Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   faith is bad
epistimi
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 10 (364092)
11-16-2006 1:26 PM


Flame the heck out of this argument, because I want to refine it
At face value, secularists use the scientific method as their epistemological vehical and transcendentalists use faith as theirs. It is only by the secularist standard, therefore, that religion falls short; neither reckognizes the other's epistemic endeavors, and therefore neither can dispute the other.
However, I argue that the science is a more reasonable epistemic institute by absolute terms, and is to be universally prefered. Here's why.
Religionists and scientists alike use empiricism in establishment of their fundamentals. Neither uses rationalism, except in the occational ontological argument. Scientists seek causal relations by iterating premises implying their conclusions. In other words, they seek to maximize inductive understanding. Religionists use arguments of authority (the bible), paranormal sensory experiences (prophecies and spiritual experiences), etc. In daily endeavors, separate from epistemological issues, both use abductive logic in calculation of the probability that the next time you eat an apple you'll be nourished, or the next time you touch the stove you'll burn your hand... as a matter of iterative past experiences. Hume shows that causal relations aren't necessary; however, becoming a purist on Hume's concept would render us a philosophical skeptic that can know no truth, and should therefore not concern ourselves with neither faith nor science. So practical skepticism arises, ignoring the holes in our knowledge to maximize our understanding of what's given us: this world.
And how have we come to understand this world? by the record it leaves on us, via its empirical imprint. This record is a basis of pure iterative experience, which translates into our "understanding" via rational deduction... but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is the means of fundementals establishing, which is iteration of the premises. The more premises necessarily implying a particular conclusion, the more necessary that conclusion over others less backed by the premises.
THEREFORE, any institute whose endeavor is to maximise fundamentals with which to work in rational deduction is that institute which is to be deemed most epistemically accurate. And any proposition with a greater premise backing is to be preferred to propositional equations with a smaller premise backing. My conclusion is then that science is the most effective epistemological institute, by absolute standards, and those scientific claims more premise-backed than any religious claim on the same topic is to be the preferred of the two, by absolute standards.
This doesn't mean all claims by american scientists are better than all religious claims. This means that EVERYONE must answer to the scientific method, insofar as is strives to maximise premise iteration. If a creationist has more scientific backing for a noah's flood than the scientific community has against it, then the creationist wins. However, once the creationist is defeated in the evolution arena, and decides to have faith rather than looking for more evidence for his position, he is taking an inferior epistemological stance, by both side's standard.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 11-16-2006 3:36 PM epistimi has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 10 (364125)
11-16-2006 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by epistimi
11-16-2006 1:26 PM


Well I have read your post three times now, but unfortunately haven't a clue what you are asking.
Try formating the post, add things like paragraph breaks. Make you position clear. Then try to expound in basic terms why YOU hold that position.
Let's see if we can get something promotable out of this.
Sure do miss the Cioppino on the pier at Santa Barbara around sunset.
Welcome to EvC. At the end of this message you will find links to some threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable.
Again, welcome.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by epistimi, posted 11-16-2006 1:26 PM epistimi has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 3 by epistimi, posted 11-16-2006 4:57 PM AdminJar has replied

    epistimi
    Inactive Member


    Message 3 of 10 (364155)
    11-16-2006 4:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 2 by AdminJar
    11-16-2006 3:36 PM


    ok, well i figured out an easier way to express what i'm trying to say. sorry if i sound pompously verbose, i'm just having trouble wording this.
    religionists and secularists (basically, any non-radicalist in the realm of epistemology), use propositional equations to determine what they believe:
    P1+P2+...+Pn=C
    Where the left-hand side(LHS) of this propositional equation has premises whose combination necessarily implies a particular conclusion. This exempts nobody within the scope of this argument. The religionist says,
    P1: "I've read a religious book"
    P2: "An angel told me it's true"
    C: "The book is true"
    Now, if there is no other premise within the scope of this propositional equation detrimental to its conclusion, then why not believe its conclusion? In fact, the conclusion would be more accurate than any other conclusion within its propositional scope with a smaller magnitude of premises. But what if I add this premise:
    P3: "That angel was the devil"
    Then that mucks things up.... now I have multiple conclusions, based on the possibility that the devil was telling me the truth for whatever reason, or that he was lying to me because he's the devil. 2 conclusions, 3 premises... I need more premises to narrow this down. An increase of premises brings one closer to the truth, regardless of how much it may alter previous beliefs.
    Deductive reasoning is the manipulation of the pool of ALL available premises (all items we deem true) into an equation to yeild conclusions. These conclusions yeild new understanding, but never new information. This is what the rationalist does.
    Inductive reasoning is the forumation of these premises with which to begin, by commonly experienced associations yeilding assumed relations. This is what the empiricist does.
    Take gravity. The empiricist makes truth assumptions, such that dropping an item results in it falling. He then makes another observation regarding the speed of the item's decent, at different heights and what not. The rationalist takes that data and formulates a conclusion, juxtaposing the data into a propositional equation which has a conclusion. This propositional equation can have any number of conclusions! The more premises on the LHS of the propositional equation, however, the more necessarily implied one conclusion over another.
    Here's an example. If I program a random number generator on my computer to take the average of a random sampling between 1 and 100, and run this program such that the sampling before average calculation iterates 5 times, then my average might be... say... 74. If I increase the iterations, such that the amount of numbers randomly generated (the amount of iterations) is 100, it's more likely my average will be closer to 50. The greater the amount of iterations (aka, the more premises, observations, or times experienced a 'causal relation'), the more necessary or accurate the observed outcome. Many have argued not to believe in science because it is constantly changing. However, it is this change that makes it superior. Where it once believed 1, and then believed 99 (a show of incredible indicision on their part), it now believes 45... tomorrow, maybe 46.
    So here's my conclusion. Any institute that strives to increase the iterations of empirically induced premises that 'feed' the deductive equations of the rationalist, is that institute that is most epistemically accurate. Religionists stop at a certain point in their premise collection (for example, i have the bible and an angel visitation... that's enough for me) such that their conclusions are no more necessarily implied than conflicting conclusions of the same propositional magnitude. This is by absolute standards, since the religionist adheres to the same epistemic principals. Therefore, the scientific method is epistemically superior to faith.
    if this is still incomprehensible, i'll opt to scrap it.
    Edited by epistimi, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 11-16-2006 3:36 PM AdminJar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 4 by AdminJar, posted 11-16-2006 5:12 PM epistimi has replied

    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 4 of 10 (364163)
    11-16-2006 5:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by epistimi
    11-16-2006 4:57 PM


    Tentatively rejected as it stands.
    I'm sorry but I have had a couple other Admins look at this and they tend to agree with me. I am sure there is something you are trying to say, but so far it is becoming increasing hard to find.
    I suggest seeing if you can write one single short sentence that outlines the most important point in your post. Let's start with that and see if we can then build on it.

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by epistimi, posted 11-16-2006 4:57 PM epistimi has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by epistimi, posted 11-16-2006 5:26 PM AdminJar has replied

    epistimi
    Inactive Member


    Message 5 of 10 (364165)
    11-16-2006 5:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by AdminJar
    11-16-2006 5:12 PM


    Re: Tentatively rejected as it stands.
    ok, i'll try.
    I argue that everyone must accept the following:
    "the more premises, the more accurate the conclusion"
    It follows that increasing premises makes understanding more accurate. Science does this and religion does not.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by AdminJar, posted 11-16-2006 5:12 PM AdminJar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by AdminJar, posted 11-16-2006 5:35 PM epistimi has replied

    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 6 of 10 (364167)
    11-16-2006 5:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by epistimi
    11-16-2006 5:26 PM


    Re: Tentatively rejected as it stands.
    Better.
    Before we promote it ask yourself if
    It follows that increasing premises makes understanding more accurate. Science does this and religion does not.
    is an absolute. There are many Theistic Evolutionists for example and also many theists that question religion as well.
    Do you want to make that an assertion or phrase it as a question?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by epistimi, posted 11-16-2006 5:26 PM epistimi has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by epistimi, posted 11-16-2006 5:47 PM AdminJar has replied

    epistimi
    Inactive Member


    Message 7 of 10 (364169)
    11-16-2006 5:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by AdminJar
    11-16-2006 5:35 PM


    Re: Tentatively rejected as it stands.
    good point. the argument that i'm trying to make (as an assertion, not a question) is that we must all appeal to science for truth. Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, etc. attempt this, and thereby on the right track. Faith is what's in question, and what I consider epistemically inferior.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by AdminJar, posted 11-16-2006 5:35 PM AdminJar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by AdminJar, posted 11-16-2006 5:55 PM epistimi has replied

    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 8 of 10 (364170)
    11-16-2006 5:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by epistimi
    11-16-2006 5:47 PM


    Re: Tentatively rejected as it stands.
    I think we are making progress.
    Faith is what's in question, and what I consider epistemically inferior.
    The question that will arise and that you should address in your Original Post, the one that will set the topic under discussion is "inferior for what?"
    Science (and by that I assume you mean the scientific method) may well be better for some things, but it cannot address that which cannot be tested or verified.
    See if you can take the short synopsis you wrote above and now set the parameters of what it is you think science best addresses.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by epistimi, posted 11-16-2006 5:47 PM epistimi has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by epistimi, posted 11-16-2006 6:37 PM AdminJar has replied

    epistimi
    Inactive Member


    Message 9 of 10 (364174)
    11-16-2006 6:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by AdminJar
    11-16-2006 5:55 PM


    Re: Tentatively rejected as it stands.
    right. that which cannot be tested is up for grabs. so belief in god is just fine. however, religions, and especially christianity, make empirical claims. Those issues must be brought to the peer reviewing committee. This is by empirical standard at large, rather than simply by the secularist, because the christian is in the empirical arena.
    so with my random generator example, I'm saying that everyone who's guessing what the final number may be must accept that the greater the iterations, the more accurate the conclusion. Anyone who's not following every scientific turn is left behind, and less accurate in their conclusions.
    So my assertion appeals to a select group of people by relying on presuppositions. as you mentioned, god is outside the scope of this random number generator; therefore, his existence is epistemically irrelevent. similarly, we could be in the matrix or in a dream, rendering this whole epistemic process bunk... but concerning those who believe in ANYTHING, we are all confined to the scientific method. Does that make sense?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by AdminJar, posted 11-16-2006 5:55 PM AdminJar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by AdminJar, posted 11-16-2006 7:02 PM epistimi has not replied

    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 10 of 10 (364175)
    11-16-2006 7:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by epistimi
    11-16-2006 6:37 PM


    Re: Tentatively rejected as it stands.
    Okay,
    Go back to Message 5 and edit it to include the things we have discussed. You might also want to provide some evidence that "religions, and especially Christianity, make empirical claims" since that will surely be challenged. Edit the message and then post a reply here and let's see if we can get it promoted.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by epistimi, posted 11-16-2006 6:37 PM epistimi has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024