Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Yes. The question is why? Do we seek a naturalistic answer? A testable answer? A scientific answer? Psychology? Culture? Etc. etc. etc.Or do we special plead this question and just say "goddidit"? At which point all debate stops, all investigation ceases and we hit the inevitable conceptual dead end. Then we can go off happy that we have at last fiound a gap in which god can exist. Hallelujah! I could not have put it better myself. A preference for pink may well be considered a reason to believe in our dear old friend the Immaterial Pink Unicorn (which your compatriots RAZD and LindaLou have now expressed their deepseated agnosticism towards BTW).But what have my subjective reasons for belief got to do with the reality of what actually exists and what doesn't.I mean subjectively speaking I have very good reason to believe that I am the most intelligent, witty, charming stud muffin in the universe. But objectively speaking even I wouldn't go that far (well.............) Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, still with the false dichotomies ...The problem is that the question just may not be answerable. Or do we say that we just don't have enough information to make a decision, and that we just don't know.Certainly there is insufficient evidence to form anything more than opinion, and we all know that opinion is not sufficient to control reality.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Meldinoor, seems Peg has stepped out. Too bad, as it was getting interesting. Correct, and the default position when you don't know, is that you don't know. Similarly, the default position when you can't know (or are unlikely to know in your lifetime), is that you don't know.Now one can form opinions on the likelihood of things like pixies in the closet, opinions based on your life experiences and learning, your worldview, but these are subjective evaluations, and there is no way to rationally measure their likelihood.So we make assumptions based on opinions.We can review these assumptions in relation to certain scientific findings and see how such opinions stack up in validity against the testing done by science, and we generally find that opinions are weak predictors of reality at best, no matter how well informed the opinions. But just plain vanilla skepticism is not all there is to the scientific approach, for as Peg pointed out, skepticism doesn't add to the equations. What you need in addition is an open mind - open to possibilities, specifically including possibilities that are not contradicted by any known evidence.Because of different people necessarily having different worldviews they will have different interests and opinions about possibilities, and certainly we see a broad spectrum of fascinating possibilities that people are willing and energetically pursuing because different people are open to different ideas.Thus I come to the conclusion that an open-minded skeptic approach is the best overall approach, letting different people take up concepts that interest them, and leaving ones they are not interested unexplored until further information is available.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

The problem is that the question just may not be answerable.

---

Wow. I guess the under/over for you bringing up this silly claim of yours was less than a month. Do we have to have another 300 posts of you avoiding the issue?What makes you think the question isn't answerable? We have plenty of evidence indicating an answer. Why do you deny it?Ah...the answer is in your own response:

quote:

---

we all know that opinion is not sufficient to control reality.

---

You haven't managed to understand your own statement. You have an opinion and despite all the reality surrounding you telling you that your opinion is incompatible, you refuse to let it go.Your opinion is not sufficient to control reality no matter how long you hold your breath, stamp your feet, and throw a tantrum.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

Correct, and the default position when you don't know, is that you don't know.

---

Indeed. But what makes you think we don't know? Your opinion that we don't is insufficient to affect reality.

quote:

---

Similarly, the default position when you can't know (or are unlikely to know in your lifetime), is that you don't know.

---

Indeed. But what makes you think we can't know or are unlikely to know in our lifetime? Your opinion that we can't is insufficient to affect reality.

quote:

---

Now one can form opinions on the likelihood of things like pixies in the closet, opinions based on your life experiences and learning, your worldview, but these are subjective evaluations, and there is no way to rationally measure their likelihood.

---

Huh? Your claim is that we have absolutely no evidence regarding pixies? That there are no methods by which we might acquire evidence?That seems a bit preposterous, don't you think? On the contrary, we have overwhelming evidence regarding the existence of pixies in general, not just in your closet. Why would you have us deny it?Ah, yes...your opinion. But your opinion is not sufficient to affect reality.

quote:

---

What you need in addition is an open mind - open to possibilities, specifically including possibilities that are not contradicted by any known evidence.

---

Indeed. But what you also need is a mind that does not reject known evidence simply because it contradicts your opinion.Your opinion is not sufficient to affect reality.

quote:

---

Thus I come to the conclusion that an open-minded skeptic approach is the best overall approach

---

Indeed.'Tis a pity you don't actually follow it. Instead, you follow a closed-minded subjective approach which rejects evidence that contradicts your opinion.Your opinion is not sufficient to affect reality.Less than a month and you're still obsessing about this. Shall we go through another 300 posts of you avoiding the evidence?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

I'm wondering how long it will take you to realise that you're making a fool of yourself. If you don't eliminate supernatural propositions with a "6" on the Dawkins scale, then there are no "2"s and "6"s in science for you. If you claim that properly supported "6"s and "2"s are rife within sciences, then you are automatically giving a "6" or "7" to numerous zero evidence propositions like "fairies manipulate sub-atomic particles".Think it through, then tell me "bluegenes, you're right", otherwise I'll embarrass you with the kind of step by step explanation usually reserved for creationists.There's overwhelming evidence that supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.Just because you cannot disprove a supernatural proposition does not promote it to anything other than very/extremely unlikely.http://www.beastobama.com/ It is giving any supernatural proposition a higher likelihood than Obama being the anti-Christ that requires special pleading.Don't try to pretend this is off-topic in a thread about Faith and skepticism.

Hyroglyphx responds to Perdition:

quote:

---

My contention is with the phrasing and the underpinnings of " the absence of evidence is evidence of absence." That means if no evidence exists [in defense of one's proposition], that there is no evidence of that proposition is actually evidence that it is not true.

---

And if there ever were a situation in which there were no evidence, you'd have a point. But we don't have "no evidence." Instead we have a mountain of evidence:The model works.Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have any evidence that the model doesn't work and thus requires them?Indeed, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" in and of itself. But when we have run a test where presence would result in specific kinds of evidence and we find that evidence to be absent, then that actually is evidence of absence.It's why the Michelson—Morley experiment has us concluding that there is no luminiferous ether: If it were there, then we should see specific results in the experiment. Those results are absent, therefore the ether isn't there.There is a difference between pointing out that we haven't looked hard enough or in the right ways (absence of evidence) and running a dispositive experiment (evidence of absence). If we have a model that works perfectly without the addition of your chocolate sprinkles, under what logic is there justification for demanding that they be present?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

My online friend who happens to be a good critical thinker has challenged me to think about these issues for several years now. Several observations have been agreed upon:1) Many people seek answers to questions. Fewer people seek answers to queston.2) Logic, reason, and reality is the only way to find out more about the world, the universe, and the human mind.3) Many people seek the source of an argument versus the content of what is actually being said. Those who cannot handle doubt will continually look to source...be it a belief, a God real or imagined, or a religious group such as the Baptists or the JW's.It also helps to narrow down what it is that we are asked to have faith in or be skeptical of. If the topic is creationism, evidence enters the picture and is undeniable. If it is God Herself, no such evidence exists and our discussion turns entirely hypothetical and philosophical. (and keep in mind that I am a believer) IF God were extremely likely, there would be no magic to Her! Its like finding a diamond in a mountain. Besides...even if something is imaginary within the bounds of our imagination does not eliminate the possibility that we are glimpsing the possibility of a greater, though currently undefinable reality. Look at inventions and how humans discover things. What was impossible in 1850 is entirely common today. Thankfully, God is at best "extremely unlikely" and not yet impossible.Edited by Phat, : added comment

I have never found prophecy to be impressive. Can you share with me a few prophecies that strengthened your belief?

So are you saying the attraction of your god is that it is almost certainly untrue? Should we quantify your religious feelings as a propensity toward fantasy and falsehood? Are you proposing that reality fundamentally altered between 1850 and today, allowing new technology to function? Are you suggesting that the future laws of reality are defined by our imagination?I really hope that I am missing the point of what you are saying, because it seems like you cannot tell the difference between reality and your imagination. Or at least you don't want to.

Rrhain, taking two messages to reply to one person, writes: Curiously, those that have read my messages from the beginning will recognize that my position on this issue was stated years ago, and that my position has certainly not altered since 04*30*2006 and Perceptions of Reality.It has not changed, because there has been no evidence that has been presented in the intervening time sufficient to alter my knowledge, opinions and beliefs on this issue.Fascinatingly, the last thread on this topic, Pseudoskepticism and logic, was singular in the attempts of several atheists in general, and Rrhain in particular, trying desperately to avoid the issue of presenting evidence to support their negative position. It was also, embarrassingly (for strong atheists), devoid of evidence that god/s do not exist or cannot exist, sufficient to justify a "6" or "7" position. Ah, now we have evidence: after 562 posts on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread with Rrhain claiming that he didn't need to supply evidence for his negative position, suddenly now he needs to have evidence for his claim. Let's see what it is: Oops, no evidence. Amazingly, I find it extremely difficult to be in denial of evidence that is not presented. Instead we have an ad hominem attack on me, rather than dealing with the issue. Interestingly, I am happy knowing that my opinion is just my opinion and I'm not the one claiming that it is anything more than that.Saying that my opinion is not compatible with reality is not demonstrating it. Demonstrating it would mean putting up evidence that shows that god/s in fact do not, or cannot, exist. Objective, empirical evidence, not logical fallacies and arguments based on assumptions of knowing more than is known. Message 110 (second reply) Indeed, indeed, however, my opinion is based on the total lack of evidence that shows there are no god/s presented by anyone on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread. Now I don't claim that this opinion is fact, just that this is the impression I have after 562 posts on that thread without any being presented. You can change this opinion by actually presenting evidence that god/s don't, or cannot, exist. Curiously, your theatrics are getting in the way of your comprehension -- all I was saying, was that in conditions where you don't know, the default position is that you don't know: glad you agree with this now. Wow, another assertion of evidence: let's see what it contains: Oops, another blank. Incredibly, I still find it difficult to be in denial of evidence that is not presented. Maybe these pixies are pink, immaterial and have a single horn on their heads? Indeed indeed, so where is your evidence? More ad hominems ...Like not presenting evidence to support your position, whether it is positive or negative? Like the arguments made trying to avoid presenting evidence? Like the assertions of having evidence, but somehow not seeming to mention any of it?Cutting through the theatrics, all Rrhain has done is repeat a phrase several times, followed by statements of incredulity, and appeals to anonymous authority, and an absolute failure to actually confront the issue of evidence to support a negative position. Another 3,000 or 3,000,000 posts by people trying to impose their opinions on me is not likely to change things either. Posts by people asserting they have evidence and that I am avoiding, or denying it, while presenting none, are notable in their inability to change my opinion/s, beliefs, and knowledge of how the universe works.What will change it is evidence, objective empirical evidence, that god/s in fact do not exist or that they cannot exist.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Its true that I have a propensity towards fantasy. I traditionally have wanted to believe in God as a rescuer rather than as a distant Deistic unfathomable presence. I can tell. I just don't want to. One question though. How can we determine on a scale of 0=impossible to 100=definite that God is "extremely unlikely"? By definition, God is unmeasurable anyway, right?

That's a question I've meant to ask a dozen times at least. Like, what set of parameters does a person apply to the problem of Gods likelyhood or no? And how do they figure those parameters to be relevant to the question at hand?

Would that extend to preferring to believe in god as a rescuer rather than god as a fantasy? I suppose that really shuts down the discussion. For us at least, you will probably be just fine with the voices in your head. Only some ideas of god are actually unmeasurable. However, working with that assumption we can reliably assume that on your scale any *particular* claims about an unmeasurable god are only infinitesimally greater than zero.This is because if the god is truly undetectable then any claims about qualities the god has (loving, powerful, etc.) must be a completely evidenced guess. Out of the nearly infinite qualities we can imagine, the chances that any particular religious belief's claims are going to be accurate are minuscule.So, while we cannot assign a probability to the existence of a completely undetectable god, we can assume that any claim of an undetectable god with particular qualities is extremely unlikely.

Hi bluegenes, frankly it amazes me that you continue this argument. Nothing like starting with attacking the person, rather than the issue. Sorry, but your logic is weak here: having a 3 to 5 position on the supernatural does not mean that there are things not supported by actual empirical evidence - what it does mean is that positions 1 and 7 are not, and cannot be, supported.Curiously, neither I in particular, nor science in general, claims to be anything more than 2 to 6 in scope -- including, btw, a LOT of positions that are 3, 4 and 5 along the way.For instance: the basic assumption in science is that the empirical evidence acquired through experimentation and testing is in fact representative of reality. The fact is that this basic assumption in all science means that there can be no 1 or 7 positions of absolute knowledge, and it is why science is necessarily tentative, at most claiming to present the best explanation of the evidence rather than the full picture.In essence, supernatural possibilities is one of the things that forces one to be 2 to 6 in science. And you will be wasting your time and going further and further from the original topic on this thread. Let me run through a simple scenario for you:Starting with this post by Bluejay Message 168:

quote:

---

Arphy writes:

​

Also came across this in an article which which i think is an interesting point made in relation to the Tiktaalik prediction.

​

EarthHistory.org.uk writes:

​

Consequently, evolution theory predicted that the emergence of hindlimb-powered propulsion would be seen in the interval between Panderichthys and Acanthostega. Tiktaalik fails that prediction. Indeed, it was more of a ‘front-wheel drive’ animal than Panderichthys was.

​

This isn't really a quote-mine, but it's kind of related, and it really pisses me off, so I'm going to talk about it anyway.

​

Did you even think to check this claim, or did you just see it and take it at face value because you like what it says?

​

The pelvic girdle of Tiktaalik roseae is not known. Thus, there is no possible way for whoever-this-is to make the claim that Tiktaalik was "more of a front-wheel drive animal" than Panderichthys was, unless they are using the technique we scientists refer to as "lying."

---

emphasis mine.Without evidence one way or the other, any claim about the pelvic girdle of Tiktaalik is not justified by the evidence.One could claim that the lack of evidence of a pelvic girdle in Tiktaalik is evidence that there was no pelvic girdle.One could claim that people make things up (an argument creationists like to use, btw) and thus any claim that Tiktaalik had a pelvic girdle is likely made up.One could claim that any number of millions of different pelvic girdles could be proposed for Tiktaalik, and the probability of them being true is highly unlikely, so therefore it is highly unlikely that Tiktaalik had a pelvic girdle.Curiously, I don't see Bluejay in particular, or scientists in general, being impressed with any of these arguments, yet these are the same logic used in arguments advanced in the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread to support a "6" position on atheism - a position that (if I can borrow Bluejay's words) - is "using the technique we scientists refer to as "lying."In this particular case we have a 4 condition in science: we don't know, and the default position is that we don't know. First off, "overwhelming evidence" is your opinion of the evidence, not actual objective empirical evidence - no supporting objective empirical evidence of this claim has been presented yet, second -- even assuming that it does indeed support your "figments of the human imagination" -- it does not rule out god/s existing. Sorry, but what it proves is that you don't know, or you cannot know. Any claim of likeliness\unlikliness is opinion, not evidenced based conclusion.Remember that pretending to know something that is not shown by the actual empirical evidence is (borrowing Bluejay's words again) - "using the technique we scientists refer to as "lying."Now let's apply this to your latest silly scenario: What you seem to fail to realize, is that you have confused your opinion on supernatural things with a 6 position justified with evidence, and then you have confused that position with my having to have anything other than an opinion on them.On the issue of christianity in general and christ in particular, I am agnostic. My conclusions based on my opinions and beliefs about god/s are more generic than specific, and this means that I can view all these claims as different aspects of the same general essence/s.I do believe that people can embrace good or evil or "make deals with the devil" to try to obtain an overall good through an evil act (Cheney comes to mind). I do believe that people in power are corrupted by power, and I am disappointed in Barak over several things, mostly gitmo and continuing bailouts of big companies, but I'm happy to see his efforts on healthcare and on providing economic incentives to the bottom of the economic chain.Now for me to address the issue of "antichrist" first I would have to assume that such exist, rather than be agnostic on it, and then I would have to assume that this would occur in my lifetime, and finally I would have to assume that I - ignorant as I am about christianity in general and the antichrist in particular - would be able to identify this specific incarnation of supernatural forces without the rest of the world already knowing. My understanding, such as it is, is that such incarnation is undetectable by the common person, especially any person who is not a christian.Fascinatingly, I conclude that I cannot know whether this is true or not, given this information, and that for me to comment otherwise would be (borrowing Bluejay's words once more) - "using the technique we scientists refer to as "lying."Meanwhile I am still perfectly capable of offering my opinion on the matter, and my opinion is that, while no saint, Barak is still better than Cheney and cohort/s.In the future, see if you can apply this simple metric:

• Opinion: good for positions 3 to 5
• Objective evidence supported conclusion: good for positions 2 to 6
• Absence of objective empirical evidence pro or con: only good enough for opinion.

Apply this to any future scenarios your want to try, and see what results you get - who knows, you may learn, or at least understand, better, how I think about these things. Message 1

quote:

---

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.
...
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?

---

Originally framed in the context of biblical faith. Message 46

quote:

---

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.

---

Curiously, this applies to any a priori opinions and beliefs that are not supported by evidence.Perhaps people need to be more skeptical of the atheist "6" position/s?Message to Archangel Message 64 of EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:: Note that I am agnostic with an opinion that god/s may exist, and that I have seen no evidence that contradicts or invalidates this opinion.One needs to be wary of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, whether due to faith OR skepticism, and I believe one should search out, identify and neutralize a priori beliefs and opinions as much as possible. This is one of the reasons I changed from atheist to deist.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : isEdited by RAZD, : Bluejay

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •