Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 1 of 533 (525793)
09-24-2009 4:33 PM


Recently I've been thinking a lot about the idea of Faith and Skepticism, and about their relevance in determining Truth. To me, the biggest difference between faith and skepticism is that faith relies on a number of preconceptions, while skepticism seeks to eliminate preconceptions by considering several possibilities in a debate.
The epitome of a faith-based approach is one that holds that it knows the truth from the onset, while the epitome of a skeptic will question everything.
A person who takes everything he believes on faith relies on the truth of his beliefs. Since there are so many possible worldviews, he/she is statistically very likely to have the wrong one, and will never know since he/she will not test it.
Many Creationists who I have talked to have used a faith-based approach to their worldview. In other words, they believe for no other reason than that they believe. One creationist asked me how I can be so sure which scientists to listen to. How do I know that the majority of biologists with relevant degrees are right?
Truth is, as a skeptic, I can't be sure that there isn't some great conspiracy engineered by the devil to trick the faithful into accepting evolution. But it seems to me that skeptics (I'm speaking for myself here) do develop a form of faith in that which has shown itself to be reliable in general. Science has always seemed to get closer and closer to the truth (as in the move from Geocentrism) while steadily opposed by those of faith.
My question is: How do you argue a faith-based approach to Truth? Those of you who believe the Genesis account is true on account of faith, why do you think your faith is better than a faith in reason and logic, and material evidence? Why is blind faith taught as a virtue, when in its essence it requires the acceptance of doctrine that others prior have accepted for no other reason than faith itself. Not to mention the surrender of individual exploration of all other possible explanations for the world we live in.
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : Better title

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-25-2009 8:50 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 4 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 9:57 AM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 09-25-2009 11:25 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2009 11:47 AM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2009 9:11 PM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 113 by Phat, posted 11-01-2009 8:01 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 260 by Buzsaw, posted 11-13-2009 10:18 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 10 of 533 (526027)
09-25-2009 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Peg
09-25-2009 9:57 AM


Hi Peg,
This was a difficult topic to start, as I found it difficult to explain my question without making a few generalizations. Hopefully my skills in formulating questions will improve as I post on this forum.
Anyway...
Peg writes:
skeptisism doesnt seek truth...its the seat of doubt reducing everything to a state of uncertainty. Apparently everything is relative and there is no definitive truth to a skeptic. Your own statement shows this is true "Truth is, as a skeptic, I can't be sure"
for those on the side of faith, they are much more open in their attitude that truth can indeed be found
I think you're closer to what might be called agnosticism in your description of skepticism. A skeptic does believe there is such a thing as truth, he just (or at least I do) believes in a sort of process of elimination by testing each of several possible answers, to achieve this truth. A person of faith also believes there is truth, but, by definition, already believes in that which he/she has faith in.
Dictionary.com defines faith as:
quote:
Faith -noun
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
If I have faith in something, I already believe it to be true! Why would I then be compelled to test it?
When I was a little kid, my parents told me there lived a troll in the creek where I lived. This was to keep me from playing in the water. I, of course, believed them (in my defense I was 6 or 7). I never questioned this view, so you could say it was a faith position. Eventually I noticed that not everyone believed in the troll, so I asked my mother (who in my eyes was omniscient) why people did not believe in the troll. She told me it wasn't real. And my beliefs about the troll were shattered. I like to liken this to what happened a few years later when I started reading about evolution and my creationist worldview was shattered.
In both cases I had relied on faith, and had it not been for curiosity, or people laughing at me for believing in a troll, I would never have questioned either.
Peg writes:
while i agree that a lot of people dont test their belief, many do, and so your generalisation is not accurate.
I did not intend my statement to be generalization. It was a description of the epitome, the extreme faith-based worldview. I think most people on the scale fall between this position and that of pure skepticism.
Peg writes:
this is an unfair question. You are assuming that the genesis account is not based on 'reason and logic' when in fact it is.
You're right Peg. I did phrase that question rather unfairly. I've read your arguments, and while I don't always agree with your reasoning, I do believe you and many other creationists do employ reason in defense of their belief. I was thinking more along the lines of a friend of mine, who tests a scientific idea merely by cross-referencing it with the Bible. If the Bible disagrees with it, he won't consider it. Which is an example of the pure faith-based approach.
Peg writes:
Yet evolution does not agree with that, it says that over time speciece changed thus developing more new species. Well that is not what we see in nature. Birds remain birds no matter how varied they become. Cats remain cats no matter how different they appear. Dogs are still dogs and horses are still horses.
This is off-topic, although I just have to point out the unfairness of your statement. Evolution does not predict that dogs will not bring forth dogs. They have too! No species has ever been born directly off another species. That would be like a wolf giving birth directly to a pekinese (analogy: they are still the same species). The change in populations is gradual, and this we do see.
When I read statements like that I do question whether you do not understand the basics of evolution, or whether you are posing strawmen arguments only to bolster your own 'faith' about creation.
Peg writes:
so what sort of faith are you talking about here? faith in doctrinal beleif or faith in a creator who made us? Im confused.
What's the difference?
Peg writes:
can you explain what you mean by this?
Are you talking about the possiblity that we evolved rather then were created?
That would be a good example of what I'm talking about.
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 9:57 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 8:40 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 11 of 533 (526035)
09-25-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by New Cat's Eye
09-25-2009 11:47 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
That seems fairly accurate. One qualifier I might add is that faith is capable of considering several possibilities too.
Interesting. Maybe we should distinguish between 'weak' and 'strong' faith.
Weak faith is faith that is based on observable evidence. Example: I have faith in my friends because they have shown themselves to be reliable in the past. If, however, one of my friends was to break into my house and steal my TV, I would no longer have faith in him.
Strong faith, on the other hand, shapes one's worldview. All evidence is aligned with it per necessity. Someone who has a strong faith in my creek troll would interpret footprints and broken twigs as having been caused by the troll. While repeated scans of the creek not having discovered it can be blamed on its amazing ability to camoflauge itself by turning into a log.
While weak faith is susceptible to change, strong faith cannot be attacked, because it interprets the evidence in favor of itself.
Curious to see what you think of this definition of faith.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Not so much with my faith.
And who takes everything they believe on faith!?
I can't imagine anyone takes everything they believe on faith. Just like I can't imagine anyone is 100% skeptical of everything.
Thank you for your definition of truth CS. If I follow correctly, Truth consists of: Logical truth, Moral truth, Ontological truth. I assume logical truth is truth that can be determined empirically. I'm curious how you go about finding moral truth and ontological truth. Would you say your approach to the latter two is more of a faith approach, or can you use an empirical approach to find moral and ontological truth as well?
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2009 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Kitsune, posted 09-25-2009 5:06 PM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2009 5:35 PM Meldinoor has replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 16 of 533 (526118)
09-25-2009 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
09-25-2009 8:57 PM


Peg writes:
i guess thats the difference between skeptics and people of faith, one believes that the truth lies with God, the other beleives that truth will never be 100%
Yes, you BELIEVE that the truth lies with God. I assume that's a faith statement? It could also be argued that skeptics would rather be marginally uncertain than to be 100% sure of something untrue.
Peg writes:
Its because of what we see in nature as to why I dont beleive in evolution. within a species there are changes yes. But never have we seen one species turn into a new species. You are placing a degree of blind faith in this becuase it is unseen and the explaination is that it happens over a very very long time. that is blind faith. You believe somethign that you cannot see and that noone has EVER seen.
Again, this is off topic, but I can not abide obviously false statements in any case. The ToE predicts exactly what we see in nature. If we saw a species suddenly change into another it would completely overthrow our understanding of evolution. Even if we lived 500 million years we would never notice a species "change into another", for the same reason that a child doesn't SUDDENLY become a man. It is gradual, and nature is replete with evidence of gradual change.
So in the example of evolution, I have no "faith" in it. I don't have "faith" in the theory of gravity either. It is an inference to the best explanation, and I would have no qualms testing my worldview should new data present itself.
Peg writes:
Paul explained it this way to show that christians have an assured expectation of the promises of God because they have seen a demonstration of those 'future realities'
Jesus showed that in the future there would be a resurrection of the dead by bringing people back to life. He showed that in the future all sicknesses would be cured by curing all sorts of sicknesses. These were 'demonstrations' of 'realities though not yet beheld'
Indeed. However it seems that you are supplying faith as evidence here. You have faith that Jesus divinely healed "all sorts of sicknesses" in the past and you are applying it as evidence for a future event. You are still just going on faith. Explain how you could use empirical evidence to reach your same same conclusion.
Another thing that has always struck me as strange is that having a strong faith is supposed to be a good thing. Strong unquestioning faith is what tore down the WTC, yet we don't admire the great faith of the hijackers. Why is having a strong faith in "another religion" a bad thing, when a strong faith within our churches is a positive boon?
I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, and I told him how my rejection of the doctrine of creationism had led me to question everything about my faith. Not necessarily to reject my faith, mind you, merely to question it, as I'm doing right here. He told me that he hoped his children would be open-minded too, but not to go to the extreme that I did and question the very basis of their belief.
I'm curious, Peg. As a person who is obviously strong in your faith, what is your opinion of my approach? Is it good for a Christian to question the veracity of the Bible and the existence of God, with the intention of going wherever the empirical evidence leads? Or is there anything that I should accept on faith alone?
Thanks
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 8:57 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 09-26-2009 12:10 AM Meldinoor has replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 18 of 533 (526150)
09-26-2009 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
09-26-2009 12:10 AM


Thank you for your response, Peg.
Peg writes:
gradual change within its own defined species, yes, but not into a completely new species. DNA determines what a species is, not random changes...and the genes allow for great variety within the species.
If the change was between species it wouldn't be gradual.
Peg writes:
i think its important to distinguish between idealism and faith...the hijackers and the whole terrorist movement is a politically motivated one which uses religion as its justification. It is always going to possible to manipulate a person who does not question the reasons behind their beliefs which is why we Should question them.
I think the line between idealism and faith is very thin. Just like the line between a political movement and a religiously motivated movement. Were the crusades political or religiously motivated? Probably both, though mostly political. The terrorist movement, however, is mostly a religious one. This becomes clear when they institute sharia law wherever they claim victory.
In any case, the motivations of the leaders are not important. I'm talking about the faith of the individuals who think that by blowing themselves up they will gain eternal bliss. These suicide bombers are not dying merely for a political ideal. When they shout "Allahu Akhbar" and blow themselves up, it is because they firmly believe they will go to paradise, and it is the will of Allah. Granted, we both agree that their faith is harmful and destructive (though not Islam as a whole of course), and that faith in a six day creation is not going to end up killing people. But both are faith nonetheless. And I daresay, it takes more faith to die for your beliefs than to debate it on evcforum. If you believe a strong faith is a good thing, than you must at least give these killers credit for theirs.
Peg writes:
It is always going to possible to manipulate a person who does not question the reasons behind their beliefs which is why we Should question them.
We are in 100% agreement.
Peg writes:
For christians, the bible should be their standard for making this comparison.
But Peg, if I should question my beliefs I must question the Bible too! If I'm questioning the Bible, then how can I use it for guidance? That would be like using the circular argument:
"The Bible is God's word because it says it is God's word."
Is there an empirical method I could use that demonstrates that the Bible is more true than man's doctrine? Or will I have to take this one on faith, and faith alone?
Peg writes:
Just from what you've said in this thread, I feel that you have gone too far in that you've accepted evolution as the basis for your existence. Just as no one can show you God, no one can show you evolution either. You know that it is said to happen over such a long period of time that no one can see it...you accept that. Yes evolution sounds possible, but how do you know they are correct?
Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, thankfully. They are two very separate issues, where my belief in one has no bearing on my belief in the other. But now you say that no one can show me God. It sounds to me like you're saying that empirical reasoning cannot show me God. Do we then need a measure of blind faith in order to find Him?
Peg writes:
Yes evolution sounds possible, but how do you know they are correct?
I do not know. I believe it is strongly evidenced, and I see no alternative that I have any reason to believe in. I don't have to know for certain. Certainty is a trap. Knowing something for certain means that you reject the possibility of any alternatives, and that will keep you stuck with whatever you're certain about, whether you are right or wrong. Hence, I am very convinced that life has evolved, but I do not put "faith" in it.
How do you "know" you are correct Peg?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 09-26-2009 12:10 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Peg, posted 09-26-2009 1:52 AM Meldinoor has replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 22 of 533 (526193)
09-26-2009 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Peg
09-26-2009 1:52 AM


Peg writes:
yes there is. You can compare mans doctrines to the bible and if they differ, you take the bible as the true doctrine and you throw mans doctrine in the bin.
So, to determine the truth of the Bible empirically, I immediately toss out all alternatives.
This sounds like circular reasoning. In order to test the Bible, you're saying that I must begin by assuming it is true... Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I hope I misunderstood you there.
Peg writes:
As an example, the six days of creation is not a bible doctrine. It is mans doctrine.
Genesis uses the word 'Yohm' which is translated as 'day' in genesis.
This word does not mean a 24hour length of time therefore it does not make sense to say the earth was made in six literal days.
Actually, I can find several creationists arguments to the contrary. I won't bring them up as the length of the creation days is not the topic of this discussion, but for completeness I will leave a link.
Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days? | Answers in Genesis
By the way, yom does usually refer to a 24-hour day.
The point is, you were telling me that I compare man's doctrine and the Bible, I'd know which one to "throw in the bin". But in this case, I don't even know which one is man's doctrine. It's not obvious! How do I know that the Bible didn't mean six literal days? Answers In Genesis gives some pretty valid arguments for that interpretation.
I've read the Bible cover-to-cover a couple times, and a lot of it is more straightforward. But the really interesting parts, the eschatology in revelation, the creation in Genesis, it all has to be interpreted, and it has been interpreted in a zillion ways! Oftentimes the interpretations have roughly equal support from scripture, because it is so vague. How am I supposed to know whether amillenialism or pre-millenialism are biblical or man's doctrine for example?
It is very hard to empirically evaluate the truth of something, when you don't even know for sure what it is saying. If the Bible does say that the earth was created 6000 years ago, then it is clearly not infallible. But I can't know whether that's what the original writers intended, because nobody agrees what it says. I can use my own interpretation, but then I'm taking a faith position, and not a skeptical one.
Peg writes:
So then what you have to decide is if you can put your trust in the bible as Gods word and believe it, or if you'd rather be told by some other person what Gods word means. That is the option we all have. I choose the former, i dont believe in the six literal days of creation. I have learned that they 'days' are figurative as is seen by the use of the hebrew word 'Yohm'
So how do you know? Aren't you being told by the old-earth creationism camp what the Bible says? Can you say for certain that the word Yom in the creation account does not mean 24-hour day? I just glanced through the AiG arguments, but it looks to me like Yom is usually refering to a 24-hour day in the OT. If I said that your interpretation was man's doctrine and theirs was the true biblical interpretation, how is that different from your opposite assertion?
Peg writes:
not blind faith. If you want evidence of God apart from the physical world, then look at the bible and the prophecies contained therein. Prophecies that came true are empirical evidence of Gods existence and can greatly add to ones faith, and being able to see God.
Now this I like better. A truly empirical approach. Now I've just got to wait for angels and trumpets and giant locusts with the head of a man to see the predictions of Revelations come true.
But seriously, I do enjoy reading about biblical prophesies that are fulfilled in modern times. It's actually pretty incredible at times. Perhaps you could supply me with a few examples?
My only quarrel with this approach is that it ties into my earlier discussion about interpretation. It would be so easy to reinterpret a vague passage in the Bible to fit something that's happening today. I'm not saying that prophesies are not being fulfilled! Far from it. I'm just saying that we have to be cautious about the original intent of the passage before we decide whether a prophecy has come true, or not. So, please provide an example or two of the most convincing prophesy fulfilments.
Peg writes:
i have proposed a new topic especially with this in mind. the evidence for evolution is very poor. Phillip Johnson, a professor of criminal law at the University of California at Berkeley wrote who researched the evidence that scientists use to prove evolution and from his research there was a book writen entitled 'Darwin on Trial'
this book shows how little evidence they actually have to prove ToE.
If I come across the book I will read it. Hopefully I will learn something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Peg, posted 09-26-2009 1:52 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 10-26-2009 6:35 AM Meldinoor has replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 24 of 533 (526655)
09-28-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2009 5:35 PM


Thank you CS.
I agree, my definition of weak faith is about synonomous to trust. But trust can be very strong. I'd be very, very surprised if my best friend robbed me. I'm pretty convinced that scenario will never occur, but of course, I am not certain. It could happen. I may have completely misjudged the loyalty of my friends. They might all be scumbags, and I might just be a naive, gullible, person. But I don't think so.
But because I don't have absolute certainty, I would be able to accept that it occured if such an event ever were to unfold.
In your definition of faith, does faith entitle certainty? In other words, are you certain of those things that lack "sufficient evidence but are believed anyway"? Or do you just believe them, not certain, but sufficiently convinced by subjective evidence to take a stand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2009 5:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:31 AM Meldinoor has not replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 44 of 533 (532867)
10-27-2009 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peg
10-26-2009 6:35 AM


Hi Peg, good to hear from you again.
Peg writes:
im sure you would read it first...however this is not what happens with the bible. People are taught all about it before they have a chance to read it.
Indeed I have read the Bible many times. This doesn't change the fact that my interpretation is subject to my personal understanding of the text, as well as any prior preconceptions. No matter how many times I read the creation account and related passages, I will still have my own interpretation that may well differ from yours.
I will not take a stand on what the word "yom" (day) meant to the original author(s), as I don't actually care one way or the other. But I do recognize that there are several conflicting ways to interpret the Genesis account.
But that's not what my question was about. What I asked you in message 18 was:
Meldinoor writes:
Is there an empirical method I could use that demonstrates that the Bible is more true than man's doctrine? Or will I have to take this one on faith, and faith alone?
To which you responded:
Peg writes:
You can compare mans doctrines to the bible and if they differ, you take the bible as the true doctrine and you throw mans doctrine in the bin.
I don't see how this is anything but begging the question. You assert that the Bible is "true doctrine" without explaining how you arrived at that conclusion in the first place. A lot of people will not accept this conclusion a priori, so in order to convince them of your point of view, you should show them why the Bible is "true doctrine" (perhaps first starting by defining what that means). To just say "I have faith that it is so" will not make it so.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 10-26-2009 6:35 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 10-27-2009 3:41 AM Meldinoor has replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 46 of 533 (532878)
10-27-2009 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
10-26-2009 9:11 PM


Re: The Energizer Bunny Topic?
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:
I'm curious: do you notice the preconceptions that flavor your choice of words? One of them is that there is a dichotomy involved.
I admit that I'm basing my argument on a very specific definition of faith. When I say Faith I'm not referring to religious faith in general. Nor am I referring to a mere hunch that happens to lack supportive evidence.
I'm referring to the belief in an entity or event that is held a priori, or, where the holder of said belief does not require any form of evidence in favour of his/her belief. For instance, I know people who, when asked whether they accept the TOE would say no because the Bible contradicts it (in their opinion). Now granted, in this scenario I am assuming their belief in the infallibility of the Genesis account to be their starting point. A faith position. If evidence led them to this conclusion then they may well be skeptics.
Maybe I can better illustrate my definition of faith by providing some of my own background:
If I had joined this forum a few years ago, I would have been a part of the Creationist crowd. Back then I was (and I still am) very passionate about the Creo VS Evo debate, however, my interest at the time mainly consisted of finding arguments in support of my pre-existing belief that the Genesis account accurately portrayed creation (although, like Peg, I allowed the creation days to represent vast spans of time). I was skeptical about any claims in favor of the theory of evolution, but I didn't question any of the arguments laid out by creationist authors like Hugh Ross. In other words, I was a pseudo-skeptic. I didn't question that the eye was irreducibly complex, nor that the first humans lived 900+ years, and I believed that the ToE was a dying theory only favoured by diehard secular humanists and atheists.
Eventually I realized that an awful lot of intelligent people did accept the ToE, and that they could, with ease, demolish my arguments simply because they understood the theory much better than I did. I felt uncomfortable holding to a belief that I could not defend, so I decided to eliminate any of my a priori beliefs that I could not also arrive at through a reason and evidence-based approach. Furthermore, I would be agnostic for any scenario for which I held no evidence one way or the other.
To date, I have not fully satisfied this goal. However, I have eliminated many assumptions I once held by faith alone, in order to pursue a more skeptical approach.
That said, I have come across situations where I have been told by fellow Christians that I ought to make certain assumptions in order to qualify as a Christian.
Message 83 (YEC without the Bible thread)
Minority Report writes:
The point I was trying to make, was that as christians, we should give precedence to God's word, over our interpretation of God from the natural world. When a point of conflict occurs between what God has said, and what we interpret from nature, we should give the benefit of doubt to God's word, and not immediately assume it wrong and in need of a different interpretation. I believe evidence found in nature should confirm what is written in the Bible, and I believe it does. Sometimes it will appear to contradict, but I put that down to our lack of complete knowledge of the situation.
This is what I consider a faith statement. In this case it is the belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God, no matter what contradictions with known facts crop up.
The point of this thread was to discuss whether there is any merit in holding any such a priori beliefs. I also have a personal interest in hearing the opinions of other Christians as to how much of one's faith one may question.
RAZD writes:
We do tentatively take on basic faith (lcase) the concept that objective evidence is indicative of reality, and that the experience of reality can be replicated by others having similar subjective experiences of that objective evidence or by some empirical measurement that can be reproduced by others.
This is true. I considered balancing my OP by showing that skepticism taken to the extreme (doubting even one's own ability to experience reality) won't lead us anywhere. In that sense, a small measure of faith may always be required to support a worldview. But how much faith is required? Descartes attempted to reduce all assumptions down to "I think therefore I am" (I exist) in order to describe reality using a minimum of faith. (Descartes was a Christian, but that's beside the point.)
Wouldn't Descartes' approach be more prudent than also presupposing the existence of a Deity and the validity of certain scriptures?
RAZD writes:
But once we have exhausted the ability of science to explain evidence we are thrust onto our personal sets of beliefs, preconceptions, and knowledge - our worldviews - for what we think is likely or unlikely to be true.
And this is where we have a choice. Either we remain agnostic about that which science can not tell us, or we subscribe to an explanation that fits nicely with our preconceptions, but is no more evidenced than any other explanation.
Then there is a second class of evidence: Subjective Evidence. I may well have experienced something that supports a particular belief that can not be objectively evidenced. For instance, my father experienced a Near-Death experience in his youth. This experience might have changed the way he looked at the possibility of an afterlife, yet he has no objective evidence of the afterlife. I'm pretty sure a lot of faith is built on subjective experience that can be pretty darn convincing to the person going through it. But just because it's subjective, doesn't make it invalid.
--------------------------------------------
Best of luck with your recovery
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2009 9:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2009 7:32 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 47 of 533 (532879)
10-27-2009 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peg
10-27-2009 3:41 AM


There may be a difference between church doctrine and a plain reading of the Bible. That still doesn't empirically affirm that the Bible is the word of God. Maybe the Church got it right, and the Bible is a bit off. How do I decide which one to pick? (If any)
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 10-27-2009 3:41 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Peg, posted 10-27-2009 4:03 AM Meldinoor has replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 49 of 533 (532883)
10-27-2009 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Peg
10-27-2009 4:03 AM


I can't think of any. The best way to go about it is probably to start from a position of uncertainty, and compare the Bible to a list of criteria one would expect from the direct Word of God. Things like internal contradiction would have to be looked at, accuracy of predictions, agreement with known facts and so on.
Just FYI, on a personal level I do have faith that God influenced scripture. But this is one of those beliefs that I really can't justify objectively, so for the sake of argument I'm taking a purely agnostic position.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Peg, posted 10-27-2009 4:03 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2009 10:01 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 63 of 533 (533065)
10-28-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by onifre
10-28-2009 10:08 AM


Relevance
Hi onifre,
While I respect both yours and RAZD's excellent debating skills I think your argument is really based on a disagreement of what constitutes relevance.
onifre writes:
for what reason is that question even needed?
This, I think, is the main disagreement your two-sided discussion hinges on. I can't speak for RAZD of course, but I doubt if he'd consider himself an agnostic regarding the purple pixie that lives in my closet. In this example, the existence of the pixie is simply not a relevant issue. No evidence has ever suggested its existence, nor does its existence help explain the evidence that we have. Furthermore, nobody is claiming it exists.
I think where you differ is that RAZD considers the existence of gods to be a relevant question. One that bears thinking about. Perhaps he knows of some phenomena that might be better explained by the existence of the supernatural.
Here's an analogy. At present, I'm not an agnostic regarding the existence of pixies. I don't believe they exist. But if I found magical glowing pixie dust laying around my house I'd begin to wonder. Now the existence of pixies would be a relevant question (assuming the dust had the properties usually attributed to pixie dust, and was sufficiently unlikely to have appeared by known processes). Now imagine the pixie dust suddenly vanished, leaving no evidence behind. I would have had a subjective experience that hinted at the existence of pixies, but no evidence with which to argue their existence.
Now the question would be relevant to me, but not to anyone else. I could therefore call myself an agnostic with regards to pixies, while you who had never seen the pixie dust, would rightly maintain a disbelief in them.
Couldn't the relevance of a question be something that differs from person to person?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by onifre, posted 10-28-2009 10:08 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Perdition, posted 10-28-2009 1:36 PM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 68 by onifre, posted 10-28-2009 3:35 PM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2009 7:01 PM Meldinoor has replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 72 of 533 (533120)
10-28-2009 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by bluegenes
10-28-2009 9:41 PM


Re: Being skeptical about faith based superstition.
bluegenes writes:
All true skeptics should be 6/7 on evidenceless, faith based supernatural propositions.
So if someone makes a claim and doesn't have evidence to support it, the most skeptical approach is to assume it is wrong?
As I understand it, skepticism is an approach to testable claims. If I'm a skeptic, then I should evaluate the likelihood of any claim that you make by testing it. For instance, if a purple pixie does reside in my closet, it's a simple matter to simply open the closet door to find out. If I just leave the door shut and muse at the unlikelihood of pixies, I will not have achieved any certainty on the issue, and I will not have been properly skeptical.
Now the question of which is the most rational approach. It may be more skeptical to actually test the pixie claim. But what about the gnome in the flower pot, or the leprechaun under the lamp shade? Chasing after all possible unfounded claims would be a sad waste of time as most of them would not be true. The problem becomes even bigger when testing a claim would require more time and effort than opening a closet door. Is it even rational to test these claims then?
But when you get to the untestable claims, like the IPU, or any other alleged supernatural entity, this approach falls flat on its face. There's no way to gather evidence one way or the other. Sure, we have evidence that people make up things, like pixies or IPUs, but the fact that people make things up says nothing about the likelihood of anyone of their claims. As far as we know, there could be an infinite number of universes. (Another untestable claim) Every single improbable claim might be at home in one or more of these universes.
I agree fully with what onifre was saying regarding relevance. Why should I care whether there is a universe where Italian plumbers defend the Mushroom Kingdom by stomping on goombas? I do not believe it exists, nor do I have cause for disbelief. And I don't care one way or the other. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove or disprove Super Mario's existence, because it has no bearing on my life. But effectively I'm a 4/7 regarding his existence, because I don't have any means by which to argue for or against this multi-universe proposition.
bluegenes writes:
There's plenty of evidence that superstitious people make such things up to support the position.
I think there's plenty of evidence that Obama is NOT the antichrist. So in this particular case I too will take side of disbelief. But when you reject a claim based on the superstition of the claimant, are you not judging the person rather than the claim itself?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by bluegenes, posted 10-28-2009 9:41 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by bluegenes, posted 10-29-2009 8:42 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 77 by onifre, posted 10-30-2009 9:26 AM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2009 10:00 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 73 of 533 (533123)
10-28-2009 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
10-28-2009 7:01 PM


The validity of subjective experiences
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:
looks like terminal topic drift is underway. Sorry.
Possibly. But as I missed my chance to post in the pseudoskepticism thread, at least I got to take part in that discussion long enough to present my opinion. Now, back to to the topic.
RAZD writes:
So we can establish a possibility for a generic faith belief, and the question then becomes one of getting from that point to one based on some well known religion or another - why christian gospel for instance?
It would be interesting to compile subjective experiences across a range of belief systems and see what they have in common. It might take us back to the root of all belief-systems. Personally, I have experienced a few of what one might call subjective religious experiences, and afterwards found that at least a few other people had experienced the same thing. I do of course consider the possibility that said experiences had perfectly natural causes, but the details of the event precludes me from rejecting the supernatural altogether.
Perhaps finding the commonalities of people's religious experiences will give us some ideas as to what lies at the core of all religion, and maybe, offer an explanation as to why we have religion in the first place. Do we preclude a supernatural explanation?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
ABE: This post may still seem off topic. But I'm discussing a way to skeptically evaluate the foundations of religious faith. If we are contrasting faith and skepticism, surely it would be of interest to explore the validity of the subjective experiences that give rise to faith.
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2009 7:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2009 7:20 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 140 of 533 (533823)
11-03-2009 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by onifre
10-30-2009 9:26 AM


Re: Being skeptical about faith based superstition.
Hi Oni,
Onifre writes:
Hi Meldinoor, btw, Happy belated B-day.
Thank you
Onifre writes:
Example, if you were to say to me, "water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen," (think back to a time before we knew that was true) my initial position is, "no it's not."
Assuming we had no evidence as to the composition of water, any claim would be equally probable. Since there is an infinitude of possible claims, and only one can be true (in this example), any specific claim about water's composition would be extremely unlikely. Only after evidence has been found to favour the H2O hypothesis, and most other explanations have been ruled out, can we assign any degree of likelihood to it.
I agree that the approach you describe above is a rational one. However, to be truly skeptical, would it not be better to avoid taking an initial position at all? Claiming that water does not consist of hydrogen and oxygen is as much of an assertion as saying that it does. Even if the negative assertion is far more likely to be true. (In an infinite set of possibilities, NOT H2O is infinitely more probable than H2O)
As such, I think we differ only on semantics. While you might say, "no it isn't" to an unevidenced positive assertion, I would say "I don't know one way or the other, but I won't accept your hypothesis until you demonstrate its viability".
Onifre writes:
Likewise, if someone claims the supernatural exists, or god, or whatever (telepathy/ghosts/spirits/etc) the initial position is "no they don't," and now its up to the one making the claim (ie. Einstein, Darwin, Copernicus) to demonstrate why it is true, or at the very least, show some supporting evidence for why it might be true.
The difference between your water example, and the existence of the supernatural, is that the latter is (for lack of better terminology) a binary scenario. Either the supernatural exists, or it doesn't. Your claim that water consists of hydrogen and oxygen is one of many claims that could be made about water's composition. If you go far enough back, water was thought to be an element, not necessarily composed of any subcomponents at all. The claim "water is an element" is a binary one. Water either consists of subcomponents, or it doesn't. With no evidence either way, we would have to conclude that either hypothesis is equally probable (and then find out which one fits the evidence).
Similarly, if someone claims there is a class of phenomena that exists beyond the natural universe, and beyond our ability to study them by current methods, then he is either right or wrong. The two possibilities should be viewed as equiprobable in the absence of evidence (which might be permanent).
However, once the person becomes more specific in his claim, the set of possible alternatives becomes near infinite. Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, IPU or 9-dimensional Magic Pencils (bluegenes gets credit for the last one) are only a few of these possibilites. Because we know nothing (at least not empirically) of the alleged supernatural realm, we have no basis on which to favour any one of these concepts over another.
Onifre writes:
In science, that would mean the evidence must be objective.
Yes, science can only work with objective evidence. However, personal beliefs are not always founded on scientific methodology. Oftentimes we'll believe something because we hear it from a figure of authority, or out of our own experience, or because it's "common knowledge". I'm pretty sure the average human accepts many "beliefs" on a daily basis, that he/she does not bother to subject to scientific methodology.
If a person holds a belief in a deity (or several) on the basis of personal history, and said belief does not in any way contradict empirical findings, then that person's belief is justified by the only evidence available to him. By the same token, I am unable to default to a 7, a 6, or even a 4 on the Dawkins scale. This isn't because I'm not being skeptical. It is because the only evidence I have is subjective, and therefore I can not ignore it.
I think that's where most people who claim to have faith are, when it comes down to it. However, when a holder of such a belief tries to convince others by presenting it as an objectively evidenced hypothesis, or when one attempts to ignore that which is objectively known to be true in favour of said belief, that's when an open-minded believer leaves all vestiges of skepticism behind to become a close-minded zealot.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by onifre, posted 10-30-2009 9:26 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by onifre, posted 11-03-2009 1:34 PM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 182 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2009 6:41 PM Meldinoor 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