THINQon : An uncertain faith

THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself. Continue >

William Egginton

An uncertain faith

Latest Post: March 28, 2011 at 2:02 AM

8 followers

An uncertain faith is the title of the manuscript I am currently working on. It refers to an alternate definition of faith to that used by atheists to dismiss religious believers, namely, belief without evidence. In this book I argue that for many believers in many religious communities, faith cannot possibly mean belief without evidence, because faith and evidence occupy entirely different logical categories. Whereas evidence supports the relative certainty of propositions, faith concerns beliefs about which no level of certainty is possible. Such beliefs are simply not held up to the same standards as propositional beliefs, and yet can still occupy a great deal of our emotional and cognitive experience.

Reply to:

Andrew Esch

May 26, 2010 at 9:59 PM

15 followers

"In this book I argue that for many believers in many religious communities, faith cannot possibly mean belief without evidence, because faith and evidence occupy entirely different logical categories."

Non-Overlapping Magisterial Areas (NOMA) is a boring and tendentious proposition that has little bearing on the actual beliefs of most theists.

"faith concerns beliefs about which no level of certainty is possible."

You will have trouble reconciling that statement with the ideas of millions of believers who reject entire fields of science (biology, geology, chemistry, physics) to keep their faith in the crazy notion about a 6,000 year old earth intact.

Reply to: or

William Egginton

In response to Andrew Esch

May 26, 2010 at 10:20 PM

8 followers

these are precisely the sort of unexamined assumptions i debunk in the book--and of course the point is that moderate religious belief also rejects such crazy notions, and thus doesn't need to be reconciled to them. anyway, thanks for another demonstration of the close-minded certainty that this book seeks to expose and question.

Reply to: or

John Dawson, Philosophy graduate student.

In response to Andrew Esch

May 26, 2010 at 10:23 PM

6 followers

Andrew, I'm not sure about the point of your post. He is developing this topic and it seems more reasonable to react to the development rather than the possibility of success (or whether you consider it boring).

Also, I don't see any problem reconciling this with the "millions of believers who reject entire fields of science," nor any reason to say that religious people are crazy (this is elaborated in the Why does religion exist discussion).

Postscript (May 26, 2010 at 6:24 PM):

I see Egginton already responded while I was writing.