Does Theism necessarily involve faith?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Does Theism necessarily involve faith? » Does Theism necessarily involve faith?

Does Theism necessarily involve faith?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

Does Theism necessarily involve faith?

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 10/31/09 - 08:15 AM: Subject: Does Theism necessarily involve faith?	#1
I don't think that it does. I think that most theists are just wrong, only the intelligent, and knowledgeable ones need faith to maintain their theism, because they know better. Edited by Wosret on 10/31/09 - 07:26 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

voyaging
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 27, 2008
Location: United States

Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 165

Posted 10/31/09 - 08:47 AM:	#2
Could you give an example of how someone could be a theist without having faith?
A witty saying proves nothing.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 10/31/09 - 08:52 AM:	#3
voyaging wrote: Could you give an example of how someone could be a theist without having faith? By being wrong. If they think that they are justified, and have reasons, then they aren't employing faith -- and clearly if one concluded that all people who hold false, or ultimately unjustified beliefs employ faith, then they must conclude that everyone does; or that there exists a super-elite with perfect knowledge and justification. To put it more succinctly, when the theist would be dissuaded of their theism through rational, or evidentiary means.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 129

Posted 10/31/09 - 09:00 AM:	#4
Wosret wrote: I don't think that it does. I think that most theists are just wrong, only the intelligent, and knowledgeable ones need faith to maintain their theism, because they know better. I like this. If faith is believing in the unknowable then someone who believes in the wrong isn't commiting faith. It is probably though easier to believe faith as believing something against the balance of probability, in which case if you believe Hume then it is faith. But I like to think of faith as believing something for your own reasons without appealing to an external body i.e. not because probability is in its favour, or because someone who is smarter than you told you. Then with this answer most theists don't have faith and some atheists do (I don't want another atheism-faith debate) and you can have faith in something that is right and you can have faith in something that is wrong (which is why faith can be not be judged right or wrong because it is independent of external authority). What matters was did they make the decision for themselves?
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 10/31/09 - 09:13 AM:	#5
atightropewalker wrote: It is probably though easier to believe faith as believing something against the balance of probability, in which case if you believe Hume then it is faith. Not unless you know better. If you have improperly balanced the probability, then you're just wrong. But I like to think of faith as believing something for your own reasons without appealing to an external body i.e. not because probability is in its favour, or because someone who is smarter than you told you. I'm defining "faith" for the purposes of this thread in the sense that atheists mean it when waging criticisms, i.e. the reason that persists when actual reasons fail. So, given this definition, a person of faith is only a person of faith if she has certain beliefs that are immune to rational or evidential reproach. Then with this answer most theists don't have faith and some atheists do (I don't want another atheism-faith debate) and you can have faith in something that is right and you can have faith in something that is wrong (which is why faith can be not be judged right or wrong because it is independent of external authority). What matters was did they make the decision for themselves? You seem to be using "faith" differently than I am. Please defer to the above definition, and subsequent explanation. Thanks.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 129

Posted 10/31/09 - 09:33 AM:	#6
Wosret wrote: I'm defining "faith" for the purposes of this thread in the sense that atheists mean it when waging criticisms, i.e. the reason that persists when actual reasons fail. So, given this definition, a person of faith is only a person of faith if she has certain beliefs that are immune to rational or evidential reproach. If every reason has been disproven but they believe another reason will be found then that is faith surely? How can we prove everything unless we know everything. If they believe that wrong facts show there is a God then they have faith in the wrong being right surely? I guess you mean faith happens when you believe something that has not been proved in actuality. Well then if they believe God for reasons we can't prove they have faith and if they believe in God for reasons that have been proved wrong then they have faith in right being wrong and wrong being right (in some instance) - something that can't ever be proved. So they may not have faith in God but faith to the correctness of the facts which led them to believe in God. I find it simpler to refer to that as faith in God as it is the end subject.
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 200

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/31/09 - 09:34 AM:	#7
How do you define theism? Because, if we're talking about the belief in a personal deity of some sort, I would say a lot of philosophers were theists but did not have faith. And I wouldn't say that they were necessarily less intelligent, just sloppy in their ontology. Whitehead is an example that immediately comes to mind, as is Peirce

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/31/09 - 09:42 AM:	#8
To Mega Therion wrote: How do you define theism? Because, if we're talking about the belief in a personal deity of some sort, I would say a lot of philosophers were theists but did not have faith. And I wouldn't say that they were necessarily less intelligent, just sloppy in their ontology. Whitehead is an example that immediately comes to mind, as is Peirce Yes, I mean theist in the sense that you suggest. I made this thread because I felt that the thread about atheism being faith based gave the impression to the theists on the thread that most, if not all of the atheist contributors either think that no atheist can hold their position on faith, or that all theists must hold theirs on faith. I doubt this is the case, and I know it isn't of myself -- but we will see who disagrees with me.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5139

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 10/31/09 - 09:28 PM:	#9
Wosret wrote: I'm defining "faith" for the purposes of this thread in the sense that atheists mean it when waging criticisms, i.e. the reason that persists when actual reasons fail. So, given this definition, a person of faith is only a person of faith if she has certain beliefs that are immune to rational or evidential reproach. I made this thread because I felt that the thread about atheism being faith based gave the impression to the theists on the thread that most, if not all of the atheist contributors either think that no atheist can hold their position on faith, or that all theists must hold theirs on faith. Good point. Clarity on these points is definitely needed. I'm not sure what impression I left on the thread in question so I'll state here that I completely agree with the proposition that atheists can hold their position on faith and that theists can hold their position on (mistaken) grounds, or reasons, and without faith. "*Faith" is only necessary* where, as you point out, one -- should -- know better (i.e. that one's position is rationally untenable (or false)). To Mega Therion wrote: How do you define theism? Because, if we're talking about the belief in a personal deity of some sort, I would say a lot of philosophers were theists but did not have faith. And I wouldn't say that they were necessarily less intelligent, just sloppy in their ontology.** Whitehead is an example that immediately comes to mind, as is Peirce. 'Faithless belief in god(s) = sloppy ontology'. Edited by 180 Proof on 11/03/09 - 11:05 AM. Reason: spelling ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1023

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 11/01/09 - 05:04 AM:	#10
To Mega Therion wrote: How do you define theism? Because, if we're talking about the belief in a personal deity of some sort, I would say a lot of philosophers were theists but did not have faith. And I wouldn't say that they were necessarily less intelligent, just sloppy in their ontology. Whitehead is an example that immediately comes to mind, as is Peirce Peirce was never "sloppy", never never never. He was an impatient fellow, however, and could be unclear.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.