Faith vs Blind Faith

Originally posted by Coletti
My question then is for the second scenario, would a person with that same information really believe the red card was on top? That is, without any other sources or experience or outside information to base the belief on - is that really a ...[text shortened]... ighly against it, could you believe the red card was on top? How?

People's beliefs about decks of cards are reliably wacky.

Ask any seasoned bridge players what makes them good, and why they can destroy any novices at the game. They will tell you that, in essence, they are exploiting their opponents' unreasonable beliefs about the deck that are not qualitatively different from the toy example I gave.

In short and by analogy, yes, some people inexplicably have an unreasonable belief that that top card is red. When it comes to bridge, I regret to admit that I'm one of them.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is it possible to believe that anything is certainly the case?

Aren't all beliefs essentially probabilistic, and we just treat as negligible conditions such as
the probabilities that we are insane, that our senses are failing us, that God is manipulating our perceptions, that we are dreaming, etc.?

I hold that "to believe" and ...[text shortened]... ef under certainty and belief under uncertainty without an explicit discussion such as this one.

In your card scenario - even with the odds highly in you favor, knowing that you could be wrong, would you even then really believe the card is black, or merely think the card is likely black. So you don't believe in the black card, you only believe in the possibility of a black card. So neither scenarios seems to me to be an adequate was to describe belief. If you really believed it was black - you'd be very surprised if it's red. But I don't think you would be surprised since you know it was possible red.

Originally posted by Nemesio
What does it mean to 'cure' aging? This makes no sense to me. How old do
you suppose Noah appeared when he was, say, 350? What 'disease' afflicted
all humans that caused them to stop living so long?

We know from copious records of personal lives of people that precious few
people lived to be 100 within the past 2000, and that most peop ...[text shortened]... ver 'afflicted' the entire human race must have
affected it before 2000 years ago.

Nemesio

There is a difference between a child with progeria and one without. The child with progeria experiences the "aging" associated with "old age", while the unaffected child does not.

A person who was cured of aging might be 80 years old but lack the symptoms that a normal 80 year old and a child with progeria experience. This person would probably live at least until their telomeres ran out (after 200 or more years).

The affliction of aging came to be long before humans existed. We inherited it from our ape ancestors.

Originally posted by Coletti
If you really believed it was black - you'd be very surprised if it's red. But I don't think you would be surprised since you know it was possible red.

To be sure, I would be quite surprised if it turned up red. Knowing the possibilty would not assuage my surprise.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
People's beliefs about decks of cards are reliably wacky.

Ask any seasoned bridge players what makes them good, and why they can destroy any novices at the game. They will tell you that, in essence, they are exploiting their opponents' unreasonable beliefs about the deck that are not qualitatively different from the toy example I gave.

In s ...[text shortened]... f that that top card is red. When it comes to bridge, I regret to admit that I'm one of them.

Yes. I can see this could very well be true, even for me when I'm playing cards - something about the competitive drive that makes us more likely to believe things we shouldn't had we kept our heads.

Originally posted by Coletti
Yes. I can see this could very well be true, even for me when I'm playing cards - something about the competitive drive that makes us more likely to believe things we shouldn't had we kept our heads.

Good night folks - good thread here. I'll pick it up tomorrow.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is it possible to believe that anything is certainly the case?

Aren't all beliefs essentially probabilistic, and we just treat as negligible conditions such as
the probabilities that we are insane, that our senses ...[text shortened]... under uncertainty without an explicit discussion such as this one.

Well, if that's how belief is defined, then that's how it's defined. That doesn't seem to be a useful definition though. It suggests there is no difference between saying "I believe there's a 51 percent chance that X is true" and saying "I believe X is true" except that the former provides more information.

To me, believing X is true means that one has a tentative acceptance that it is true based on the information at hand. There may be an excellent chance that there is more information out there which will show that there is reason to doubt X is true; if such information came to light, then one can make statements about belief in probabilities.

It doesn't seem intuitively reasonable to say that I believe my sister about some random claim if I know she lies nearly half the time. If I know there's an excellent chance she may be lying, I don't believe her necessarily.

I don't know what I feel is the best intuitive definition for me for the word 'belief' but it doesn't really matter; it's a word and we can define it any way we want. I guess if I wanted a precise definition I'd go to the dictionary or ask someone to provide one.

It just doesn't seem to be the same for me to tell someone "I believe you're telling the truth" and for me to say "I believe the chance you're telling the truth is slightly larger than the chance you're lying." They don't communicate the same level of conviction and trust to the other person.

Originally posted by Coletti
My question then is for the second scenario, would a person with that same information really believe the red card was on top? That is, without any other sources or experience or outside information to base the belief on - is that really a belief - or is it merely irrational wishfully thinking. I think it is most likely that the no-one would really believe ...[text shortened]... - would knowing the odds are highly against it, could you believe the red card was on top? How?

Some people might believe the red card is on top. They might think they are psychic; that the other person is cheating; etc.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Well, if that's how belief is defined, then that's how it's defined. That doesn't seem to be a useful definition though. It suggests there is no difference between saying "I believe there's a 51 percent chance that X is true ...[text shortened]... nicate the same level of conviction and trust to the other person.

The problem here seems to be that the word “believe,” in general discourse, covers everything from assumption, opinion and supposition to expectation, reliability, trust and conviction (according to my Webster’s unabridged). In Dr. Scribbles’ terms, it covers a range of probabilistic expectations. So, whether you say to someone something like, “I guess I’ll believe you this time,” or simply, “I believe you” might reflect where on that probabilistic scale (intuitively perhaps) you judge the likelihood that they’re telling the truth. The same for whether (and how much) you’re willing to wager on drawing a certain card, whether your “belief” is justified by the actual probabilities or not.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Great. You also said that it is probably unreasonable to believe in Noah's age as recorded in Genesis.

It follows from Coletti's quote that one (probably) cannot have faith in Noah's age as recorded in Genesis.

It follows that Genesis asserts things in which one cannot have faith.

It follows that one cannot have faith in Genesis as a who ...[text shortened]... k parts of the Bible to believe; the rest must not be believed, if Coletti's claim is correct.

Your use of the term "as a whole" is a little misleading here. What you mean is something like "100% accurate" or "completely accurate". The following sentence, for instance, would be completely acceptable in English: "As a whole, the play was quite good but the lead actress could have done a better job".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Your use of the term "as a whole" is a little misleading here. What you mean is something like "100% accurate" or "completely accurate". The following sentence, for instance, would be completely acceptable in English: "As a wh ...[text shortened]... as quite good but the lead actress could have done a better job".

That's not a sentence I would say if I were attempting to speak precisely.

I am, for the sake of progress, willing to substitute "completely accurate" for "accurate as a whole," in my above statements, although I disagree the the substituion is completely accurate. It degenerates the analysis of the accuracy of the Bible into a piecemeal analysis, when we all know that in fact the Bible is an entity itself in which numerous people claim to have faith. Your substitution does not allow us to address such faiths.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That's not a sentence I would say if I were attempting to speak precisely.

I am, for the sake of progress, willing to substitute "completely accurate" for "accurate as a whole," in my above statements, although I disagree the the substituion is completely accurate. It degenerates the analysis of the accuracy of the Bible to a piecemeal analy ...[text shortened]... ll know that in fact the Bible is an entity itself in which numerous people claim to have faith.

Is the substituion accurate as a whole?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Is the substituion accurate as a whole?

No, it is neither accurate as a whole nor completely accurate.
It alters the nature of the claim being made.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Your use of the term "as a whole" is a little misleading here. What you mean is something like "100% accurate" or "completely accurate". The following sentence, for instance, would be completely acceptable in English: "As a wh ...[text shortened]... as quite good but the lead actress could have done a better job".

We have no axiom that says sub-optimal acting yields a non-good play. If we did, I would say your sentence is a contradiction.

We do have an axiom that says that something that is unreasonable cannot be believed. Thus, to say, "As a whole, Genesis is believable, although it contains several things that are unreasonable" is a contradiction.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That's not a sentence I would say if I were attempting to speak precisely.

I am, for the sake of progress, willing to substitute "completely accurate" for "accurate as a whole," in my above statements, although I disagree the the substituion is completely accurate. It degenerates the analysis of the accuracy of the Bible into a piecemeal ana ...[text shortened]... umerous people claim to have faith. Your substitution does not allow us to address such faiths.

Any analysis of the accuracy of the Bible would have to analyse the accuracy of individual assertions, so I see no way you can avoid "piecemeal analysis". The term "as a whole" is misleading because it also implies "in the majority" or "in balance".

Besides, the substitution does let you address bible literalists who believe that Noah lived for around 1000 years etc. - so I'm not sure who else you wanted to include?