Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is personal faith a debatable topic?
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 85 (563147)
06-03-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by hooah212002
06-03-2010 5:27 AM


hooah212002 writes:
I didn't want this to turn into a thread about "how do I convince this person", but rather, how it should be done in general or should it be done.
I think the general starting point should be to ask the person if there is any other aspect of their lives that have a similarly large impact on their life and the lives of others, that they think faith is appropriate grounds to justify.
Most people will understand that especially low standards of acceptance for a certain concept in their lives is unreasonable, and will adjust their view to obtain parity with their other beliefs. For some this results in a modification of their religious beliefs, and for others it results in a massive increase in gullibility. Once parity is achieved however, it becomes possible to objectively determine what standards are appropriate to justify various beliefs.
In plainer terms if you can get a theist to agree that claims of magic unicorns and claims of magic gods should be held to the same standards in order to accept or reject, they will either become more open to the existence of unicorns or less confident in their belief in gods. Both of those positions are gains toward the goal of a consistent, reasonable view of reality. Religious faith being relegated to a special case is the first obstacle to overcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by hooah212002, posted 06-03-2010 5:27 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 85 (563378)
06-04-2010 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hawkins
06-04-2010 5:19 AM


Hawkins writes:
For example, water will decompose into oxygen and hydrogen. You can use this rule to predict that water everywhere inside this universe will decompose so. Before each and every experiment you can expect that the result is so, or to say that no experimental results can falsify your prediction, no experiments can falsify this rule.
I'm not following here. There are plenty experimental results that could falsify that prediction; for instance if pure water separated into hydrogen and cobalt, it would falsify the prediction and thus the rule. Obviously such a test would need to be repeated and the results reproduced independently, but if it could be done it would fundamentally alter our understanding.
Hawkins writes:
God is to give tailored evidence to everyone's belief system to allow it to choose to believe that whether He's a truth or not. He will not give the so-called non-existing 'empirical proof' to a mass of atheists, as people will not need the required faith this way. And without the required faith they can't be saved.
I cannot see why you think this makes any sense at all. You say that God is unwilling to provide proof of its existence; that it is unwilling to provide any good reason for an atheist to believe in God over any other imaginary concept. Yet God expects them to do so.
Yet, again, he sees fit to personally meet with you and other believers in order to convince you utterly of his existence. Doesn't that seem backwards?
It is like Superman deciding to play Hide and Seek without telling you, hiding behind Pluto, and then when you don't find him murdering you in as horrifying a fashion as possible. Why can't you see how messed up that is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 5:19 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Hawkins, posted 06-10-2010 4:52 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 85 (564413)
06-10-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hawkins
06-10-2010 4:52 AM


Hawkins writes:
2H2O = 2H2 + O2
Do you mean that the above does not hold true in the field of chemitry? If you can falsify the above, it only means that the above is either not scientific, or you are exploring into a deeper paradigm similar to Newtonian laws vs relativity (in this case the rule is not considered as being falsified).
My point is that such a prediction could theoretically be falsified; the fact that it hasn't tells us it is very likely to be correct.
Contrast this with a religious concept that cannot be falsified, such as an undetectable unicorn. These sorts of claims are completely untestable because there is no experiment or result that could possibly disprove the unicorn's existence. If the results of all possible experiments are identical regardless of the truth or untruth of the claim, we shouldn't be impressed by observations being in line with its expectations.
Hawkins writes:
If you can't get it. That's because you don't seem to get it. It's not some kind of hide and seek, it's about His Law and eternity. Get it? (if not don't draw your conclusion).
So I don't seem to "get it" and because if this I *cannot* "get it", because it is about something involving law and eternity. Also, if I don't "get it" now after such an expose you further admonish me against drawing my own conclusions.
Could you please restate this bit? It looks like you are asking me to turn off my brain...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hawkins, posted 06-10-2010 4:52 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Hawkins, posted 06-14-2010 4:41 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 85 (565000)
06-14-2010 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Hawkins
06-14-2010 4:41 AM


Hawkins writes:
So what example do you want me to use to illustrate what science is, as for every example I use you seem to have query that what if that example can be falsified and is not thus not scientific.
See, you have it all wrong. Being able to be falsified is a crucial element in an example being subject to scientific testing! For example:
Water decomposing into hydrogen and oxygen could, in theory, be falsified by it decomposing into something else. The fact that it is never falsified lends credence to the prediction.
The presence of an undetectable pink unicorn cannot be falsified. The fact that it is never falsified lends absolutely no credence to any predictions made.
The first example is part of science, the second isn't.
Hawkins writes:
You don't need this explanation becaue religion simultaneously means something not falsifiable by scientific mean.
No, that is a dodge used by theists. For instance in the Bible the apostle Thomas wouldn't accept that Jesus was resurrected without being able to observe him and verify that he was wounded. A number of things could falsify the religious claims at that point; Jesus's wounds being fake for instance, or the person claiming to be Jesus reborn not being Jesus. Jesus not being wounded at all would suggest some sort of double was executed, and the body conveniently removed to hide the deception.
There are plenty of religious beliefs that can be falsified by science. It is just generally the case that once such beliefs are falsified by science, the believers either abandon their god or push it back into gaps in our knowledge where science has not yet advanced. Many theists are engaged in constant backpedaling; creationists would be a prime example.
Hawkins writes:
Yet scientific rules are considered as "falsifyable" which means "if the so-called science rule is not scientific at all, you can establish an experienment to falsify it".
You are misunderstanding what "scientific" means. Science is a method of determining truth and reality, not a shorthand for describing something as real and true. Someone could make completely incorrect predictions based on a flawed theory, do experiments, and be proven all wrong while also being completely scientific.
Hawkins writes:
Falsifyability of science says that, if a rule is suspect of false, it can then be falsified by the correct establishment of experiment using critical data. Such an approach is not applicable to religious stuff, thus religious stuff are said to possess no falsifyability.
Correction: It doesn't apply to most religious stuff that hasn't been abandoned in the face of scientific evidence. The advancement in our knowledge for the most part crushed those superstitions that lay in its path, so religious ideas today tend to cling to areas that are untestable by definition. This isn't an inherent quality of religion, it is an inherent quality of *what is left*.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Hawkins, posted 06-14-2010 4:41 AM Hawkins 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