Phat writes:
Rahvin writes:
If one values a rational outlook on how the world actually works, then skepticism is a necessity.
But how do we know for sure how the world actually works?
We don't. That's exactly why skepticism is a constant, ongoing necessity. Even the things we think we know could be wrong.
Why is faith, despite lack of support, an outdated concept?
It's not outdated... sort of. We just now understand where it's benefits are and it's negatives. Faith can be a fantastic tool for providing hope and motivation for certain people. This hasn't changed and is not outdated. We do know that other ideas exist to provide hope and motivation equally well (and possibly better for certain people), but this doesn't make Faith an outdated concept in this arena, just one of many.
However, we do now understand that Faith is particularly weak when attempting to work out the truth of how reality works. When considering this aspect, Faith is extremely outdated because it just doesn't work, at all.
Phat writes:
Must we assume that everything than cant be tested does not exist?
Mod's answer:
Modulous writes:
No, the key thing is that we "mustn't" assume that something that can't be tested does exist.
I just want to make sure that Mod's answer is clear here because this is a very large, ongoing issue in the misunderstanding to the application of reason and skepticism.
There are three main divisions (to keep this simple):
1. Known to exist (strictly reality)
2. Known to not exist (strictly imagination)
3. Unknown (imagination that could possibly be reality, but nothing points in that direction yet)
The "unknown" certainly ranges from "likely to exist" to "unlikely to exist"... but that's a topic for another thread.
Your question seems to assume that reason and skepticism says Faith related ideas are specifically, 100%, completely restricted to the "known to not exist" area, without any consideration. This isn't true, and it is the misunderstanding that fundamentalists love to exploit as much as they can... even to the point of lying about it. However, as Mod's answer point's out, this isn't true. The fact is that when we apply reason and skepticism, Faith related things are only 100% restricted from entering the "known to exist" area. That is not the same as specifically stating that Faith is known to not exist, but it is something that is obviously uncontestable.
By definition, if something taken on Faith was actually known to exist, it would no longer be Faith. It would be fact.
The highest priority of reason and skepticism is to make as clear a distinction as possible from "known to exist" and everything else.
Edited by Stile, : I'll edit you.
™ Version 4.2
