Betty states it correctly...."For it doesn't really explain anything." It seems we need to understand what is meant by faith. First, faith and reason are not hostile to each other. Faith, it seems to me, requires notia(an understanding), assensus (assent of the intellect to the truth), and fiducia (trust). Trust is based upon understanding, knowledge and assent to truth. Belief rests on belief that. Trust, it seems to me, is what we intellectually assent to. Belief rests on that trust. Another way to consider these matters for the Christian is Romans 10:14, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him unless they hear, and how shall they hear without a preacher? In the final analysis, Faith in Christ depends on one coming to Him as a little child. But, scientism is not ordered by the Christian faith. Scientism has its basis in presuppositional assumptions (their faith). So, how do we try to come to know the truth? Well, we must examine what is truth. Knowledge is defined as warranted true belief. One may live in Denver and say, "It is raining in Nairobi". That is a fact statement. The person has never been to Nairobi, or talked to anyone living there, nor have any meteorological data regarding it raining. But, that Denverite says he knows it is raining there. He has no justification or warrant to understand that his statement is true, but he makes the claim. That is not knowledge. It is a belief. It may or may not be true.
So how do we investigate for truth? How do we investigate for a metaphysical truth? Answer: The same way science examines...by First Principles, observation, philosophical considerations, induction, and application of a method or experiment.
So, when you say high-quality belief (I am unclear as to exactly what that is) seems to be perhaps descriptive, but not epistemic in explanation.
Reality? This is the subject of a book in-and-of itself, so I will not go into this other than to say, REALITY, is that which corresponds to the way things are.
With reference to your last paragraph you seem to equate the brain with mind or any mental event. They are not the same entity, though they are always proximately associated. Your last sentence is worth repeating, "I'm not as confident as you that the access we think we have to transcendent orders (and yes, I've experienced it) are not natural phenomena we just don't have the knowledge to explain yet". Here, you arrive at the point of Betty, met mom, and myself. This is that you have faith that we do not yet have the knowledge to explain things, YET. This is your, and all metaphysical naturalists, article of faith. This is your presupposition. It is not warranted truth. Speculation, yes. Hopeful expectation, yes.
Somebody ping me when they come up with the experiment that will test the existence of God.
I was responding to Betty Boop's statement,
The point is: In what does any given person believe? And how closely does it dovetail with, or correspond with, the actual Reality that we commonly perceive, in which we actually exist?....If a person has "faith" in the idea that we live in a random, chancy universe, I would describe that situation as a very "low-quality" belief. For it doesn't really explain anything.It seemed to me that if someone had "faith" in the idea that we lived in a chancy universe, and if we did in fact live in a chancy universe, then that belief would correspond with actual Reality. In which case it does not make sense to me to label it a low-quality belief just because it doesn't explain anything--there's nothing to explain!
Here, you arrive at the point of Betty, met mom, and myself. This is that you have faith that we do not yet have the knowledge to explain things, YET. This is your, and all metaphysical naturalists, article of faith.
Respectfully, I think you're wrong. What I said was that I wasn't sure that we know everything we need to know about the laws of nature in order to confidently label some things as transcending those laws. That is not at all the same thing as saying I'm sure we will eventually know enough about the laws of nature to rule out the transcendent.
But your leap to that conclusion has suggested to me one of the problems in communication here. You (and perhaps betty boop and metmom, though they haven't confirmed that you speak for them) have placed your faith (in Christ?) in a central role in your life. It underlies your perception and interpretation of the world. So you assume that everyone else must have faith in something occupying a similar role in their life. And if their interpretation of the world differs from yours, you assume it must be due to whatever you've decided their faith is. But those are incorrect assumptions piled on top of incorrect assumptions.