that can happen. but its more about luck than proper reasoning.
I agree. I think that somebody who doesn’t have any evidence for a belief, even if it turns out to be correct, is a likely candidate for bias. But that is not the same thing as believing certain things on faith.
i’m not equating faith “of any kind”. This is a case to case basis. Bias only comes around if you are looking for truths concerning faith, and yet you are already influenced by the kind of faith that you are searching for. Like a muslim raised individual looking for religious truth. What are the chances that he will find the ‘truth’ in Islam?
I don’t know what the chances are, and I don’t really care. Neither should you. It would be a waste of time to investigate the social and psychological background of every person you argue with to discover if any of it influences their beliefs concerning reasoning and faith. The arguments will stand and fall based upon their own merits, not based upon what influences might have motivated them to make the argument.
my belief in god is 50% reasoning and 50% faith. that means reasoning alone is insufficient, incomplete. and no way to tell if its true or not.
There is no reason for you to believe that your evidence for God’s existence is insufficient to qualify as truth or as knowledge. I read your arguments in this post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2858682&postcount=44
You give your arguments far too little credit.
Now you may say that this is a mere belief of yours. It isn’t knowledge. It isn’t truth. So you would be fine with it if Christians would just say that they have a belief in their God, and it isn’t any better than anybody else’s belief in their God, including your own. Of course that presupposes that there are standards by which these beliefs can be judged as true or false, as mere belief rather than knowledge. The question is: what are those standards based upon? What happens if they are based at least in part upon faith?
really? like the laws of substitution isnt self-justifying for you? a+1=2, if a=b then b+1=2.
Yes, really. Mathematical laws like that of substitution are based on logical principles and, believe it or not, on observation. Quantities like “one” and “two” are derived from the empirical and are then put into representative symbols. Mathematics are justified based upon other things. The logical principle of identity. The existence of such things as quantity and extension in the world. They are pretty clearly not self-justifying, and neither are the principles that justify mathematics.
One can have faith in something and have evidence for it at the same time. One can believe something without having any evidence for it and still be right - it can still be the truth. If you are going to equate faith of any kind with bias, then you are just as biased as everybody else. Let me explain.