too much faith in Logic. My friend you're not being rational. I could say exactly the same thing as you, that logic doesn't tell you which premise is wrong therefore in detecting contradiction between the premises of you being right and me being right, hey who's to say? That IS what you said.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 12, 2014 1:38:58 GMT -5
Logic can detect a contradiction between premises. It is not logic that tells you which premise is the wrong one. You have too much faith in Logic. My friend you're not being rational. I could say exactly the same thing as you, that logic doesn't tell you which premise is wrong therefore in detecting contradiction between the premises of you being right and me being right, hey who's to say? That IS what you said. No it is not what I said. Perhaps you should study some intuitionist thought on the nature of mind and knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 12, 2014 1:52:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 12, 2014 2:01:10 GMT -5
I am not familiar with this swapping of the belief. Belief swapping is the difference between the scientific method and the method of self-inquiry referred to as neti-neti. ( two references) Science is a sort of collective act of self inquiry -- what is the nature of reality that can be determined by skeptical inquiry based on objective truth? What ZD said about scientists is (as what he usually has to say) quite insightful, but the fact is that not all scientists will perform all the experiments that they read about for themselves. There is an element of trust involved in any education or line of inquiry in the sciences. A scientist stands on the shoulders of the giants that came before him. In a sense, you could say that this trust is related to the notion of faith. Not every high particle physicist builds his own version of Youngs experiment to verify the result. He'll learn about it as an undergrad, maybe he'll encounter it in a lab somewhere, but the bottom line is that he'll build based on accepting ideas that are told to him 2nd-hand as being true. To do otherwise would create an unsupportable economy of inefficiency that would bring scientific inquiry to a screeching halt. Science over time has resulted in a set of ideas that have survived a rigorous process of selection based on observation. In this we can say that current scientific understanding has evolved over time, and Darwins notion of survival of the fittest is a helpful idea to understand how that has and is playing out. Noone is going to question the idea that can be expressed with the equation of an ellipse describing the path of the Earth relative to the Sun. This is how skepticism contains within it the seeds of its opposite, faith. Noone is going to argue that a flat Earth is at the center of the solar system on a forum like this unless it's just to troll, but how many people have directly looked in the same way that Copernicus and Eratosthenes did? The scientific method is the process of replacing old beliefs with new ones. This is good. It can bring one to a place where they've got the best beliefs that a mind can buy with the currency of intellect. Once there one can ask, what is the value of them? What do you really know? the idea that 'to say nothing can be known for certainty is a certainty that must be false' (though how could one be certain of that?) is what we call around these here parts, TMT. (too much thinking) It seems to me a priori logic such as this is just the opposite of too much thinking, normally it's so hard to deliver such a clean, succinct morsel. Your question in parenthesis doesn't follow by the way, not sure if you were kidding or not. But "nothing can be known for certain" isn't justifiable as a logical conclusion. It defines an infinite series in the form of a square wave: if nothing can be known for certain is true (1) then it can't be known for certain that nothing can be known for certain (0), so of course then the conclusion is that nothing can be known for certain (1) ... and so on. It's a trick of self-reference. The same trick you play on yourself when you take yourself to be the voice in your head and let one thought lead to the next in an infinite loop of never ending internal dialog. So if by "false" you mean following the self-reference of the statement for one cycle from true to self-negating false then you've thought one thought too many, as you've just stopped arbitrarily in the middle of a circular track without end. On the other hand, if by "false" you mean that the statement is inherently devoid of meaning, then you've set the stage for noticing the absence of meaning in general. Similar to where science can bring the mind, that's a good thing.
|
|