Faith can be based on facts
Debate Rounds (3)
Here's examples of how faith can be based upon facts:
-A man has faith someone won't rob him today because it never happened to him.
-Someone has faith when their friend promises to do something because they always do the they promised to do.
-Someone has faith their friend won't die in the hospital because the doctors are taking good care of them.
-Someone has confidence they will win a race because they have rarely ever lost.
First things first, thank you Pro for this debate.
I guess we should begin by defining our terms.
1. Allegiance to duty or a person.
2a. Belief and trust in and loyalty to God.
2b. Firm belief in something of which there is no proof.
3a. Something that is believed with strong conviction.
3b. A system of religious belief.
1. Something that truly exists or happens, something that has actual existence
3. A true piece of information.
Since my opponent didn't specify which definition of faith we are dealing with, I'm going to have to use his round 1 examples to infer which type he is referring to. I'm going to rule out definition 1 since it doesn't fit with the examples Pro gave. 2b and 3a fit the examples Pro used to describe what he is generally talking about. 2a and 3b seem related to each other, but not directly related to what Pro is describing. I'm going to completely rule out Faith def. 1 as the topic. I'm not going to address Faith def. 2a and 3b since Pro didn't specify we are talking about religion. I will address this debate from the perspective that Pro is referring to definitions 2b and 3a since they most closely fit Pro's examples.
Faith and Fact for this debate
2b. A firm belief for something in which there is no proof
3a. Something which is believed with strong conviction
1. Something that truly exists or happens, something that has actual existence
2. A true piece of information
I think we can already see a contradiction between faith and fact. It seems to me, when one is present, the other is absent. I know for a fact that I have a daughter. I can present much evidence to myself or another person that demonstrates her existence. I can weigh her, confirming she is real. I can take pictures. I can ask others if they see her. I can have her move things. There are many things I can do to verify her existence. I don't need faith to know my daughter exists. I have facts that show she does. If I have no evidence which demonstrates the fact that Santa Claus exists, I must rely on faith in order to support that belief. If someone were to present evidence that proves the existence of Santa Claus, his existence becomes a fact and no longer is faith needed. Both faith and fact are used to justify the belief in something. However, they aren't used together. When facts are available, faith isn't needed. When facts aren't available, faith is needed. One replaces the other. Facts don't support faith, facts replace faith and faith replaces facts.
Lets look at Pro's examples to see how this works
1. "A man has faith someone won't rob him today because it never happened." This faith statement is related to today. The facts of today are yet to be uncovered. There are no facts from today that support today's belief that the man will not be robbed today. The fact that the man hasn't been robbed in the past doesn't, in a factual manner, support the conclusion that he won't be robbed today. Everyday someone is robbed for the first time. The man may be that someone. His faith that he won't be robbed today isn't supported by a fact that he won't be robbed today. When the day is over, and the man wasn't robbed, it then becomes a fact that he wasn't robbed. What just happened? Fact replaced faith. We return to the definitions, faith: 3a, Something which is believed with strong conviction. This fits the man's faith position. He strongly believes he won't be robbed, this is yet to be a fact. When the day concludes, and the man isn't robbed, it becomes a fact that he wasn't robbed. Fact: A true piece of information. The man began with a faith position that he wouldn't be robbed, a strong belief. He concluded with a fact position that he wasn't robbed, conclusion supported by the fact he wasn't robbed. Fact replaces faith.
2. "Someone has faith when their friend promises to do something because they always do the (thing) they promise to do." This is effectively the same example as above. A person has faith a promise will be kept later. If it is later, the person cannot know for a fact that the promise will be kept. The belief that promise A will be kept, isn't support by the fact that promise A was kept. The friend may let them down for a variety of reasons. When the promise is kept, it becomes a fact that is was kept. At this point faith is replaced with fact. Past experiences of the friend keeping promises isn't a fact that future promises will be kept. It increases the probability that they will. But faith is still required to believe the friend will keep today's promise. When the friend does, it becomes fact. Again fact replaces faith.
3. "Someone has faith their friend won't die in the hospital because the doctors are taking good care of them." There is no fact here supporting the faith position. The friend may die. It isn't until the friend leaves the hospital that they surviving the hospital becomes a fact. Once again fact replaces faith. Which if you look back to the definition of both is what you would expect to happen. Faith is the belief that the friend will survive. Fact is the statement that the friend has survived.
4. "Someone will have confidence they will win a race because they rarely ever lost." Same problem as the above three. The person may lose. When the race is decided, the person will know what the facts of the race are, maybe they won, maybe they lost. Again, faith is needed when the unknown is believed, when the unknown is know, that becomes a fact, faith disappears.
I've tried to make the case that both faith and fact is a type of support for belief. When facts are present faith is unnecessary. When facts aren't present, faith becomes necessary to support belief. This seems to be supported by the definition of the two words. Bob has a "firm belief" he won't be robbed today. But he has no "proof" he won't be robbed today. This is faith, by cited definition. Bob finishes his day. He wasn't robbed. Fact def. "A true piece of information" No longer does Bob need faith for his conclusion. Bob in fact wasn't robbed today. Fact replaces faith.
I think I will turn the debate over to Pro at this moment. I look forward to reading your arguments.
P.S. I have a sneaky little notion Hebrews 11:1 is on someones mind. We shall see if it shows up.
1. You said: "This faith statement is related to today. The facts of today are yet to be uncovered. There are no facts from today that support today's belief that the man will not be robbed today. The fact that the man hasn't been robbed in the past doesn't, in a factual manner, support the conclusion that he won't be robbed today. Everyday someone is robbed for the first time. The man may be that someone. His faith that he won't be robbed today isn't supported by a fact that he won't be robbed today. When the day is over, and the man wasn't robbed, it then becomes a fact that he wasn't robbed. What just happened? Fact replaced faith. We return to the definitions, faith: 3a, Something which is believed with strong conviction. This fits the man's faith position. He strongly believes he won't be robbed, this is yet to be a fact."
I'm not saying that the fact that he's never been robbed before should lead him to the conclusion that he won't be robbed today, just that, since he's never been robbed before, he is pretty sure he won't get robbed today. It's not that his faith he won't get robbed, is supported by the fact that he won't be robbed: Just that since he's never been robbed before, he is pretty sure he won't get robbed "today".
2. You said, "This is effectively the same example as above. A person has faith a promise will be kept later. If it is later, the person cannot know for a fact that the promise will be kept. The belief that promise A will be kept, isn't support by the fact that promise A was kept."
This same thing applies: I never said that the belief that the promise will be kept, is supported by the fact that promise A was kept, but that the belief that the promise will be kept is founded upon the clean record their friend has in terms of keeping promises. As an example, someone could have faith that their favorite movie company's next movie will be good, even though they can't know gor sure, because they liked all the movies they made before that.
Kind of like this: A child turns in their homework on time 89% of the time, so the teacher has faith that he will turn in his next assignment on time. Not because the teacher knows the future, but because the child has a very good track record.
When I say, "Faith can be based on facts.", I mean that certain facts can lead someone to have faith in something, not that the faith someone has is fact. In other words, "A true piece of information" can lead someone to "Believe something with strong conviction."
Thank You Pro for that response.
I think we are having a bit of a dysfunctional debate on this topic.
Pro never begins by defining what he is referring to when he says "faith." Which is fine, I suppose. So I then define the terms in my round one opening argument. We will need to know what we are discussing in order to have the debate. I define the terms. Then look to Pro's example sentences to see which definitions most closely fit. Trying to figure out what Pro means by "faith." Based on cited definitions and Pro's example sentences, it appears to me that definitions 2b and 3a most closely fit with Pro's example sentences. So I make some arguments against the cited definition of faith, Pro's example sentences, and the definition of facts. Pro's response is, "I'm not referring to 2a at all, only 3b,..." I'm not sure if this is a typo by Pro. Does he mean 3a? I don't know. Definition 3b, "A system of religious belief," this doesn't fit Pro's example sentences. Pro hasn't made any religious claims in this debate. So 3b doesn't seem to be what we are talking about. But Pro says he's using 3b. At this point, I'm really at a loss to what this debate is supposed to be about. Pro never defines his terms. And he's seems somewhat non committal to the definitions I've provided. So what exactly are we debating. Pro hasn't made a strong argument to this point in the debate, so I cannot even look to an argument to try and figure out what Pro is thinking along the lines of faith. Where to go?
Reading through Pro's round 2 response, I really think Pro is referring to probability not faith. His example, "Kind of like this: A child turns in their homework on time 89% of the time, so the teacher has faith that he will turn in his next assignment on time. Not because the teacher knows the future, but because the child has a very good track record." This is really probability not faith. Lets phrase this in a more accurate way. "The teacher expects the child will most likely (that's a probability statement, "most likely") turn their assignment in on time, because the child turns their assignments in on time 89% of the time." Pro is replacing what is actually a probability perspective by the teacher and calling it a faith perspective. I guess we need to define probability.
1. The quality or fact of being probable
2. A strong likely hood or chance of something happening.
As we can see. Probability and faith, based on cited definitions, aren't the same thing. The teacher expects the student to turn in their homework on time not because of faith, but because of probability. It is 89% likely that the student, based on past track record, will turn in their homework on time. Probability applies to Pro's example sentences in round 1 also. Lets look at one. "Someone has faith when their friend promises to do something because they always [keep their] promises." This is also a probabilistic statement. Promises kept, 100% prior probability. Will a promise for the future be kept. We cannot be certain, but based on past probability it is very likely. (very likely is a probability statement) Lets phrase this sentence in a more accurate way also. "Someone finds it very likely (probablity statement) that their friend will keep their promise, since their friend has always (100% probablity) kept their promises in the past." We can see from Pro's example sentences in round 1 and round 2, probability is a better fit then faith. Does Pro really mean probability? Is our debate in it's dysfunctional state because Pro is thinking probablity and using a less accurate word in faith? I think so.
In conclusion of this round, I think we have a flawed debate. Pro never clearly defines what he means by faith. Pro rejects my cited definitions. Says he is using definition 3b which appears completely unrelated to any portion of this debate. Pro's general example sentences seem to fit better with a probability perspective then a faith perspective. And once again, we still don't really know what Pro is truly meaning by faith. With one round left, it is probably to late to get this debate on track. Pro really needs to hone in on what it is he exactly means. So I will turn it back to Pro to make that case.
2. You're mixing up what I'm saying again: The teacher has faith (strong conviction) that the child will return his assignment on time because of the probability that he will. It's not complete blind faith, and the teacher has a good reason for their conviction: The teacher has strong conviction that the child will turn it in on time based on the fact that the child turns it in nearly 9/10 times, which I'd say is faith based on facts.
Thank You Pro for your final response.
Pro's final response has been addressed by me in round 1. So there is nothing to respond to there. In my opinion Pro seems to be very lose with how he uses the world "faith." It can be effectively replaced by many different words, the teacher thinks, the teacher predicts, the teacher expects, the teacher anticipates, the teacher believes, the teacher concludes. I would question whether Pro is using the word correctly. I'll leave that to the voters.
There is also a logical issue with this idea. Facts are true things. If true things support a conclusion, then it would stand to reason that the conclusion should also be true. So if facts support a faith conclusion, yet the faith conclusion is wrong, do the facts actually support the faith conclusion? The answer must be no.
Fact, Bob has kept all his promises to Derek. Bob promises Derek he will pick him up at the airport. Derek has "faith" Bob will. This faith is supported by the fact that Bob has always kept his promises. Bob doesn't keep this promise. Derek's faith conclusion is wrong. Derek's faith conclusion cannot be supported by true facts if the faith conclusion is wrong. Therefore the faith conclusion wasn't supported by facts. Why not? Because the facts exist in the past. The faith conclusion is for the future. The faith conclusion is disconnected from the facts due to the fact that the facts refer to things in the past and the faith conclusion is a prediction.
Conclusion, true facts cannot support an incorrect faith conclusion. The examples Pro has given us, regarding faith, are future predictions. He is using past facts to support future predictions. If the faith conclusion is wrong, we can safely say the facts didn't support it. All Pro's examples can be wrong. If they can be wrong, then they aren't supported by true facts.
We are really talking about probability here. Probability is the foundational idea behind this whole debate. A certain past probability, then a future prediction based on the past probability. We would be much more accurate in this debate if "faith" was replaced with "probability." Past probability "facts" don't adversely effect future probability perspectives. The student may not turn the homework in on time. This still remains logically consistent with the past facts. As we just saw above, that isn't true for faith. Faith can be wrong. If it can be wrong, it isn't supported by true facts. The proposition doesn't hold.
Thank you for voting and debating.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: When I read the rebuttals provided by Pro in Round 2, I know that he is beating around the bush. He can?t get rid of the definition of faith and fact. When I continue to read the debate, I can sense that Pro is lost somewhere and had not gone back to the destination. He is not debating for title. He tries to change the title in his second round?s conclusion, ?A true piece of information" can lead someone to "Believe something with strong conviction?. He argues that Facts can lead someone to faith. He did not show that Faith can be based on facts. The word =can= here plays a significant role for Pro to win or lose this debate. However, I did not realise that Pro did not even spend time addressing this part. To my surprise that Con would use the Time and Conclusion Gap to win this debate. Con shows that faith will slowly become fact using the time. As a whole, it is a clear win for Con. Faith is a type of personal mental thought. Fact is something that is in the world which is true.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.