Okiefreak
07-04-2007, 11:38 PM
Here is my best shot at the second topic on my proposed agenda: faith and knowledge. This is obviously pushing my meager intellect to the outer limits, so bear with me. I'll start with the meaning of "faith", which I have lots of trouble with.
The Bible says faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1). My dictionary says "assurance" means "firmness of mind" or "confidence", and "conviction" means being convinced, which means "persuaded by arguments or evidence". But faith seems to be something other than conclusive proof. If we have conclusive proof of something, we don't need faith to believe it. So how much evidence do we need for our beliefs? Less than courtroom proof. I'd say substantial evidence on the basis of all the availble data, or least a basis for a reasonable suspicion that what we believe is true. Less than that is just guessing. Much more than that is not really faith.
I submit that what we call "faith" is a product of the "right brain" faculties of intuition and will (choice), as opposed to the "left-brain" faculties of logic and evidence. As such, I think a minimum of what Santayana calls "animal faith" is necessary for us even to be having this discussion. We have to have faith that external reality exists, that there really are other people who are answering back, that the rules of logic and mathematics are valid (two plus two really does equal four). We can't prove those things by logic or evidence, but my intuition tells me they're real or valid, there's widespread consensus on them, and I'm willing to bet my life on them.
Trouble comes when we run up against more controversial issues: evolution, global warming, the existence of God, etc. We hear lots of evidence and arguments that are appeals to reason, but we know from our "animal faith" that these conflicting views can't all be right. To make it even more difficult, most of us can't be "experts" on all of the technical information and arguments that are needed to make informed judgments. I have to admit that most of the time I'm essentially "flying by the seat of my pants", siding with the views of "experts" who seem to me to be most credible and the positions which best fit what else I've read or personally experienced--with the full knowledge that lots of people older and wiser than I have come to the opposite conclusions. That's the best I can do. It may be the best anybody can do.
One concept of faith I think charismatics have is a kind of personal revelation. This is like intuition, but the source is perceived to be from outside the believer. I'm not sure what to make of this. It's possible that my thoughts and beliefs are being guided by some supernatural force, or it's possible I'm not on the list for the revelation. Frankly, I'm suspicious of this kind of faith, because the believer could just be projecting his/her own thoughts and claiming to be on a mission from God. It seems like a fine line between this and schizophrenia.
I think we need to keep our right brains on a short leash, base our beliefs as much as we can on substantial evidence, and realize that we're taking a risk in making a "leap of faith". That should give us humility and empathy with those who disagree with us. I share the faith of atheists like Dawkins that anything that is inconsistent with reason and evidence should be rejected. I accept Hume's skeptical attitude toward claims of wonders and miracles, and put a heavy burden of proof on those who make claims that they've encountered Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, extraterrestrials, or other extraordinary beings or events, especially the supernatural. I accept Occam's razor, preferring the explanations that are the simplest on the basis of our prior information. But when it comes right down to it, it's a crap shoot--an educated wager in the game of "you bet your life" and a pragmatic attachment to beliefs that seem to work for me. What about you?
The Bible says faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1). My dictionary says "assurance" means "firmness of mind" or "confidence", and "conviction" means being convinced, which means "persuaded by arguments or evidence". But faith seems to be something other than conclusive proof. If we have conclusive proof of something, we don't need faith to believe it. So how much evidence do we need for our beliefs? Less than courtroom proof. I'd say substantial evidence on the basis of all the availble data, or least a basis for a reasonable suspicion that what we believe is true. Less than that is just guessing. Much more than that is not really faith.
I submit that what we call "faith" is a product of the "right brain" faculties of intuition and will (choice), as opposed to the "left-brain" faculties of logic and evidence. As such, I think a minimum of what Santayana calls "animal faith" is necessary for us even to be having this discussion. We have to have faith that external reality exists, that there really are other people who are answering back, that the rules of logic and mathematics are valid (two plus two really does equal four). We can't prove those things by logic or evidence, but my intuition tells me they're real or valid, there's widespread consensus on them, and I'm willing to bet my life on them.
Trouble comes when we run up against more controversial issues: evolution, global warming, the existence of God, etc. We hear lots of evidence and arguments that are appeals to reason, but we know from our "animal faith" that these conflicting views can't all be right. To make it even more difficult, most of us can't be "experts" on all of the technical information and arguments that are needed to make informed judgments. I have to admit that most of the time I'm essentially "flying by the seat of my pants", siding with the views of "experts" who seem to me to be most credible and the positions which best fit what else I've read or personally experienced--with the full knowledge that lots of people older and wiser than I have come to the opposite conclusions. That's the best I can do. It may be the best anybody can do.
One concept of faith I think charismatics have is a kind of personal revelation. This is like intuition, but the source is perceived to be from outside the believer. I'm not sure what to make of this. It's possible that my thoughts and beliefs are being guided by some supernatural force, or it's possible I'm not on the list for the revelation. Frankly, I'm suspicious of this kind of faith, because the believer could just be projecting his/her own thoughts and claiming to be on a mission from God. It seems like a fine line between this and schizophrenia.
I think we need to keep our right brains on a short leash, base our beliefs as much as we can on substantial evidence, and realize that we're taking a risk in making a "leap of faith". That should give us humility and empathy with those who disagree with us. I share the faith of atheists like Dawkins that anything that is inconsistent with reason and evidence should be rejected. I accept Hume's skeptical attitude toward claims of wonders and miracles, and put a heavy burden of proof on those who make claims that they've encountered Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, extraterrestrials, or other extraordinary beings or events, especially the supernatural. I accept Occam's razor, preferring the explanations that are the simplest on the basis of our prior information. But when it comes right down to it, it's a crap shoot--an educated wager in the game of "you bet your life" and a pragmatic attachment to beliefs that seem to work for me. What about you?