Jake wrote:
<<If everybody has faith, then "faith" is a pretty meaningless word.>>
Non sequitur. Everybody has life, blood, and a name, too. Are those words meaningless?
<< As it is
ordinarily used in reality by people actually claiming to have faith, it is
not a thing that I can see everybody and every process involving.>>
What if you could see it?
<< If faith is
everything, then it may as well be nothing.>>
No one is saying that faith is everything. But consider that any belief system takes certain things on faith.
<< But there are important
distinctions to made between faith, trust, hope.>>
Agreed.
<<If I were to say that "I believe in God only until I have reasons not to"
that is not faith.>>
Agreed.
<< Faith means not holding a representation (or belief) in
principle open to rational criticism.>>
No, I don't think that's what it means. It's more a decision to take a position and base other parts of your worldview on it. Christians from Thomas More to C.S. Lewis have been quite open to rational criticism of their faith.
<< It does not mean belief without
evidence. If that were the case, I could say "I believe in God only until I
have evidence against God." That is not faith. Look to Job, the sine qua
non
of faith,>>
I don't think you mean sine qua non here. Maybe "epitome"?
<< and you see that faith is not faith unless you are willing to
believe in contradiction to the evidence. That do that requires that you
not
hold the article of faith in principle open to rational criticism in the
first
place.>>
No. It requires that your faith be stronger than your faith in the meaning of the evidence. Scientists do this all the time.
<<I am a pancritical rationalist. Everything is principle is open to
rational
criticism, even for many that haven't yet discovered the phrase "pancritical
rationalist". >>
Funny how much that sounds like "I am a Christian. Everyone can be Saved, even the many who haven't yet discovered Jesus."
<<If you have no faith, then you may be one of those too. Having
faith, is antithetical to being a pancritical (or non-justificational)
rationalist. But I certainly can have lots of that hope and trust stuff.
That is not faith.>>
If you believe that, you're defining faith as "only BAD cherished beliefs." When was the last time you questioned the validity of the scientific method, or logic, or induction?
<<I can trust somebody until I have reasons not to.>>
I can trust somebody even if I have reasons not to.
<< I can even believe
something in the absence of evidence, but I cannot believe something in
contradiction to reason and evidence.>>
No, you can't. That's what I mean by Level 2. You can only hold one self-consistent worldview.
<< Scientists do not have faith in the
scientific process, but they have plenty of good reasons to trust it.>>
Some do, some don't.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/
Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
Free newsletter! Visit Meme Central at
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm