What I’m trying to point out is that the intention to deceive can be divorced from the person doing the misrepresenting. I consider this also bad faith
If Alice lies persuasively to Bob that X is true, and Bob goes on to tell Charlie that X is true, then two people have said something misleading but one of them did so sincerely believing it to be true, and that’s what acting in good faith is. If you want to throw extra bad words at Bob for some reason you might call him an accessory to Alice’s deception of Charlie, but if you’re going to say he acted in bad faith you might as well just say he lied. That’s not what the words mean!
The difference between your example and my example is whether or not misrepresentation of beliefs occurs. In your example, Bob isn’t misrepresenting his belief because he actually believes X. In my example, though, the Christian is misrepresenting her belief. She is telling others that she saw the Holy Spirit in front of her, when she really just had a dream about it. The Christian doesn’t realize that this is what she is telling others, because she has been taught to speak that way about vivid dreams, but it is nevertheless a misrepresentation of her beliefs.
I don’t think misrepresentation of beliefs on its own is enough to call something bad faith; I think it also takes an intention to deceive. But, importantly, in my view of bad faith, the entity with the intention to deceive doesn’t need to be the same as the entity misrepresenting its beliefs.
The thing is that in her world model, she did see the Holy Spirit. That’s how she understands “seeing the Holy Spirit”. It very much is a valid representation of her beliefs. Whether her model is correct (or even good) is a different matter. Christianity has a bunch of jargon, as any such group with a history of thought does (I yesterday had a bit of a confusing discussion before I realised that the meaning of “world model” is not obvious). It seems fair to say that it’s worth first establishing that all phrases being used are understood in the same way by everyone, but that also requires noticing when a given phrase is non obvious or even counter-intuitive.
The entity with the intention to deceive doesn’t have to be the same as the entity misrepresenting its (which?) beliefs, true. But in that case it’s better to say that “Christianity is acting in bad faith”, rather than “this Christian over here is acting in bad faith”. Saying that someone is acting in bad faith is a statement about their intentions, not their actions.
If Alice lies persuasively to Bob that X is true, and Bob goes on to tell Charlie that X is true, then two people have said something misleading but one of them did so sincerely believing it to be true, and that’s what acting in good faith is. If you want to throw extra bad words at Bob for some reason you might call him an accessory to Alice’s deception of Charlie, but if you’re going to say he acted in bad faith you might as well just say he lied. That’s not what the words mean!
The difference between your example and my example is whether or not misrepresentation of beliefs occurs. In your example, Bob isn’t misrepresenting his belief because he actually believes X. In my example, though, the Christian is misrepresenting her belief. She is telling others that she saw the Holy Spirit in front of her, when she really just had a dream about it. The Christian doesn’t realize that this is what she is telling others, because she has been taught to speak that way about vivid dreams, but it is nevertheless a misrepresentation of her beliefs.
I don’t think misrepresentation of beliefs on its own is enough to call something bad faith; I think it also takes an intention to deceive. But, importantly, in my view of bad faith, the entity with the intention to deceive doesn’t need to be the same as the entity misrepresenting its beliefs.
The thing is that in her world model, she did see the Holy Spirit. That’s how she understands “seeing the Holy Spirit”. It very much is a valid representation of her beliefs. Whether her model is correct (or even good) is a different matter. Christianity has a bunch of jargon, as any such group with a history of thought does (I yesterday had a bit of a confusing discussion before I realised that the meaning of “world model” is not obvious). It seems fair to say that it’s worth first establishing that all phrases being used are understood in the same way by everyone, but that also requires noticing when a given phrase is non obvious or even counter-intuitive.
The entity with the intention to deceive doesn’t have to be the same as the entity misrepresenting its (which?) beliefs, true. But in that case it’s better to say that “Christianity is acting in bad faith”, rather than “this Christian over here is acting in bad faith”. Saying that someone is acting in bad faith is a statement about their intentions, not their actions.