Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    So the comparison here is one of hard evidence substantiated by the senses as fact and real truth believed in spite of the lack of "physical" evidence. The latter is true faith. The issue is not if the facts themselves are real and true but if there is a way to accept these REAL facts in the lack of physical, tactile evidence! Let's get this straight once and for all do not confuse the two "types" of faith.
    Hey there Mystykal,

    I don't think that is the real issue. To me, the real issue is how one set of metaphysical beliefs can be distinguished from any other false set of beliefs such as fantasies about fairies, gnomes, magical unicorns, Allah, Vishnu, Yahweh, and the Tooth Fairy. I have brought this to your attention many times and as far as I know, you have never even suggested any answer. Do you understand why I think this is the real issue? The world is filled with fairy tales that people think are "confirmed" by their subjective experience despite the fact that they have no actual evidence of any kind.

    You say that Rose's distinction between knowledge (as justified true belief) and blind faith is a "confusion." I think it is the opposite of confusion. The real confusion is your conflation of blind faith with knowledge. They are not the same at all. By definition, folks have reasons to "believe" things that they can justify with reasons. The faith you advocate seems indistinguishable from fantasy.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Not true. Knowledge involves the concept of justification of belief. Mere faith without justification is the antithesis of knowledge. That's the point of the video. I already explained this but you apparently chose to ignore what I wrote (or simply did not understand it). Here it is again:

    This is the central problem of epistemology. What is knowledge? Many philosophers like the definition "justified true belief". This definition defines knowledge as a kind of belief. And this brings us back to the central point of the video which defines "faith" as "pretending to know things you don't know."

    It is not just the ball that swings but also the professor that has it swing.

    It makes think of a clock, pendule:



    It needs to be winded up.


    Time ticking away ...

    I do remember from my childhood the ticking of the clocks in all the houses of my aunts and uncles who have all passed away already for long.
    and also the ticking of the clock in my parents' house.

    I got still some as inheritance, but I don't wind them up.

    The clock from my parents' house was stolen. A burglar had forced a window when both of my parents had moved to an old peoples' home, and we hadn't yet emptied the house. the only thing the burglar took was the clock, that I had already phantasized to bring it over to my house.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,365
    The story of Jesus' walking on the water (the sea) might be about the same. He defied nature's law.

    Water is the symbol of time, since the source of water (the "ed" of Genesis 2:6) is also source of time.

    Matthew 14:28-31,

    Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” He said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus. But when he saw how [strong] the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?


    Ὀλιγόπιστε, εἰς τί ἐδίστασας;

    διστάζω = to doubt, waiver

    https://twitter.com/RabbiGinsburgh


    Rabbi Y. Ginsburgh ‏@RabbiGinsburgh 17h

    Amalek (עֲמָלֵק) is the archenemy of Jewish faith. His name equals “doubt” (סָפֵק); he chills all fervor and casts doubt of faith in God,
    Amalek came when there was no water, and the people quarreled with Mose, Exodus 17,

    v.7-8,
    He named the place Massah [testing] and Meribah [quarreling] because of the quarrel of the children of Israel and because of their testing the Lord, saying, Is the Lord in our midst or not? Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
    Last edited by sylvius; 11-04-2013 at 12:27 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East of West!
    Posts
    411

    Faith Is...

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Mystykal,

    I don't think that is the real issue. To me, the real issue is how one set of metaphysical beliefs can be distinguished from any other false set of beliefs such as fantasies about fairies, gnomes, magical unicorns, Allah, Vishnu, Yahweh, and the Tooth Fairy. I have brought this to your attention many times and as far as I know, you have never even suggested any answer. Do you understand why I think this is the real issue? The world is filled with fairy tales that people think are "confirmed" by their subjective experience despite the fact that they have no actual evidence of any kind.

    You say that Rose's distinction between knowledge (as justified true belief) and blind faith is a "confusion." I think it is the opposite of confusion. The real confusion is your conflation of blind faith with knowledge. They are not the same at all. By definition, folks have reasons to "believe" things that they can justify with reasons. The faith you advocate seems indistinguishable from fantasy.

    All the best,

    Richard
    Hi Richard:
    I am glad I got your attention... I was hoping you would comment! I know you say "I don't think that is the real issue."... But actually it is! Here's why...

    The idea of faith is one of how someone is going to believe in or not believe in some idea. You do not think that there is any truth outside of the known substantative, evidential body holding verifiable truth. That type of truth as you call it does not require faith per se. You can believe in it since it is provable physical proof like an object presented as evidence in court. I get that. You keep saying that I do not answer your question as to: "To me, the real issue is how one set of metaphysical beliefs can be distinguished from any other false set of beliefs such as fantasies about fairies, gnomes, magical unicorns, Allah, Vishnu, Yahweh, and the Tooth Fairy."

    The issue is not "blind faith" as in no evidence... It is that you think that all things are fake since the "tares and the wheat" are indistinquishable to you at the moment. I get that! I am not saying that faith and facts are the same thing! I am not suggesting that evidence is faith. I am saying that true faith is based on real evidence which WE DO NOT SEE and is therefore not fantasy! It is true that on the surface it is at times impossible to tell the difference between true "faith" and false fantasy! Most non-spiritual non-essence based knowledge is false. Making most religious experiences false! But acting like blind faith is real faith or that evidence and belief in verifiable evidence IS FAITH is well foolish! So maybe now you see why I say Rose is confusing faith real faith (as a theory) with belief in reality (as a fact). I am not diminishing your point of believing in something does not make it real but NOT Believing in something REAL which is UNSEEN at the moment - does not make it a false fantasy!

    Namaste,

    Mystykal
    Mystykal

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    It is not just the ball that swings but also the professor that has it swing.

    It makes think of a clock, pendule:



    It needs to be winded up.


    Time ticking away ...

    I do remember from my childhood the ticking of the clocks in all the houses of my aunts and uncles who have all passed away already for long.
    and also the ticking of the clock in my parents' house.

    I got still some as inheritance, but I don't wind them up.

    The clock from my parents' house was stolen. A burglar had forced a window when both of my parents had moved to an old peoples' home, and we hadn't yet emptied the house. the only thing the burglar took was the clock, that I had already phantasized to bring it over to my house.

    The Hebrew word פַּעַם, "paam" comes in mind = time, step, pace, tread, foot; beat, stroke; base.
    "paam" as a verb is: to beat (esp. of the heart), pulse, throb, strike, pulsate.
    "paamon"= bell; gong.
    "paamonah" = Glockenspiel.

    Genesis 2:23,
    זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי , "zot hapaam etsem meiatsamai uvasar mib'sari"
    "This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"

    Adam got knocked down by it, what you think

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,365
    I was impressed by this:

    http://resoundings.org/Pages/Harmonic_Bridge1.htm
    This sound sculpture will explore the musicality of sounds hidden within the structure of the London Millennium Foot Bridge. This bridge is alive with vibrations caused by the bridge’s responses to the collective energy of footsteps, load and wind. This sonic world is inaudible to the ear when walking over this bridge. It will be revealed by the use of the accelerometers (which are vibration sensors) that are listening to the inner dynamic motions of the bridge. Harmonic Bridge will be realized by installing a network of live accelerometers on different parts of the Bridge in order to acoustically map in real time its hidden musical life. The live sonic mapping will be translated into an acoustic sculpture by carefully rendering sounds from this listening network into a spatial matrix of loudspeakers. This sculpture will not only render the natural acoustic movements of the Bridge, but will tune the presence of this live sonic data to the characteristics and architecture of the two spaces in which the work is presented: the Turbine Hall of the Tate Modern, and the Main Concourse of Southwark Station of the London Underground.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bridge,_London



    Binding together two millennia, like the Tetragrammaton binds together the sixth and the seventh day
    Last edited by sylvius; 11-04-2013 at 03:25 AM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1

    Exclamation The definition of Faith

    The word Faith when used in a religious setting is a tricky one that needs dismantling.
    Most of the time the word Faith is used to make a knowledge claim i.e.

    "I have Faith that Jesus resurrected" ...really means.... "I know Jesus resurrected"

    Peter Boghossian gives a whole lecture on the meaning of the word Faith. Just watch the first 20 minutes Skip the Q&A

    "Faith: Pretending to know things you don't know" by Dr. Peter Boghossian
    http://bit.ly/1hQPAc0

    .
    .

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Leif View Post
    The word Faith when used in a religious setting is a tricky one that needs dismantling.
    Most of the time the word Faith is used to make a knowledge claim i.e.

    "I have Faith that Jesus resurrected" ...really means.... "I know Jesus resurrected"

    Peter Boghossian gives a whole lecture on the meaning of the word Faith. Just watch the first 20 minutes Skip the Q&A

    "Faith: Pretending to know things you don't know" by Dr. Peter Boghossian
    http://bit.ly/1hQPAc0

    .
    .
    In Hebrew faith, "emunah", and truth, "emet", are from the same root, "aman"= to foster, nurse, bring up, "nèeman" = to be found true, trustworthy.

    Intimating that there is no truth without faith and no faith without truth.

    Also English true and faithful are equivalents.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Leif View Post
    The word Faith when used in a religious setting is a tricky one that needs dismantling.
    Most of the time the word Faith is used to make a knowledge claim i.e.

    "I have Faith that Jesus resurrected" ...really means.... "I know Jesus resurrected"

    Peter Boghossian gives a whole lecture on the meaning of the word Faith. Just watch the first 20 minutes Skip the Q&A

    "Faith: Pretending to know things you don't know" by Dr. Peter Boghossian
    http://bit.ly/1hQPAc0

    .
    .
    Hey there Leif,

    Thanks for the most excellent video, and welcome to the forum!



    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    In Hebrew faith, "emunah", and truth, "emet", are from the same root, "aman"= to foster, nurse, bring up, "nèeman" = to be found true, trustworthy.

    Intimating that there is no truth without faith and no faith without truth.

    Also English true and faithful are equivalents.
    There are two totally different meanings of "faith" -

    1) To believe in some concept like Allah and the Quran or Jesus and the Bible without justification.

    2) To be faithful, trustworthy. As in "I am faithful to my wife".

    When talking about the relation between faith and knowledge, we are talking about definition number 1. You, sylvius, appear to be talking about definition #2.

    "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." ~ Voltaire
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •