What is the definition of “Faith” “Over-faith” and “Reasoned-faith”.
How much of reason is needed for a faith to be a reasoned-faith?
Overbelief Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
overbelief
noun
: belief that is not verifiable or warranted by the evidence
the overbeliefs required by the nature … of human knowledge
—H. J. Muller
Overbelief - Wikipedia
Overbelief (also written as over-belief) is a philosophical term for a belief adopted that requires more evidence than one presently has. It is also described as a kind of metaphysical belief ascribed with the status of speculative view that exceeds available evidence or evidencing reason. Generally, acts of overbelief are justified on emotional need or faith, and a need to make sense of spiritual experience, rather than on empirical evidence. This idea originates from the works of William James in The Varieties of Religious Experience and refers to the conceptual framework that individuals have.
Here are some posts from a thread about Overbelief to understand the context.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023
In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James introduces the concept of an overbelief, which is a belief which exceeds the evidence of the experience giving rise to it. A person holding such a belief has read off from the experience more than it formally warrants. Examples would be a theist who prays for a sick person to recover, and then takes their recovery to be proof of God’s existence; and a person who dreams of angels claiming on that basis that angels are real, and visit him/her in sleep.“Maverick philosopher” Bill Vallicella returns to an old theme of his by applying the concept to Sam Harris’s reasoning. And by extension, to some Theravadan ideas. (Note that neither he nor James claim that there is anything wrong with overbeliefs in general. Vallicella is a meditator, and broadly sympathetic to Buddhism.)
Sam Harris, you may remember, holds that the nonexistence of the self is something that one can learn from meditation. But he too, I should think, is involved in overbelief. One cannot observe the nonexistence of the self. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Harris’ belief goes well beyond anything that meditation discloses. The self does not turn up among the objects of experience as a separate object. That must be granted. It doesn’t follow, however, that there is no self. To get to that conclusion overbelief is necessary, along the lines of: Only that which can be singled out as an object of experience exists or is real. How justify that principle on the basis of a close inspection of experience? It is sometimes called the Principle of Acquaintance. Are we acquainted with it?
The irony shouldn’t be missed. Harris, the febrile religion-basher, embraces a religious overbelief in his Buddhist rejection of the self. Buddhism is a religion.
https://williamfvallicella.substack.com … ems?sd=pf
Is anatta, for those of us who are yet to attain enlightenment, necessarily an overbelief? Is this more of a problem for those who make the more secular claim that Buddhism is akin to science (like Harris), than it is for those who a happy with their religiosity?
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26
I wouldn’t say so. All we can know is our experience, which is necessarily dependent. People can speculate on a self outside of that experience but that’s all it is.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26
In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James introduces the concept of an overbelief, which is a belief which exceeds the evidence of the experience giving rise to it.Isn’t that what belief is? Believing in something that one doesn’t have full evidence of? If one has all the evidence, then it is not a belief anymore.
cappuccino wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27
Over belief is an atheist invention
How much of reason is needed for a faith to be a reasoned-faith?