Posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2004, at 2:17:53
In reply to faith, posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2004, at 1:58:10
Faith isn't a thing, it is a propositional attitude. We take the attitude of having faith towards a proposition, where the proposition is something not known.
If I know that it is raining outside then it would seem silly were I to say that I have faith that 'it is raining outside'. Faith seems to be something that we can only have when we do not have knowledge.
It is not just that there is typically no empirical evidence for or against claims that are made on the basis of faith, either. This also seems to apply to a-priori, or rational evidence as I know that 1+1=2, and it seems similarly silly for me to say that I have faith that this is true - as I have knowledge in this case.
Perhaps one has faith in things that cannot be known because there is nothing that would count as evidence for or against them.
They are not open to empirical or a-priori support of disconfirmation as they say nothing about the world. Statements of religious discourse are not truth apt. They are objects of faith because there is no evidence that could be construed as either supporting or falsifying it.
Religious beliefs depend on modules whose proper function is to represent the world. Because these modules typically represent the world we take them to be representing reality by default. But religious discourse is not about reality - it is just that our cognitive modules are misrepresenting religious discourse to be making claims about the world,
which is more than it can do
which does not solve the riddle anywayAs for the 'substance of faith' does that mean
(a) the content of the faith, what particular proposition it is that one has faith in?
(b) the strength of the faith, or its persistance over time?
poster:alexandra_k
thread:401057
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040914/msgs/401059.html