no.The reason for this is that it is not possible to define this term in a meaningful way.
In order to know what one is talking about or what one believes in, the basic condition is that one has a meaningful definition of the content of the faith.In terms of content, it makes sense:
- There must be no logical contradictions within the definition.
- The definition must not conflict with known facts.
- The definition must not be immunized against criticism.
- The definition does not have to be all-encompassing, it is enough if it includes core ideas.
I know that some people also like to avoid definitions or think that it is enough if they are vague and nebulous.Then you have to deal with people who do not know what they believe or who allow their faith to be contrary to knowledge. I would like to know what I believe.
Faith is defined as a synonym for “presumption,” according to the dictionary, not the absurd definition of faith religions.
I have explained in detail elsewhere why I do not believe in the paranormal or the supernatural:
In short, one cannot distinguish the natural from the supernatural.Basically, if you try to define this cleanly, you are synonymous with the term “ignorance” – both definitions are identical. But the supporters of the paranormal do not mean it when they talk about it. What they mean, however, remains inexplicable.
Supernaturally, there is also a logical contradiction to the concept of the natural.There are two definitions of the natural:
Of course, anything that hasn’t been made or manipulated by humans is “culture.”It is easy to see that this is a binary term: everything that exists is either artificial (created by humans), or natural (not man-made). It remains a grey area that you may not know about, for example, when artificial flowers have been made so perfect that they are confused with natural ones. But that doesn’t change the fact that things are either natural or artificial.If you don’t know, you don’t know, or you’re wrong.
Then there is a definition that is the basis of metaphysical naturalism:
Of course, everything is the case – that is, the sum of all the facts.
There is no room for some kind of “third area”, unless it is identical to what we do not know about, where we lack information, or where we are mistaken.
Then you start to contradict yourself.We do not know the cause of X, but we know (to believe) that the cause of X is paranormal or supernatural. Do you know it or not? If you don’t know, you don’t know the cause, and the claim is empty. If you know it, you no longer call it paranormal, because then it is one of the natural facts.
How can one distinguish a good magic trick, or another deception, or error, or ignorance, from the paranormal?It doesn’t work. It cannot be logically delimited for the reasons given in the article (linked above).
The question of whether I believe in this has probably been resolved.