|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is personal faith a debatable topic? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I recently had quite a lengthy debate-ish type discussion with my ex-girlfriend's friend about biblical matters. Predominately of which were the YEC topics to which she ascribes to. The discussion came around to me saying that the evidence has shown quite irrifutably that there was no flood, no vapor canopy (yes, she fell ill to hovind's shenanigans), the earth is old as hell, etc.. She stated that she had evidence to the contrary. When pressed, she admitted that she took it on faith about these issues. I told her that these sorts of issues are ones that shouldn't be taken on faith since they can be proven empirically.
As a rule, I do not think it is a good tactic to debate one's faith, nor do I even think it is possible. This is pretty much where our discussion because I told her from the get go that I would not even attempt to debate her faith since it isn't something that can be tested against. My question is this: is it possible to successfully and honestly debate someones faith when it so obviously intermingles with matters that can be proven via evidence? Is it acceptable? How would one go about doing this when the other party simply refuses to accept any science that goes against their belief system? For the sake of this discussion, we shall assume that the individual is fairly open minded, just a bit mis-guided and happily ignorant. There are a couple other sub-topics I may bring up that relate to this if they happen to come up. I will leave topic placement in the hands of the administration staff. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Is personal faith a debatable topic? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Faith has two morphing definitions.
1. An unquestionable position: If you dare question it, you are questioning their faith, which is a social sin second only to matricide. 2. Trust. The Royal Society's motto is {translated} "Take noone's word for it". I think a few universities have adopted it too. Religious Faith in this meaning would have the motto "Take those guy's word for it."
My question is this: is it possible to successfully and honestly debate someones faith when it so obviously intermingles with matters that can be proven via evidence? Depends on what you mean by succesful. If it's an unquestionable position then you won't succesfully persuade them. Not without going through a long period of offending their deepest conscience in the process. Is that a success? If it is "I take these guy's word for it.", you might at least be able to get the concession that without taking those guys words for it, the account wouldn't hold up in court any better than any other story with conventiently unfalsifiable supernatural elements in it. Unfortunately: Creationists tend to have 'faith' that god was respsonsible for life and that a fear that if one starts allowing the creation account to be diluted, everything else threatens to be washed over. So good luck with that.
For the sake of this discussion, we shall assume that the individual is fairly open minded, just a bit mis-guided and happily ignorant. You could tell her you saw a flying hippopotamus farting rainbows or that the CIA have infilitrated her computer and are reading all of her files. If she questions you, remind her that she took some dead jews word for it that a walking talking snake set off a chain of events that would lead to labour pains. That might be an interesting place to start on a discussion into when skepticism is actually appropriate. If she fell for snake oil once, I suppose you could be cynical and try to 'con' her into theistic evolution. Kenneth Miller might be a way to go here (though if she thinks Catholics have cooties, that might again be counterproductive). But that probably betrays the 'honesty' part. You could do something crazy: Have her take a Biblical Scholar seminar. The kind of thing Pastors go on. Not the propaganda stuff, but the raw information about the Middle East and the culture and knowledge about the Bible itself and what is known about the authors. The really open minded type would be up for it, and will almost certainly find themselves altering their simplistic vision of religion if not abandoning altogether. This has been written over the course of several hours, with frequent interruption so if it doesn't make coherent sense...sorry. Edited by Modulous, : it didn't make coherent sense. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
My question is this: is it possible to successfully and honestly debate someones faith when it so obviously intermingles with matters that can be proven via evidence? Is it acceptable? How would one go about doing this when the other party simply refuses to accept any science that goes against their belief system? The only way to debate it is by getting them to answer specific questions about their faith. If there faith includes something testable, then they have to at least give up that ground in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The best way is with the people who believe the bible is infallible. It's almost not even a challenge to refute it, but you'll still see some amazing mental gymnastics in a futile attempt to hold their position. "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
What might be a good tactic is to at least try and leave them to think over the difference between trust in their faith vs scientific evidence.
Their faith is simply based on a story that they have been told. Therefore it relies wholly upon whether or not the first person to tell the story was telling the truth and whether or not the story has been re-told correctly. Taken on its own, there is no way of knowing whether or not any story is truth or fiction. On the contrary, knowledge based on scientific evidence can be checked and tested again and again (in theory by anyone) to ensure it is reliable. Try asking the person in question if they accept that it is possible for scientific evidence to disprove a criminal's fictional account of events. I'm sure almost everyone must accept this. There is no difference whatsover in using scientific evidence to check the reliability of religious stories. A story is a story is a story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think it'd be better to debate, rather than a particular specific thing they have faith in, the differences between taking things on faith and using evidence to arrive at a conclusion and how the latter can be better than the former.
If they can understand the importance there, then if you move into their specific beliefs they take on faith, they'll better understand that arriving at a conclusion from evidence is not you just attacking their faith. Does that make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The only way to debate it is by getting them to answer specific questions about their faith. If there faith includes something testable, then they have to at least give up that ground in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I don't think that's going to be productive. I think they'll just feel like he is attacking their faith and "turn-off" and just fall back on the faith. Nothing will be acheived. From the previous message:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1592 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
It's a hard to answer question because personal faith is subject to the definition of faith accepted by the individual.
Here is the definition i accept: Faith: action, based on belief, without doubt of the outcome. Faith to me is "trust" (no doubt of the outcome). and an action based on what you trust. and you can only trust what you believe. Examples: To me we take it by faith that we exist. why? because we trust we exist. Why? because our senses and thoughts tell us we and everything that is. IS. and we trust our senses and our thoughts and so act on them. example: you take it on faith that when a traffic light turns green, its safe to go. how many of us even look to see if it is? we have faith its safe because the light is green. yet a driver can run a red light and hit us. By this definition trust is only possible by our beliefs and not necessarily true. such as the green light example. So It is always good to examine what we rest our faith in. and it is faith when it survives our personal scrutiny. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You seem to be conflating the extrapolation of common experience with faith.
such as the green light example A few near misses or even being run over as a result of assuming safety when a green light shows will soon overturn that which you are calling "faith" in this example. What comparable experience would overturn deep faith in an undetectable, empirically un-disprovable immaterial entity? For example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1592 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: This is a complicated question, not because i do not understand what your really asking, but because you don't realize what your asking. if you refer back to the definition i hold for faith, you'll see that it is only possible by true belief. What you truly believe in, and have faith in, is real. its not disprovable. its a proven fact by the basis chosen that substantiated the belief enough for you to trust and act on the belief. It is only overturned when the reason for the faith is broken. For instance, My belief in God (to which i know that you are in some form or way referring ) is strong enough that it is faith. Because the proof i have found is definite science. this is my belief. The definite science is backed up very well, although obscure, in religious text. although i do not care for the interpretations and behaviors chosen by many religious orders necessarily, I understand the human flaw enough to overlook it. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
The only way to debate it is by getting them to answer specific questions about their faith. If there faith includes something testable, then they have to at least give up that ground in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But what about when they do not accept that evidence as valid? Think about it this way: if you tell me that 2+2=4, but I really believe it is 5, I have faith that it is 5, I have a book that tells me it's 5, my pastor tells me it's 5, and someone who holds the same belief as me tells me that the way you came to your conclusion that it is 4 is wrong: what then? Especially when they don't care if they are wrong if being right means possibly having to rethink their faith.
The best way is with the people who believe the bible is infallible. It's almost not even a challenge to refute it, but you'll still see some amazing mental gymnastics in a futile attempt to hold their position. In the instance I mentioned, and for the individual I mentioned: she (and my ex) read the bible very loosely. So that made the discussion all the harder since I tend to read it pretty literally. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Look if I assume that I can safely cross the road without triple checking when the pedestrian light turns green it is because I have crossed thousands of roads hundreds of thousands of times successfully using this method. Familiarity breeds nonchalance and contempt. Experience not faith is the basis of my road crossing behaviour.
Change the experience - I.e. keep getting run over - And I will change my assumptions and ultimately my behaviour. So explain to me how your comparison of road crossing and faith in God is anything other than a misplaced conflation of entirely different phenomenon?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
What might be a good tactic is to at least try and leave them to think over the difference between trust in their faith vs scientific evidence. Like I said: they have NO faith in science. She went so far as to blame the spill in the gulf on science. However, this seems to only be when it possibly conflicts with their beliefs. My ex is a med tech at an retirement facility and she has to accept quite a bit of sciene and use it in order to ensure the patients are taking the correct amount of medicince. Basically, the idea that we are related to bonobos or chimps makes them sick. The idea that we aren't special makes them sad.
Taken on its own, there is no way of knowing whether or not any story is truth or fiction. I know that, you know that, most here know that, but what about when things that do have empirical evidence are simply taken on faith?
On the contrary, knowledge based on scientific evidence can be checked and tested again and again (in theory by anyone) to ensure it is reliable. But what if you don't trust the science that disagrees with your faith? The whole of evolution has been dragged through the mud due to creationists. Any study even remotely close is seen now as invalid or tainted by them. Stupid, yes, but true.
Try asking the person in question if they accept that it is possible for scientific evidence to disprove a criminal's fictional account of events. I'm sure almost everyone must accept this. There is no difference whatsover in using scientific evidence to check the reliability of religious stories. A story is a story is a story. I did this. I brought up technology (cell phones and whatnot). Her response? "I'd rather live in a world with no technology". Edited by hooah212002, : spelling "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1592 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: The difference is: your talking about what leads to faith. And I'm discussing faith. Faith is not an assumption. assumptions are based on faith. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Does that make sense? It makes perfect sense. Thanks CS. I'll have to ask though: have we witnessed this to work anywhere here? I tried something similar and the result was not optimal. It was stated basically that it is my belief that evidence and critical thinking are good values and it's fine if that's how I want to be, but this person would rather have their faith. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024