Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2018 2:33 AM
184 online now:
dwise1, PaulK (2 members, 182 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,790 Year: 13,613/29,783 Month: 1,059/1,576 Week: 0/271 Day: 0/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1083 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 1 of 326 (460133)
03-12-2008 10:11 PM


Since I couldn't reply to it in the summations at the end of the Universe Race thread, and since it seems to be an interesting topic all its own, let's talk about how many of the faithful attempt to equate science with faith in order to claim equal validity.

From Rob in the other thread:

quote:
Rahvin:
Science takes exactly one thing on faith: that what we observe is actually what is happening. We take on faith that, when we look at the moon at night, we're actually looking at the moon and not trapped inside of the Matrix.

I think you need to be more specific. Since mathematics is the tool used for understanding this stuff, can we not agree that science is faith in logic, and that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way?

While I would agree that all scientific models depend on the consistency of the Universe to remain accurate, I will also disagree that science takes this on faith. We are constantly looking for examples where our models stop working. We trust that gravity, for example, will work tomorrow the same as it has for the past few billion years becasue it has done so for the past few billion years. This is not the same as faith, which requires no such example from experience.

We can also test for changes in the underlying constants of the Universe. The speed of light, for instance, could not have been drastically different in the past, becasue the Unvierse as we see it today would not have formed. That constant affects far too many processes, and we would be able to detect the results of a Universe that previously had a different valuse for c.

No faith is involved. Once again, you're trying to equate belief in the accuracy of scientific models with blind religious faith so that you can say "you do it too, so my view is just as valid." Unfortunately, you're wrong - science is not based on faith even remotely the same way as your religion is.

The entire point of the scientific method is to produce objective, accurate, reproducible results so that any theory can be shown to be accurate at any time, and nothing need be taken on faith.

quote:
Rahvin:
Where we run into problems here is in the explanations to laypeople, particularly laypeople with no physics training whatsoever, and most especially with laypeople who have no physics education and have a predetermined cosmological view based on their religion.

Furthermore, what is your theistic position? I ask, because the model you refer to, is based upon a philosophy of materialism, that has certain theistic implications and not others.

The Big Bang model is not based on any such thing. Science is based on those processes which are observable and testable. As a scientific model, the Big Bang Theory is based upon observable and testable phenomenon in the Unvierse. We do not presuppose that nothing esle could exist - far from it, we are constantly searching for that which has not yet been identified. Instead, we simply model that which we do see evidence for. Once again we are led to Occam's Razor - extraneous entities are irrelevant to the matter at hand. This doesn't mean they can't possibly exist, it simply means that they are not relevant to the model.

Allow me to explain:
quote:
Scientific Reasoning vs. Religious Reasoning?

The conflict between science and religion is not over the existence of God because the terms God and reality are synonymous. God / 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

Reality is absolute, ultimate, and sovereign. The question is really one of God’s (or reality's) characteristics or nature.

Is reality a living being, or merely an impersonal material force?

Whatever or whoever reality is; reality is God by definition. It is what it is or I am who I am.

The only difference between the philosophies of naturalism and monotheism is the nature of God. All reasoning is philosophical. Whether we use inductive or deductive reasoning (and we rely almost exclusively on deduction) contradiction and coherence are what we seek in order to verify or refute premises and conclusions.

It matters not whether our philosophy is monotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, etc. The deist philosophizes that Theo (God) has left the building. All philosophy is theistic. Even the agnostic is in the same boat, since his philosophy purposely excludes deciding the question of Theo. To put it plainly, without theism, there is no such thing as an agnostic. The absolute character of reality (irrespective of its/his other qualities) does not give us the option of excluding ourselves from philosophizing about Theo.


You certainly do love to cut/paste other peoples words, dont you.

But you sound like a more intelligable version of tesla. If you want to define your god as "reality," you are free to do so. However, there are those of us who disagree, and your entire cut-n-paste consists of nothign more than defining "god" as "reality" and then concluding that all contemplation of reality then must be contemplation of god. This would be true if your original definition of "god = reality" were not a compelte non sequitur.

So Rahvin, my point is not to challenge the logic of your view. It is logical. My point (and the point of many others) is that all of us smuggle in a theological view that is not directly observable by way of empirical observation.

And thus you prove my point - you theists constantly try to associate scientific beliefs with beliefs based on faith. As I have said, this is not in any way the case.

A scientific model, like the Big Bang model, doesn't speak about "god" not because it is based on "materialism" or the premise that a deity cannot exist. The Big bang model does not mention "god" because it sees no observable, objective evidence to suggest one. Parsimony dictates that the model should then consider "god" irrelevant.

You're trying to say that, because your religious fantasies are not included in science, science must have presupposed that your beliefs are impossible fantasies. This is false. Science will include anything no matter how fantastical into its models in persuit of greater accuracy. All that's needed is for the additional entity to be required by objective evidence.

You don't have the authority to exalt a 'materialistic worldview' of reality as objective and unbiased.

When a person states that a scientific model depends on a materialistic worldview, my first reaction is "this person doesn't know what he's talking about." You haven't changed that impression. Science only accepts that which is objective and unbiased! That's the entire point of the scientific method! If the models of science resemble a "materialistic worldview" to you, that's only becasue the objective, unbiased evidence we can observe in the Unvierse doesn't include your religious faith.

Stop trying to equate science with faith. They aren't the same.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-13-2008 1:04 AM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 4 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 1:33 AM Rahvin has responded
 Message 5 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 10:12 AM Rahvin has responded
 Message 9 by ThreeDogs, posted 03-13-2008 11:04 AM Rahvin has responded
 Message 177 by OurCynic, posted 03-25-2008 2:48 PM Rahvin has responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3867
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 326 (460149)
03-13-2008 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
03-12-2008 10:11 PM


Link to previous topic/message etc.
Message 1 is a reply to this message. All quotes are from Rob from that message.

Stand by for promotion. No replies to this message.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2008 10:11 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3867
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 326 (460150)
03-13-2008 1:05 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1954 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 4 of 326 (460156)
03-13-2008 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
03-12-2008 10:11 PM


defining faith
This really depends on what you mean by "faith".

Faith is: Action, based on belief, with no doubt to the outcome.

An act of faith is: walking across your room.

Typing on a keyboard.

In science: its studying an item based on assumptions. the studying is an act of faith.

Like walking across a room, or typing on your keyboard, you have assumed the room and you are real, and you have the real ability to perform the action, because you believe what your senses tell you.

So also in science, you study your science, based on your belief in the science and its assumptions are true. Or true enough to scrutinize. And also in your math, that it is reliable. Because if no faith in reliability, you would not do the math.

All acts in this life are acts of faith, the only question is; faith in what?

In religion, men take faith in God. And worship him. And as written in the christian bible; if a man has the faith of a mustard seed in God, then if you tell a mountain to be removed, it will be removed. If you examine a mustard seed, you'll see it is a tiny item. but the mustard seed grows into a huge plant. Such a tiny seed, but big results. The seed has faith in its power in the earth, that in the right conditions it will grow. and it acts. It is a living item.

So also would men's faith, in God, grow and bear fruit. But the faith is in Gods power, not in the power of man. And in science, it is faith in your own abilities, and not Gods. But it is still faith if you understand what faith is.

Science is biased tho. It will take any probability and study it because it is "potential". But not God. When God is just as potential. The probability of a created universe from God is even more understandable than any logic saying that the universe farted itself out of nothing.

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2008 10:11 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 10:48 AM tesla has responded
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 03-13-2008 10:58 AM tesla has responded
 Message 13 by Taz, posted 03-13-2008 11:45 AM tesla has responded
 Message 271 by key2god, posted 04-22-2008 1:02 PM tesla has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3745 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 5 of 326 (460188)
03-13-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
03-12-2008 10:11 PM


Rahvin:
Stop trying to equate science with faith. They aren't the same.

The quote I gave you earlier is from an argument in support of my thesis. So as Moose eluded to, I didn't quote mine it, except from myself.

You can read it here: http://rob-lock.livejournal.com/

Part of that argumentation is supported by a quote from Paul Davies who is currently at the University of Arizona. Please note that Davies is not a Christian, but he understands what you do not.

So, legitimate scientists disagree with you also Rahvin.

quote:
. “The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.

Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.

But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ‘Theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.

That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”


(Paul Davies / The Privileged Planet Q&A segment)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2008 10:11 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 03-13-2008 10:43 AM Rob has responded
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 12:40 PM Rob has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3234
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 6 of 326 (460190)
03-13-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rob
03-13-2008 10:12 AM


I do not thinkida means what you thinkida means
Paul Davies writes:

Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.

True.

But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ‘Theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.

False. It is not accepted "as a matter of faith", it's accepted "as a matter of empirical experience".

You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not!

Again, true.

And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”

Again, false. Scientists don't take it for granted, they take it because repeated empirical experience shows this to be the case.

If we're going to define faith as 'belief in continuation of empirical experience and validation', then we no longer have faith in God. Since we do not have empirical experience and validation of God.

You (or Paul Davies) can call a rock a tree all you'd like. But a rock will never be a living thing simply because you're calling it a tree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 10:12 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 7:33 PM Stile has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1083 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 7 of 326 (460191)
03-13-2008 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by tesla
03-13-2008 1:33 AM


Re: defining faith
This really depends on what you mean by "faith".

I like to use the dictionary for general definitions. It ensures we're all talking about the same thing. Don't you agree?

Faith is: Action, based on belief, with no doubt to the outcome.

An act of faith is: walking across your room.

Typing on a keyboard.

Wait...what? Here's what the dictionary has to say about faith:

quote:
faith
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Emphasis mine on the relevant definition. Faith is a belief that is not based on proof.

That would be the exact polar opposite of science, which only models that for which there is objective evidence.

In science: its studying an item based on assumptions. the studying is an act of faith.

In light of the actual definition of the word "faith" and not the tesla-ese "I define words however I feel like" version, that statement is false.

Like walking across a room, or typing on your keyboard, you have assumed the room and you are real, and you have the real ability to perform the action, because you believe what your senses tell you.

And that would be evidence, so the belief is based on proof. Meaning it's not faith at all.

So also in science, you study your science, based on your belief in the science and its assumptions are true. Or true enough to scrutinize. And also in your math, that it is reliable. Because if no faith in reliability, you would not do the math.

The models and math have been repeatedly shown to be highly accurate. Once again, it's not a belief not based on proof. All of science is based 100% on observable, objective evidence and repeatable experiments. It's the polar opposite of blind faith.

All acts in this life are acts of faith, the only question is; faith in what?

In religion, men take faith in God. And worship him. And as written in the christian bible; if a man has the faith of a mustard seed in God, then if you tell a mountain to be removed, it will be removed. If you examine a mustard seed, you'll see it is a tiny item. but the mustard seed grows into a huge plant. Such a tiny seed, but big results. The seed has faith in its power in the earth, that in the right conditions it will grow. and it acts. It is a living item.

So also would men's faith, in God, grow and bear fruit. But the faith is in Gods power, not in the power of man. And in science, it is faith in your own abilities, and not Gods. But it is still faith if you understand what faith is.

Religious nonsense, not relevant to the topic. Pointing out your unfounded religious faith only demonstrates the stark difference between belief without evidence and science which is based on nothing but evidence.

Science is biased tho. It will take any probability and study it because it is "potential". But not God. When God is just as potential. The probability of a created universe from God is even more understandable than any logic saying that the universe farted itself out of nothing.

Science studies anything and everything we are able to observe and test. If "god" would like to be included in science, he's welcome to show up in a lab at some point so that we can observe him.

Theists like yourself want so desperately to scream "bias!" and equate scientific models with your flimsy beliefs. The fact is though, science is based completely on objective, observable reality. The entirety of the scientific method is designed specifically to remove faith from the equation, and to ensure that any and every model in science is testable, observable, and reproducible. Nothing in science is taken on faith.

I'm sorry, but "my beliefs without evidence are just as valid as your objectively testable and repeatable models" is a false statement. Objectively, there is nothing different from faith in "god" and belief in fairies or the invisible pink unicorn. None are observable, none are testable, and none are based on any evidence whatsoever. Scientific models like the Theories of Gravity, Evolution, and the Big bang are based on mountains of reproducible, objective, testable evidence.

There's an awfully large difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 1:33 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 11:17 AM Rahvin has responded
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2008 11:39 AM Rahvin has responded

Stile
Member
Posts: 3234
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 8 of 326 (460193)
03-13-2008 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by tesla
03-13-2008 1:33 AM


Re: defining faith
tesla writes:

Faith is: Action, based on belief, with no doubt to the outcome.

An act of faith is: walking across your room.

Typing on a keyboard.

I do not walk across my room based on belief. I walk across my room based on empirical experience.

I do not type on a keyboard based on belief. I type on a keyboard based on empirical experience.

Like walking across a room, or typing on your keyboard, you have assumed the room and you are real, and you have the real ability to perform the action, because you believe what your senses tell you.

No. It is not 'because I believe what my senses tell me', it is because I have previous empirical experience that can be re-tested and re-validated. If I suddenly went blind and lost my sense of sight, I would still assume the room existed. Therefore my assumption is not based on 'believing what my senses tell me'. My assumption is based on repeatable, empirical experience.

These assumptions are based on empirical experience. The are not 'based on belief', therefore they are not faith by your own definition.

In science: its studying an item based on assumptions. the studying is an act of faith.

False. Studying based on assumptions is not faith.

Studying based on assumptions is mandatory (we all need to make assumptions).
Studying based on assumptions that are based on belief is faith.
Studying based on assumptions that are based on empirical experience is not faith, it's science.

If you want to define "belief" to be the same as "empirical experience", then you cannot have belief in God, as we do not have empirical experience of God.

Since there is a great deal of difference between 'belief' and 'empirical experience', it's best to use different words for clarity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 1:33 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 11:14 AM Stile has responded

  
ThreeDogs
Member (Idle past 3747 days)
Posts: 77
From: noli me calcare
Joined: 01-08-2008


Message 9 of 326 (460196)
03-13-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
03-12-2008 10:11 PM


quote:
Stop trying to equate science with faith. They aren't the same.

Why? Is it really anyone's business what, when, who, where, and how I equate? Are you the arbiter of who thinks or says what who thinks or says?

Also, I'd like for you to produce the "many of the faithful" you address in your opening paragraph. I want to hear if that is actually what they attempt. Your adversaries, I imagine?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2008 10:11 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 12:49 PM ThreeDogs has not yet responded

tesla
Member (Idle past 1954 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 10 of 326 (460197)
03-13-2008 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Stile
03-13-2008 10:58 AM


Re: defining faith
If you want to define "belief" to be the same as "empirical experience", then you cannot have belief in God, as we do not have empirical experience of God.

belief is not faith.

action based on belief with no doubt to the outcome is faith.

if you had doubt about your ability to think, you would not have thoughts that you felt you could rely on.

you have thoughts don't you? you are breathing and "living" arnt you? well...so that is how you know, but by your own faith in yourself. but when you accept an assumption , you are taking that assumption blindly. and then acting on it. that is faith because you do not have doubts of the assumption, or you would not be studying it.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 03-13-2008 10:58 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Stile, posted 03-13-2008 11:49 AM tesla has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 03-13-2008 1:36 PM tesla has responded
 Message 250 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 7:20 AM tesla has responded

tesla
Member (Idle past 1954 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 11 of 326 (460198)
03-13-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rahvin
03-13-2008 10:48 AM


Re: defining faith
Scientific models like the Theories of Gravity, Evolution, and the Big bang are based on mountains of reproducible, objective, testable evidence.

and all of science agree they are tentative.

like to use the dictionary for general definitions.

then look it up in Hebrew.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 10:48 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 12:57 PM tesla has responded

ICANT
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 12 of 326 (460201)
03-13-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rahvin
03-13-2008 10:48 AM


Re: defining faith
Hi Rahvin,

Rahvin writes:

Faith is a belief that is not based on proof.

Science studies anything and everything we are able to observe and test.

reproducible, objective, testable evidence.

Before I get in trouble let me see if I understand this.

In this thread these things will be absolutes.

Faith will be the belief in things for which there are no proof.

No proof will be not observable, not testable and not reproducible.

Science will be anything we can observe, and test that is reproducible.

Is this what you are saying we need to agree on if we are to have meaningful debate?

Correct anything that is incorrect.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 10:48 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 03-13-2008 11:53 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 21 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 1:35 PM ICANT has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1188 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 13 of 326 (460203)
03-13-2008 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by tesla
03-13-2008 1:33 AM


Re: defining faith
tesla writes:

Faith is: Action, based on belief, with no doubt to the outcome.


Tesla, here is the problem that the rest of us have with the way YOU personally confuse the words "faith" and "trust".

Let me tell you a very short story. From when I was a toddler to about age 20, I was a devout christian fundamentalist. Then I became an atheist. Then recently I had a dream of Prometheus and have started to believe and worship the God Prometheus.

The point is for the better part of my life I had always been taught by every, and I mean EVERYONE, from my parents to my pastors to everyone else that faith requires no evidence, proof, reason, logic, etc. That's what faith in god is suppose to be about. If you don't believe me, go talk to your local pastors. Go talk to catholic priests. Go talk to historians. Heck, just grab a person off the street and talk to him. It's pretty much unanimously agreed that faith is pretty much an unsupported belief. This is on contrast to trust, which is the belief based on experience.

Walking across the room is trust, because we've never fallen right through the floor toward the Earth's core before. We walk across the room because there is no apparent danger from falling into the core. We type on the keyboard because it's always worked before. Occasionally, some keys go bad and we have to replace the keyboard. That's called trust because all of it worked before. Sure, you must have walked across the room or typing your keyboard the first time at some point. But think about it. You were scared shitless as a toddler to attempt to walk for the first time. Someone at some point had to show you how to use a keyboard. It's all trust.

By equating faith in god and trust in the keyboard, you are undermining the whole of religion. Again, if you don't believe me, just start talking to random people. It pretty much is unanimously agreed that belief in god requires no evidence, otherwise religion as a whole is in big trouble.

Seriously, tesla, I know people from time to time have weird ideas, but you seem to have the oddest ideas of them all lately. Again, if you don't believe me, just ask our resident preachers like ICANT and Buzsaw. I'm betting you 10 bucks that they will agree with me on this one in regard to faith in god and trust in the physical world.


Thou shalt accept Prometheus as thy savior for HE is the true light of Humanity and the World.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 1:33 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 1:30 PM Taz has responded

Stile
Member
Posts: 3234
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 14 of 326 (460205)
03-13-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by tesla
03-13-2008 11:14 AM


Belief is not empirical experience
tesla writes:

you have thoughts don't you? you are breathing and "living" arnt you? well...so that is how you know, but by your own faith in yourself. but when you accept an assumption , you are taking that assumption blindly. and then acting on it. that is faith because you do not have doubts of the assumption, or you would not be studying it.

I do not have any assumptions I do not have doubts of.

Even assumptions like:

-I exist
-I can make observations of the reality I exist within

I have doubts of both those assumptions.

I doubt that I actually do exist, I have no way of knowing, really. But I do have empirical experiences of existing, and those empirical experiences have yet to falsify this assumption.
I doubt that I actually can make observations of the reality I exist within. But I do have empirical experiences of making oberservations of the reality I exist within, and those empirical experiences have yet to falsify this assumption.

if you had doubt about your ability to think, you would not have thoughts that you felt you could rely on.

Why not? I do have doubts about my ability to think. Yet I also have thoughts I feel I can rely on, based on empirical experience. Not based on belief.

you have thoughts don't you? you are breathing and "living" arnt you? well...so that is how you know, but by your own faith in yourself.

I'm not sure if I have thoughts. Empirical experience leads me to assume I do.

I'm not sure I actually breathe or that I'm "living". Empirical experience leads me to assume I do.

I do not know these things by "my own faith in myself". I know these things because of my empirical, repeatable, verifiable experiences.

but when you accept an assumption , you are taking that assumption blindly. and then acting on it. that is faith because you do not have doubts of the assumption, or you would not be studying it.

I do not take assumptions blindly. I take assumptions based on empirical experience. If I am unable to base it on empirical experience, then I do not take that assumption.

It is not faith, it is empirical experience. I do have doubts of all my assumptions (including "I exist"). Yet I continue to study because my empirical experiences have yet to show even a small issue in those assumptions.

I assume I exist because I have empirical experiences regarding my existance.

I assume I exist within a reality because I have empirical experiences regarding a reality.

I assume my computer is within that reality because I have empirical experiences regarding my computer being within that reality.

I do not assume God is within that reality because I have no empirical experiences regarding God being within that reality.

Empirical experiences are repeatable and verifiable tests. Repeated and verified by any means that are possible. As soon as it cannot be repeated or verified, by any method, it is no longer considered an empirical experience.

All of my assumptions are based on empirical experiences by this definition (including "I exist").

God is not based on empirical experiences.

God is based on faith. Faith is not based on empirical experiences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 11:14 AM tesla has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1188 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 15 of 326 (460206)
03-13-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
03-13-2008 11:39 AM


Re: defining faith
ICANT, I think I have an idea of where you want to go with this. But step back for a moment and look at tesla's proposition. He is equating the faith in god to the belief that the keyboard will work the next time you try to type on it. Tell us right now. Are you in agreement with tesla or are you just keeping quiet about it? If you're keeping quiet about it, this proves that creationists/christians generally don't police themselves at all even if really weird ideas are proposed, as I have been trying to point out for a while now.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2008 11:39 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2008 12:54 PM Taz has not yet responded

1
23456
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018