Subject: Re: Concerns of the Atheist Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:58:11 -0700 From: "Brian Holtz" To: "Brian Holtz" "Netcom jimhumph" : > > > Under what definition of 'faith'? As I say in section 2.1.2 of my book: > > Fideists often say skeptics too have "faith" in science or reason, but > > this corrupts the definition of 'faith'. > > > The claim here rests on a mistaken view of language- on the errroneous > assumption that words have essential "uncorruptable" meanings I make no such assumption, nor does my claim rest on such an assumption. (The fact that I've asked for your definition of 'faith' 2 or 3 times now is a hint that I recognize that meanings are ultimately established by use(*). The fact that each time you've declined to give us your definition is a hint that...? :-) (* See the subsection "Meaning" in section 2.2 of my book at http://humanknowledge.net.) > > Faith is not simply any > > confident reliance on authority, because an authority can be relied upon > > even confidently without being held exempt from all doubt. Faith is not > > simply any provisional hypothesis believed without complete evidence, > > because a proposition can be provisionally believed without being held > > exempt from all doubt > > > The project here is woefully misconceived Brian. You are supposing > erroneously that there is an essential meaning for the word "faith". No, I am supposing that there is an essential meaning for the epistemological concept that I call 'faith', and am patiently distinguishing it from other meanings of 'faith' that (usually faithful) people resort to in order to obscure the distinction between themselves and people who do not have any beliefs based on revelation and exempt from doubt. > In fact there are many different lexical definitions of that word > , and one may also *stipulate* definitions. As I quite explicitly did, and as you've repeatedly declined to... > I am saying that faith need not be based on revelation at > all- it could be based on incomplete or partial evidence. So are you stipulating that 'faith' should be taken to mean provisional belief in a hypothesis without complete certainty? If so, I am saying that you are (probably deliberately) obscuring a distinction between skeptical empiricists (including most atheists and perhaps even yourself) and dogmatic believers in revelation (including many if not most adherents of revelation-based religions). It may be true that some theists think they have reasoned their way to theism using the same epistemological principles endorsed by skeptically empirical atheists, but that does not remove this enormous epistemological distinction between most believers and most non-believers. > > Faith is belief based on revelation and exempt from doubt. > > > You can stipulate such a definition of "faith" if you like. I like. Again: what definition do _you_ like? And more importantly, do you really think that arguments about 'faith' in a.a.m. parse correctly if 'faith' is replaced with 'strong but uncertain belief'? Do you really think that atheists' vehement denials of having "faith" are just a lexicographical misunderstanding, and that there is no concept or notion that they might be calling 'faith' that distinguishes the faithful from the faithless? > In which case I can simply reply that your definition > does not apply to the stance which many theists > take towards the deity. Then I will ask yet again: do you have any beliefs based on revelation and exempt from doubt? I.e. are you one of them, or one of us? :-)