Faith and Superstition

[Theoryofrelativity]

What do you mean? In this scenario, I deeply respect you as a teacher. You are someone I trust, someone who would never hurt me, someone who has only told me the truth. Does this count for nothing? Should I throw your word away regardless, or should I be more open to it because of our relationship as people?

I would NOT trust a teacher who told me something contrary to what my commonsense told me! Deffinately NOT! I make my own mind up on matters of safety!

Not every one is as sensible as me, thats for sure.

You want go jump out of a window because you mother told you to, go ahead. If my mother who I trust told me to do this, I'd call her Doctor.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Meanwhile Baum.. you are now talking about blind trust, I don't suffer from that either.

 

[baumgarten]

I would NOT trust a teacher who told me something contrary to what my commonsense told me! Deffinately NOT! I make my own mind up on matters of safety!

Not every one is as sensible as me, thats for sure.

You want go jump out of a window because you mother told you to, go ahead. If my mother who I trust told me to do this, I'd call her Doctor.

You would not, but someone else might. That someone else had to weigh the word of his teacher against his common sense - he took a calculated risk. And that is my point.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

You would not, but someone else might. That someone else had to weigh the word of his teacher against his common sense - he took a calculated risk. And that is my point.

No one is arguing that some people might? I have said there is a difference between 'faith' and 'blind faith', you said there was no difference. Well clearly there is.

 

[baumgarten]

No one is arguing that some people might? I have said there is a difference between 'faith' and 'blind faith', you said there was no difference. Well clearly there is.

How? How did this person's faith differ from your own, other than the conclusion? Your common sense would win out in this case, but is that universally true for you? Can you think of a single time at which you would defy your common sense for the word of someone you trust?

 

[baumgarten]

Here's an additional thought: there are certain situations in which following your common sense would be a bad decision. In the event of a tornado, for example, the common sense of many a driver dictates that that the tornado should be avoided and might be outrun in the car. Instead of heading for a ditch or an overpass, an uneducated driver could lose his life following common sense. In this case, the word of a teacher would be healthy to trust over common sense.

 

[Confutatis]

Baumgarten, I think you are trying to sustain your argument on the notion that similar words imply similar concepts. If we had a word for "blind faith" that didn't bring up the concept of "faith", I doubt you would think them similar. Just as you probably don't think a ship and a spaceship are essentially the same thing.

We do not decide to have "faith" and "blind faith" using the same thought processes. As ToR pointed out, faith is simply a matter of commonsense, whereas blind faith requires you to deny it. That is, you have a way to know when you are accepting things on blind faith, even if that realization won't change your position. You may accept things on blind faith because you trust someone, because the pay off is worth the risk, because you have no choice; whatever the case, you cannot say you accept things on blind faith simply as a matter of commonsense.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Baumgarten, I think you are trying to sustain your argument on the notion that similar words imply similar concepts. If we had a word for "blind faith" that didn't bring up the concept of "faith", I doubt you would think them similar. Just as you probably don't think a ship and a spaceship are essentially the same thing.

We do not decide to have "faith" and "blind faith" using the same thought processes. As ToR pointed out, faith is simply a matter of commonsense, whereas blind faith requires you to deny it. That is, you have a way to know when you are accepting things on blind faith, even if that realization won't change your position. You may accept things on blind faith because you trust someone, because the pay off is worth the risk, because you have no choice; whatever the case, you cannot say you accept things on blind faith simply as a matter of commonsense.

nicely phrased as usual.

 

[baumgarten]

Time for semantics!

Baumgarten, I think you are trying to sustain your argument on the notion that similar words imply similar concepts. If we had a word for "blind faith" that didn't bring up the concept of "faith", I doubt you would think them similar. Just as you probably don't think a ship and a spaceship are essentially the same thing.

Similar words often do imply similar concepts. A spaceship is essentially a ship made for space, a ship being a vessel that carries people and cargo across environments that they otherwise could not traverse. Now, "environments that they otherwise could not traverse" once meant "water," but since we have reached other frontiers, we have had airships and spaceships as well, and the meaning of the word has somewhat changed. Just "ship," of course, retains its original meaning in common usage, but you could refer to an airship as a ship for short, and same for a spaceship.

We do not decide to have "faith" and "blind faith" using the same thought processes. As ToR pointed out, faith is simply a matter of commonsense, whereas blind faith requires you to deny it. That is, you have a way to know when you are accepting things on blind faith, even if that realization won't change your position. You may accept things on blind faith because you trust someone, because the pay off is worth the risk, because you have no choice; whatever the case, you cannot say you accept things on blind faith simply as a matter of commonsense.

If the delineating factor is to be common sense, then your "blind faith" is a subcase of faith as a whole (which makes sense, since a noun preceded by an adjective is usually used to refer to a subcase of the noun). The only requirements for faith are belief and lack of proof. "Blind faith," which we now characterize as "faith contradictory to common sense," is still faith. And since common sense varies so greatly between people - it too is more or less subjective - a suicide bomber still does not necessarily have blind faith. I have been indoctrinated to the point that my common sense now tells me to head for a ditch or an overpass if a tornado touches down on the highway. A suicide bomber likewise probably thinks the notion of getting to heaven through terrorism second nature. Because of this, frankly, I find this distinction of "blind faith" rather useless.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

If you insist on talking semantics:
From wikipedia (your source of refernce no doubt )

but unlike these terms, "faith" tends to imply a transpersonal rather than interpersonal relationship – with God or a higher power. The object of faith can be a person (or even an inanimate object or state of affairs) or a proposition (or body of propositions, such as a religious credo). In each case, however, faith is in an aspect of the object and cannot be logically proven or objectively known. Faith can also be defined as accepting as true something which one has been told by someone who is believed to be trustworthy. It can also mean believing unconditionally. In its proper sense faith means trusting the word of another"

As this contradicts my definition of 'faith' then the examples I cited re myself are not examples of faith, even though I believed in something for which no proof exists. So your confirmation that my examples are examples of faith is also incorrect. So what then is the definition of what I described...calculated risk? Sounds rather cold nah it's plain old confidence...confidence that the desired outcome will come true.

"The word faith has various uses; its central meaning is similar to "belief", "trust" or "confidence".

I therefore do concede I have been rattling on about 'confidence' all this time.
BUT you also mistook my confidence for faith :bugeye: We are both in error here. l did identify there was a difference between my examples and those of suicide bombers whereas you implied 'confidence' (word correctly replaced) and faith are the same.

 

[baumgarten]

Are you sure this contradicts your definition of faith? There's a lot of wiggle room in that passage you cited.

Personally, I take faith, trust, confidence, and belief all to have the same basic definition, but to carry different connotations. I do not think we were misusing the word in the strictest sense.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Are you sure this contradicts your definition of faith? There's a lot of wiggle room in that passage you cited.

Personally, I take faith, trust, confidence, and belief all to have the same basic definition, but to carry different connotations. I do not think we were misusing the word in the strictest sense.

Trust me I have 'wiggled' as much as I can, and think I have successfully wiggled back up to placing you in the wrong again..note my edit lol

I was about to inform perplexity of first ever climbdown on sciforums (he said there has never been one!) but then found 'wiggle!'

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Personally, I take faith, trust, confidence, and belief all to have the same basic definition, but to carry different connotations. I do not think we were misusing the word in the strictest sense.

now who is wiggling....

 

[baumgarten]

Well then, we have had an excellent discussion about confidence.

After all, I believe that a word is ultimately defined by those who use it, but I can't prove this to you!

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Well then, we have had an excellent discussion about confidence.

After all, I believe that a word is ultimately defined by those who use it, but I can't prove this to you!

I bid you adieu..bed time here in uk

 

[Michael]

Speaking of superstition, anyone got a goat lined up for june 6th this year?

 

[Carcano]

They do love their goat - but not like that! :bugeye:

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Superstition and faith in a higher being (as opposed to faith in oneself, or other tangible creatures/provable events) are both similar insofar as they're both belief in an unprovable entity or event. The difference between them is not definition, it's perception.
Faith in a higher being is perceived to be normal by tradition and majority. This type of faith even has a divine quality because it is associated with the invulnerable goodness of religious deities.

which ones, I've come across none. but is'nt that the whole point, the only evidence for these so called deities, is the holy books which shows them to be evil, and the way the people believe inanely, in only the good side.

Superstition has a darker inflection because of the associations with the word (ie #13, black cats, poltergeists etc).

but thats only because people do not wish to see the dark side of religion.

Or attracts a more condescending/amused view for the simpler superstitions (salt over shoulder, lucky underwear, 4 leaf clovers etc).

serpents, and donkeys talking, the killing of fig trees, people walking on water, and raising the dead.

 

[Confutatis]

I believe that a word is ultimately defined by those who use it, but I can't prove this to you!

Most people believe words have universal meanings. It's quite shocking to discover that meaning is, for most words, just a figment of our imagination. We all speak different languages which only happen to have words in common. I think that is what the myth of the Tower of Babel is really about: a profound fact about ourselves as opposed to a silly historical account.