Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 5:43 AM
20 online now:
AZPaul3, vimesey (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,794 Year: 9,830/19,786 Month: 2,252/2,119 Week: 288/724 Day: 13/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Mlodinow & Hawking on Model-Dependent Realism
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 46 of 72 (591046)
11-11-2010 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 10:27 AM


Faith
I have no issue with those who choose to have faith per se. My arguments are with those who assert that their faith based beliefs are evidenced or as valid as scientific conclusions in some way.

Numbers writes:

My statement in regards to matters of faith simply meant that scientific knowlege is evidence based. In the case of faith in something that requires no evidence there is no way to apply science. Because by definition Science requires evidence.

You continue to be bamboozled by your own terminology. You seem to think that if you define faith as belief based on no evidence and science as evidenced based investigation that the latter can say nothing about the former as if this logically follows from the definitions alone. It doesn’t. And it turns out that science has a great deal to say about both faith based conclusions and the nature of faith itself.

Numbers writes:

I again think I have adequately explained my position.

You have yet to cite a “matter of faith” that science must stay silent upon.

Numbers writes:

If one believes that frog gods bring the rains. That is there business. I can not show them through applying science one does not exist.

We can show through science that a frog god is very unlikely to be the cause of rain. We can fill that gap in human knowledge. Whether those confronted with the facts choose to relinquish their faith based beliefs in the face of evidence is, as you say, up to them.

But if, as is so often the case, those who take the faith based option insist that their belief is evidenced or that the evidence based conclusion is no more or less valid than their own – I will argue with them.

Numbers writes:

But faith in something does not require one seek out these facts. All it requires is one believe. Why would they?

Perhaps they are delusional? What ever it is it flies in the face of science. It is hardly worth getting your panties in a wad over.

My panties are wad free I am glad to say. But as above – I have no issue with those who choose to have faith per se. My arguments are with those who assert that their faith based beliefs are evidenced or as valid as scientific conclusions in some way.

Numbers writes:

And if by chance those religious beliefs are in someway harmful of course scientist must educate.

How do we decide what is “harmful”? Is teaching creationism in schools “harmful”?

Numbers writes:

Face it you look for arguments and when you find a thread you pull it to see where it leads.

Guilty as charged.

Numbers writes:

You have no argument sir.

I have lots of them.

Numbers writes:

And I appreciate your queries because they do cause me to further examine my own statements.

That is the idea. Aside from my own entertainment that is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 10:27 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 2:08 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 47 of 72 (591047)
11-11-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 12:34 PM


Re: Straggler can not be silent on matters concerning frogs
Numbers writes:

My statement is that science is silent on matters of faith.

And yet you cannot name one of these "matters of faith" on which science is silent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 12:34 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 48 of 72 (591048)
11-11-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 12:34 PM


Re: Straggler can not be silent on matters concerning frogs
It was a tounge in cheek statement that ballooned into a argument.

Argument? No. This is a discussion/debate board and you made a claim that you no longer wish to discuss. Given the nature of this board, your statement raised substantial, warranted ire. The first thing that I thought when I read it was "that's funny, because people of faith sure seem to want to muck about with science" but you want science to leave your faith alone. Surely you can see why it was brought to light......


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 12:34 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 2:58 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2841
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 49 of 72 (591055)
11-11-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Straggler
11-11-2010 1:27 PM


Re: Faith
Straggler writes:

Whether those confronted with the facts choose to relinquish their faith based beliefs in the face of evidence is, as you say, up to them.[

Precisely, and in such case science would have nothing to say about it. Hmmm where did I hear that before??
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 11-11-2010 1:27 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Straggler, posted 11-11-2010 2:12 PM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 52 by Stephen Push, posted 11-11-2010 3:05 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 50 of 72 (591056)
11-11-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 2:08 PM


Re: Faith
Straggler writes:

Whether those confronted with the facts choose to relinquish their faith based beliefs in the face of evidence is, as you say, up to them.

Precisely, and in such case science would have nothing to say about it.

Not at all. Science would say that they are almost certainly wrong in their conclusions and that the faith based foundation of their beliefs is demonstrably unreliable.

Are you familiar with the topics discussed here at EvC at all..........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 2:08 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 3:06 PM Straggler has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2841
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 51 of 72 (591068)
11-11-2010 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by hooah212002
11-11-2010 1:31 PM


Re: Straggler can not be silent on matters concerning frogs
hooah212002 writes:

This is a discussion/debate board and you made a claim that you no longer wish to discuss.

And yet here I am.
hooah212002 writes:

Given the nature of this board, your statement raised substantial, warranted ire. The first thing that I thought when I read it was "that's funny, because people of faith sure seem to want to muck about with science" but you want science to leave your faith alone. Surely you can see why it was brought to light......

Muck about with science? There are many people of religious faith who are scientist. But there no scientific fields of study that deal with faith in god. Why is that?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by hooah212002, posted 11-11-2010 1:31 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by hooah212002, posted 11-11-2010 3:39 PM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 57 by bluegenes, posted 11-11-2010 4:04 PM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 59 by Stephen Push, posted 11-11-2010 4:28 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 52 of 72 (591070)
11-11-2010 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 2:08 PM


Re: Faith
1.61803 writes:

Precisely, and in such case science would have nothing to say about it.

I think the social sciences would have a lot to say about faith and religion. These phenomena are widespread throughout many cultures and persist even in modern, scientifically advanced societies. Did a predisposition for religious belief evolve in early humans? How and why are religious beliefs transmitted from generation to generation and from culture to culture? What factors account for the rises and declines in religious activitiy that have occurred from time to time? These all seem like valid scientific questions to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 2:08 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 3:26 PM Stephen Push has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2841
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 53 of 72 (591072)
11-11-2010 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Straggler
11-11-2010 2:12 PM


Re: Faith
Straggler writes:

Not at all. Science would say that they are almost certainly wrong in their conclusions and that the faith based foundation of their beliefs is demonstrably unreliable.


Can you show me some reliable scientific evidence that people who believe in a god, or gods are wrong for doing so? That their conclusions based on nothing more than faith are scientifically disproved?

Are you familiar with the topics discussed here at EvC at all..........
yes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Straggler, posted 11-11-2010 2:12 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 11-12-2010 1:30 PM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 11-12-2010 4:21 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2841
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 54 of 72 (591076)
11-11-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Stephen Push
11-11-2010 3:05 PM


Re: Faith
Stephan Push writes:

I think the social sciences would have a lot to say about faith and religion.

ok you got me on that one.
But I feel it is more of a matter that the research of a social scientist could show from whence these practices came etc.. but not whether or not the individual who believes such things is delusional. It can be shown through a PET scan what regions of the brain light up that produce the feeling of euphoria in religious prayer. But the scan does not show the prayer, nor does it show from whence it is propagated.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Stephen Push, posted 11-11-2010 3:05 PM Stephen Push has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 55 of 72 (591081)
11-11-2010 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 2:58 PM


Re: Straggler can not be silent on matters concerning frogs
There's this phenomena called "creationism". Perhaps you are familiar with it? Sometimes it is referred to as Intelligent Design.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 2:58 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 3:45 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2841
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 56 of 72 (591083)
11-11-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by hooah212002
11-11-2010 3:39 PM


Re: Straggler can not be silent on matters concerning frogs
hooah212002 writes:

There's this phenomena called "creationism". Perhaps you are familiar with it? Sometimes it is referred to as Intelligent Design.

aka psuedo sciences. Why? because real science deals with things that can be verified. You can not verify faith. You can call it bullshit, but that is not science is it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by hooah212002, posted 11-11-2010 3:39 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 649 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 57 of 72 (591088)
11-11-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 2:58 PM


1.61803 writes:

But there no scientific fields of study that deal with faith in god.

Psychology, neurology, anthropology and psychiatry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 2:58 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 4:15 PM bluegenes has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2841
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 58 of 72 (591092)
11-11-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by bluegenes
11-11-2010 4:04 PM


And these scientific fields of study have what to say about faith?
How is faith in something like the prophet Mohammad accending into heaven have anything to do with these sciences?
Granted I do not know. I know a psycologist and will ask him if his field of study deals with faith in god. I would assume it also deals with faith in monsters under the bed too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by bluegenes, posted 11-11-2010 4:04 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 11-11-2010 4:33 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 59 of 72 (591094)
11-11-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 2:58 PM


Re: Straggler can not be silent on matters concerning frogs
1.61803 writes:

But there no scientific fields of study that deal with faith in god. Why is that?

I'm not aware of any scientific field that deals exclusively with faith in god, but several scientific fields deal with it in a broader context. Anthropology deals with faith in god as part of its investigation of human cultures. Some sociologists study comparative religions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 2:58 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 4:49 PM Stephen Push has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 649 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 60 of 72 (591095)
11-11-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 4:15 PM


No "proofs" please!
1.61803 writes:

And these scientific fields of study have what to say about faith?

Those fields will study any aspect of human behaviour and beliefs. It's not what they say at the moment that's important, but you were saying, for some reason, that science shouldn't study religious faith.

Religion is a real phenomenon, and there is nothing real that science won't or can't study.

Studies related to the human mind, like that mind itself, are very complex, and it will be a long time, I predict, until we have a clear understanding of what religions are, why people believe in them, and what role they play in society.

Don't make the mistake that this is to do with "disproving" your particular faith or anyone else's. A good scientist would certainly not claim to be able to do that at this point in time, and very little of such scientific research has to do with conclusive "proofs" of anything anyway.

Proofs are for mathematics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 4:15 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by 1.61803, posted 11-12-2010 2:50 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019