Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Personal Philosophy
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 6 of 15 (550915)
03-19-2010 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IAmMe77777
03-18-2010 5:39 AM


You see to me, science and faith are one. They are not mutually exclusive. Science should lead to faith, and faith should lead to science. Science cannot explain the important question of life: Why? And faith cannot explain the important question of life: How? One could argue that science explains the question of why with the simple fact that man is a biological organism. We are life and life exists for the same reason all other life exists — to create more life. And certainly faith can offer an explanation for the question of how. The world works the way it works because God ordained it. But both of these explanations are hollow.
To me, science and faith are opposites. Science is knowledge derived from evidence. Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. As to explanations, faith is not an explanation. A belief does not explain anything other than the ability of a person to believe things that can't be shown to exist. The only way you can explain anything is through knowledge, and faith does not lead to knowledge. Science does lead to knowledge. Even worse, beliefs can steer us away from knowledge.
Faith boils down to "I don't know, but it would be really cool if _____ were true, so I will believe that until someone finds the real answer."
Also, if you ask the question "why" you assume that there is a purpose. You first need to show that there is a purpose before asking for an explanation of that purpose. Science also can't explain why Leprechauns wear green, but then why would science need to explain this if no one can demonstrate that Leprechauns exist?
To say man is nothing more than an animal and biological organism is to deny empirical evidence to the contrary. For evidence, I offer the fact of Man ceasing to evolve.
Every person born has between 100 and 200 mutations. Man has not stopped evolving. Also, you assume that there is something man could be other than a natural biological organism. Do you have any empirical evidence that man can be something other than a natural biological organism?
First, we no longer practice random mating which is a prerequisite for natural selection.
You do know that sexual selection is part of natural selection, do you not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-18-2010 5:39 AM IAmMe77777 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Flyer75, posted 03-19-2010 4:42 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 9 of 15 (550931)
03-19-2010 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Flyer75
03-19-2010 4:42 PM


My question then is this: can you please provide scientific proof as to what started all this? How and when did life begin? I want proof of this and what you believe. Scientific proof. I want to be shown what started the evolutionary process. If you can show me this, I may be on my way to being an evolutionist.
I don't know how this universe started or how life started. However, not knowing does not make unevidenced beliefs (i.e. faith) true. It just simply means we don't know. Even more importantly, the most exciting things in science are the things we don't know about. I find that those who base their outlook on faith are afraid of the unknown.
To use an oft repeated analogy, thousands of years ago no one knew how lightning was produced. There were many beliefs as to how lightning was produced, and many of those beliefs were centered around supernatural beings. Over time we gained knowledge of how lightning is produced, and none of that knowledge was gained through the faith based beliefs that were around prior to us gaining this knowledge. Faith based beliefs are God of the Gaps arguments, a fantasy world supported by the wants of the individual, not by the reality of the natural world. Some think that where we are ignorant or lack knowledge that faith can supply an explanation. I can only conclude that faith is well camoflaged ignorance, that "faith is gullibility misrepresented as a virtue" (a poster at christianforums used this line a lot but I can't think of the posters name--I didn't want to take credit for it).
I have asked this question elsewhere, and it seems to fit here. Can you cite one example where belief has led directly to knowledge?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Flyer75, posted 03-19-2010 4:42 PM Flyer75 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