I completely reject this idea. You are abjectly conflating two very different things. Ego is or equals or if defined by the self. And faith is belief in the absence of evidence or reason. To have a thought, one must be an individual brain. And certain presumptions about the world are necessary and real, lest the rest of the world could not exist, nor could cognition. You defined your own terms and then you just throw them away, like most postmodern subjectivists, i.e., according to you---> Ego is trust in confidence, often without evidential proof. This is missing the one essential and sufficient characteristic of ego that gives it its identity. Self. Which is implicit in all thought, even reason. And it also adds in arbitrary meaning that belongs somewhere else--->faith.
One side of your coin had a T and the other an F. Heads and tails. In this world, a two sided coin, if equally balanced and tossed randomly, will come up with one particular side up 50% of the time and I know this through reason and logic, not faith. You say I presume the two sides, fine, so what. If someone rigs the coin game, then the odds will be calculable and might be different than 50/50. Simply put, a coin will come up heads trending towards 50% of the time, on average and the odds each time will always be 50%, unless you add variables. The more variable you add the more complex the game. If you tell me that it is not a real coin or it is something I don't know about, I will not tell you that there is a 50% chance. I would tell you that I must research the situation more. You need zero faith to play the coin toss game. My ability to predict is knowledge I have.
"A non-faith based answer would be "assuming a standard coin 50/50"".
What do you think this means?
"In this world, a two sided coin, if equally balanced and tossed randomly, will come up with one particular side up 50% of the time and I know this through reason and logic, not faith."
So, you will never completely reject and idea? What about invisible pink unicorns? Do you save some possibility for them? Or do you just have faith that they do not exist?
No matter how many people look at a coin toss, if random, and, by their observation, they cannot change the outcome.
There are axiomatic concepts that must be assumed for one to even think. This does not mean that I faith, or belief in them without evidence. They are not only logically consistent and coherent, but necessary. Faith is only necessary for religion and mysticism.
Hypothetically. If I present you with a two-sided coin. One side as a T the other an F. I flip it once and it lands with the T facing up. I promptly destroy the coin and ask what is the probably that the a T would have landed face up on the next flip what would you say?
Well in this simple situation, it seems to me that almost everyone will admit that they just don't know. They can tell you what they think... based on what they know about you... but no one will claim that their answer is the one true answer. It would be ridiculous in this context.
It's easy to let go of ego when all that is at play is a coin.
The ego will only come in when you start talking about things that give a meaning to your life.
We've all experienced it... not wanting to admit something could be true, because we would then have to rebuild our life foundations, and admit our past comittements were useless and wasted time.
I don't believe faith is a requirement for existence. It's very easy to get by just fine when you're admitting that everything you know about your surroundings are suppositions, and that you can be surprised at all times.
It actually makes life a lot easier in my opinion... it'll just weaken your rethoric when faced by someone who has faith (faith being blind certitude basically...)...
Actually, it's your tooth in which you have "belief".
At this point you have expressed "faith" in the existence of the tooth fairy.
Ah, but what is evidence?
I have been reliably informed on many occasions how the fact we, the universe and everything else exist is undeniable evidence that god created it all. I have been unable to figure out where to go from there except away, quickly.
It also appears to be widely accepted that quantum mechanics "scientifically proves" all kinds of things including the "fact" that an observer influences the physical world simply by the act of observing.
Ego quickly becomes a subject of those types of discussion too since athiests, being godless, can only be driven by ego. Glad to see it making an appearance here.
My only concern is that Hitler seems to be late arriving in these proceedings and I wondered if anyone wanted to open a book on when he would? Dammit, I suppose I've already ruined that one by mentioning his name. Not that he was an atheist but it seems a catholic is pretty much the same thing to most fundamentalists.
Okay, seconds out, next round!
Fact today can be folly tomorrow (according the the history of science).
Science is about understanding the way things work and why they are the way they are.
Just because scientific knowledge constantly increases, and therefore constantly changes, doesn't mean it is continuously folly, which is what you are suggesting.
If you can do better, in any field of science, there are millions of people waiting and wanting to hear what it is you have to say. If you can improve on that which has already been studied, again, there are millions of people out there who want to listen to you.
The reason why people will want to listen to you is because they want to improve their own knowledge in regards to the many aspects of science. They want to improve there own understanding of the way things are and the way things work.
Limiting science to just 'facts' and 'follies' is limiting your own understanding of what science is about.
There is an art. Take the words of another and add meaning to them, then twist that meaning into whatever you want, and behold you have refuted the original words. There are two names to this art: Philosophy and Religion
What I was trying to convey with "Fact today CAN be folly tomorrow" is that something we learn tomorrow may be a better description of reality than what we know today.
Sure, but ever since Darwin and Copernicus, science has largely been refining our understanding of reality, not turning it upside down. People used to think the value of pi was 3.14. Then they found out it was closer to 3.14159. Is 3.14 folly as a value for pi, or just not as precise as it could be?
The bottom line is that we have looked for gods, any gods, for thousands of years and come up empty. Inductively, that seems unlikely to change. Logically, the gods we've been looking for don't make any sense, so there's no point looking because they can't exist. Cognitively, we know why people persist in looking. Except some of us have clued in that it's a dangerous waste of time. It's not a statement of faith to say that science won't uncover a god under the next rock it turns over; it's a statement of fact.