Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
I agree with that as a matter of practicality, but my point was 'fact means something only to our perceptions'. So at some point, we acknowledge that we believe what we know is a matter of faith in our own perceptions and experiences. While we can logically work out the state of things, even as a whole, our perception of fact has to rely on faith in our mechanism of arriving at fact to begin with.
I realize this isn't relevant in a discussion about belief in god, but that's what I meant by my passing sentence you responded to.
|
I underastand your point, and it is basically sound, but I think that we are operating on two conflicting definitions of "faith". That was the point of my post. To say that we believe in the evidence of our perceptions is not equatable to believing in a god for which their is no evidence or justification.
I think that the popular use of the word "faith" has equated it with belief. Belief is not faith. Belief is a proposition one holds to be true, "I am wearing a shirt". If you justify this belief with evidence then you get knowledge, "My eyes and nerve endings and the opinions of others leads me to believe that I am wearing a shirt". You can not prove that some mystical "god" or The Matrix is making you think that you are wearing a shirt when you are not, but without any evidence, this is merely pointless what-ifing.
Faith does not require, nor does it ask for evidence for it to be percieved as knowledge by those who practice faith.
It is true that you can not prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the facts that we percieve with our senses are true, we have reason to believe that they are, while faith has no such reason.