|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6198 days) Posts: 53 From: Seymour, Indiana, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What to believe, crisis of faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How do you know what to believe/trust/put your Faith in? There's your problem right there. You need to get out of this mindset that you need to have "faith" in something.
Whats the right question to ask? "What's the best way for me to arrive at accurate conclusions about the world around me?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Could you elaborate? Faith is a trap that religion springs on you. Religion tries to convince you that it's better to make up a belief and hold it with perfect certainty than to develop tentative, evolving conclusions based on what information you can gather about the world around you. Science cannot deliver anything but tentative conclusions. The question you need to ask yourself is whether or not that's going to be good enough for you. If believing in an absolute truth and not having any doubt whatsoever is what you want then stick with religion. On the other hand, if you'd rather be mostly right, and getting righter, than eternally and unchanginly wrong, then that's what science has to offer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think what I really want to know is the truth, and know it's right. Whatever that might be. I'm not familiar with an epistomology that will allow that to be the case. How can you be sure that you're not in the Matrix, or just a brain in a jar recieving fake input, or even in a world of your own creation controlled by your own godlike powers? The best you get from empiricism is an accurate but tentative model of the universe that appears to be around you. The best you get from religion and other epistomologies of the same sort - divine revelation, dreams, drug-induced hallucinations - is indistinguishable from fiction, but you can choose to believe in it absolutely. You'd like the best of both worlds, I understand that - absolute belief in what is absolutely verifiable. The reason you're in the quandary you are is because there's no way to get that. It sucks but its true. So you have your choice. Which do you prefer? Tentative rightness, or absolute belief in what cannot be verified? Heck, you can even pick and choose. Take scientific evidence for what you believe can be verified and absolute faith in what you believe cannot. Plenty of people do it that way, too. I don't, personally. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-14-2005 10:56 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm curious, where do you stand on the EvC thing? whats your take? I believe that the modern theory of evolution is an accurate and well-supported model of the history and diversity of life on Earth. I've never seen any credible challenge to the theory or to any of its vast evidentiary foundation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Cmon now...."not having any doubt whatsoever"? Thats bullshit. No, that's what I learned from religion. Did you forget that, once, I was a Biblical literalist and creationist? I suggest that you ask Faith (the member) if she has any doubt in the inerrancy and divinity of the message of the Bible if you don't believe me about not having doubts.
Is this still the new Crashfrog, or the old one? Even the new Crashfrog doesn't mince words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The Frog has faith in human wisdom You have a habit of misrepresenting my position and beliefs. No, I don't have faith in human wisdom; I merely recognize that as a human, whatever wisdom we might have is the wisdom of humans. But I recognize the limitations of human wisdom, which is why I only tenatitively hold to the conclusions that my human wisdom offers. I have faith in nothing, because faith is not required. There is no need for faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What have you got to lose? Eternal salvation. Well, maybe. Or maybe you'll lose salvation by believing in the Bible. What if God, for reasons that he need not explain to us, wants us to be atheists? (That would be a perfect explanation for the lack of proof of God.) What if God will reward only those who trusted the evidence of their experience and rationality, and punishes with eternal torment those adopt distasteful blind faith? Pascal's Wager cuts both ways, as you must surely know. And our friend here doesn't seem like the kind of guy who's not going to immediately see right through its clumsy sophistry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Goddidit doesn't bring an end to scientific pursuit. Absolutely it does. Once you've answered "Goddidit", where do you go from there? What coherent line of questioning can emerge from that position that you can examine in the natural world? "Why did God do it?" No, you can't really ask that; the answer is usually "for his own reasons, which we can't understand." The "Goddidit" position is one that says "we can't understand." It gives up before it even tries. How can science proceed from a position that abandons inquiry?
Like it's not that ToE does anything particularily useful in a practical sense I'd like to see you try to tell that to my wife, who is currently involved in a line of research, inextricably informed by the theory of evolution, that could improve the yield of the nation's corn crops by, perhaps, 40%. Practical sense? The only reason that biology is at all practical is due to the predictive, explanitory power of the theory of evolution. Without evolution biology is just stamp collecting; it's just giving random names to organisms without being able to examine their relationships to each other and to their environments. Why do we find one critter here and not there? Without evolution there's no explanation (besides "Goddiddit" which, as I've proven, isn't really an explanation at all, but an act of giving up the search for an explanation.)
Could we, for the sake of economy assume there are scientists out there who reckon Goddidit? Why would a scientist, even one who believed in God, shoot themselves in the foot like that? What inquiry or results are possible from abandoning the search for an explanation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Free will Nonsense. God could constrain us to only doing the right thing and we'd still have free will. After all our actions now are constrained by the laws of physics, and that doesn't take away our free will, does it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If you constrain anything against it's free will, you remove free will. Nonsense. If you really believe that, you must believe that we don't have free will anyway; after all I can't choose to break the laws of physics. I can't choose to fly by flapping my arms. Do those constraints mean we don't have free will? According to you, they must. Free will can exist within constraint; so long as some choice is preserved you still have free will. And there's an infinite number of ways to do the right thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Like the laws of physics, it's not being constrained not to be able to fly, we can fly, IN PLANES! But not like birds. That was the choice, remember? And we can go further. We can't choose to bring back the dead; we can't choose to change the past; we can't choose to do any number of things that are against the laws of physics, not are just hard to do.
And by the way it's not a choice option to break the laws of physics, but it IS our option to try, that is our choice. Well, if simply trying is all we need to preserve choice then why can't God simply intercede when a person tries to do something bad? I mean, you could still try to murder someone with a gun, you would simply find that your weapon refused to fire as long as it was pointed at another person. Why can't God do it that way? Wouldn't we still have the choice to try?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
On a side note I would like my children to love me, not because they have to, but because they want to, that's the reward of having free will. I mean without free will it's like telling someone they have too, at gunpoint. Don't you think that, if God wants us to love him, he should do things to be worthy of love? If you provided everything you could for your children, gave them a loving home, protected them, instructed them, did your best to help them, would people say that you forced them to love you "at gunpoint"? Or wouldn't it be the case that they loved you because you deserved their love, and had earned it? On the other hand, if you did nothing for your children and abandoned them to danger and neglect, would you be deserving of love? Wouldn't they be right not to love you? Of course they would - you would be a pretty poor parent to do those things. So why is it different for God? Love is love. (And love doesn't really have anything to do with free will.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Isn't exhistance enough?!? No, of course not. It wouldn't be enough for your kids, would it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Does it do anything other than support mechanisms and assumptions of ToE - which couldn't been seen as a "practical benefit" of ToE? Yeah, it models how the genetics of populations are influenced by their environments. Now, exactly which of those things are the assumptions of evolution? Genetics is an assumption? Populations don't exist? Environments are a figment of the evolutionist imagination? Yeah, lots of luck with that, chief. You keep telling yourself that evolution has no practical benefit; the rest of us over here will be using it to grow food; track, predict, and interdict the spread of disease; save endangered populations in the world's biological hotspots; plumb the mysteries of the human body and brain; and about a hundred other things that wouldn't be possible without what has been described as the unifying theory of biology. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-26-2005 06:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What happens when a piece of evidence is found which conflicts with the ToE paradigm. Does it result in the paradigm being thrown out? If it's possible, the theory is refined, extended, redacted. When has the book of Genesis ever been refined, extended, or redacted?
But what you appear to imply by this extension is that only scientists who are well-up to speed in evolution areas are in a position to comment for or against the validity of the science. Sure. Where's the problem, there? Shouldn't you understand a theory before you attempt to comment on or assess its validity?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024