Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is personal faith a debatable topic?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 3 of 85 (562859)
06-02-2010 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hooah212002
06-02-2010 4:45 AM


The Mean, The Dishonest, and the expensive
Faith has two morphing definitions.
1. An unquestionable position: If you dare question it, you are questioning their faith, which is a social sin second only to matricide.
2. Trust. The Royal Society's motto is {translated} "Take noone's word for it". I think a few universities have adopted it too. Religious Faith in this meaning would have the motto "Take those guy's word for it."
My question is this: is it possible to successfully and honestly debate someones faith when it so obviously intermingles with matters that can be proven via evidence?
Depends on what you mean by succesful.
If it's an unquestionable position then you won't succesfully persuade them. Not without going through a long period of offending their deepest conscience in the process. Is that a success?
If it is "I take these guy's word for it.", you might at least be able to get the concession that without taking those guys words for it, the account wouldn't hold up in court any better than any other story with conventiently unfalsifiable supernatural elements in it.
Unfortunately: Creationists tend to have 'faith' that god was respsonsible for life and that a fear that if one starts allowing the creation account to be diluted, everything else threatens to be washed over. So good luck with that.
For the sake of this discussion, we shall assume that the individual is fairly open minded, just a bit mis-guided and happily ignorant.
You could tell her you saw a flying hippopotamus farting rainbows or that the CIA have infilitrated her computer and are reading all of her files. If she questions you, remind her that she took some dead jews word for it that a walking talking snake set off a chain of events that would lead to labour pains.
That might be an interesting place to start on a discussion into when skepticism is actually appropriate.
If she fell for snake oil once, I suppose you could be cynical and try to 'con' her into theistic evolution. Kenneth Miller might be a way to go here (though if she thinks Catholics have cooties, that might again be counterproductive). But that probably betrays the 'honesty' part.
You could do something crazy: Have her take a Biblical Scholar seminar. The kind of thing Pastors go on. Not the propaganda stuff, but the raw information about the Middle East and the culture and knowledge about the Bible itself and what is known about the authors. The really open minded type would be up for it, and will almost certainly find themselves altering their simplistic vision of religion if not abandoning altogether.
This has been written over the course of several hours, with frequent interruption so if it doesn't make coherent sense...sorry.
Edited by Modulous, : it didn't make coherent sense. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hooah212002, posted 06-02-2010 4:45 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 06-02-2010 8:17 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 48 of 85 (563396)
06-04-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hawkins
06-04-2010 5:19 AM


Truth is evidence independent. Evidence is for a human brain (or rather human belief system) to recognise a truth
More accurately perhaps, if something is true then then it would imply certain things. If those things are observed that that gives us a little more confidence that the something is true. It's a little more complicated than that, but I think it is a bit better than your wording.
Now assuming that you've met with God personally and are 100% sure about His existence, and how will you be able to show others that it is true that God exists?!?!?! You will find that there's not any efficient way for such a kind of truth to be conveyed among humans.
Your personal conviction, as you point out, is not always sufficient grounds to persuade somebody else. After all, humans have a lot of convictions many of which have been shown to be false.
The question is - is there any reasonable discussion to be had with a person who believes their personal conviction is special (aka faith)? Or do they just say 'it's my personal conviction that it is true and that is all that matters', effectively shutting down any discussion.
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.
Sounds a bit odd. On the one hand he gives empirical proof to some people (I would call, meeting God personally to be empirical proof) but not others? Why can he not simply meet with everybody on their sixteenth birthday? That way, it'd still require that we trust that he is god and not a powerful alien (so faith would still exist) - but he would be able to differentiate himself from a random hallucination/epileptic episode/stroke/numinous experience/etc.
And that way we'd all know to what we are referring when we use the word God. We mean the entity responsible for the sixteenth birthday meeting. Why does he seem to visit people and give them different stories (Islam, Sikhism etc)?
If someone has faith that they met Allah and Muhammed - do you think it is possible to have any form of debate, meeting of the minds, constructive discussion with regards to it? Or do you feel they would simply stick to their guns about their personal conviction that the Koran is the Word of God?

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 76 by Hawkins, posted 06-10-2010 5:11 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 77 of 85 (564370)
06-10-2010 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hawkins
06-10-2010 5:11 AM


What is the black hole to the stone age men? does black gives any thing observed to the stone age men? Or do you mean that black hole doesn't exist in stone age.
I didn't say anything of the sort and you didn't bother to explain how you deduced that the concept of developing a hypothesis and confirming it with observation means that prior to the observation and hypothesis the thing in question didn't exist, from my post.
In the whole history of humanity, we are now perhaps in the 'stone age' as well. We know black hole now, but do we know everything in this universe? Do you observed everything in this unverse? Perhaps you think it a yes while I think it a no.
I'm all for Cancer Research. Think about that.
The good is not everyone needs empirical proof to believe, to them nothing is necessary to be given to persuade him. That's what the "tailor" means. To give out evidence makes a difference from give out proof. That's the point.
So God gives tailored evidence to his audience. He gives nothing to those that started with faith. How is refusing to give empirical evidence to empiricists an example of "tailored evidence to everyone's belief system to allow it to choose to believe "?
It seems to me that you totally miss out what I was trying to say. Quite speechless to me
Yeah, I was trying to address the topic of whether personal faith is something that can be debated. Sorry about that.
Quite speechless to me. People believe whatever they believe but that wouldn't be able to refute that God gives personal experience to those who have faith in Him. Geez, what's that to do with other religions at all.
The question is: Do you think you can have meaningful and constructive discussion with a person that has faith that Muhammed and Allah gave them a personal message or whatever? Is their personal faith something that can be meaningfully or constructively debated?
It seems to me that you are trying to say that because a truth cannot be cleary presented to you such that the truth must not exist?!
No. You made that up from your own personal biases about the kinds of things you think your opponents think. It does not remotely reflect my views.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hawkins, posted 06-10-2010 5:11 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Hawkins, posted 06-14-2010 4:27 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 84 of 85 (564983)
06-14-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Hawkins
06-14-2010 4:27 AM


You don't seem to get my point. So now you realise that black holes did exist in Stone Age, right?
Yep, and in Jurassic too.
Yet humans in stone never found any evidence of the existence of black holes, right?
I think that would be a safe conclusion to reach.
It says, something not evident to humans can still be a truth. Right?
It says that something for which we have not acquired evidence can be true. And that's why I support science research: to acquire the necessary evidence to uncover those things which we didn't know about and add them to the list of things that we can say we now know about.
You think that my point is that 'since there is no evidence it must be false' - but I didn't say that. You made it up. All I said was "if something is true then then it would imply certain things. If those things are observed that that gives us a little more confidence that the something is true."
If I can establish a talk with you, why can't I establish a talk with those believe in Allah?!
Not just talking, obviously. I mean debating of the faith itself. Do you think you can question, argue against, and debate a Muslims faith with any satisfying end?
Or would the Muslim become socially annoyed by your constantly not taking his faith seriously enough to not argue against it?
Or would the debate simply go around in pointless circles for hours?
That's what I am asking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Hawkins, posted 06-14-2010 4:27 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