Theist --> Atheist Text - Physics Forums Library

Moridin

Nov16-07, 05:34 PM

You can't defeat faith with logic when the logic is based on faith. As you said, to you science is a religion.

That was a tricky argument, but it is generally an equivocation fallacy.

Belief
1. conviction (and/or)
2. accept things as true in the absence of evidence

conviction =/= accept things in as true in the absence of evidence

"I believe in democracy" is a conviction, but does not require that you accept thing in the absence of evidence. Then a claim that tries to equate 'belief in democracy' (evidence-based conviction) with belief in, say, the supernatural (conviction in the absence of evidence) is not that valid. Semantics, I guess.

Some characteristics of religion is:

- belief in supernatural beings
- sacred versus profane objects, places and times
- rituals dealing with the sacred versus profane objects, places and times
- moral code with supernatural origin
- religious 'feeling'
- some type of prayer / communication with the supernatural

etc.

I do not quite see how science (or indeed the OP:s thoughts on it; pretty sure it was metaphorical) constitutes a religion.

Oh yes, not to forget that God is not a subject of science.

Indeed. Providing alternative scientific explanations to phenomena that is claimed as supernatural, however, is.

Why do people think they have to give up a belief in God to believe in science and vice versa?

It is an interesting question. I do not think it is just because of a belief in a deity per se, but more with the extra luggage, for a lack of a better term, that usually comes with it (like religious doctrines). I think the problem that lead some people to that dichotomy is that science often is corrosive to religious doctrines (or any other supernatural belief for that matter) about the nature of the Universe.

A joining of the philosophical / metaphysical underpinnings of both science and theism usually requires at least some degree of bifurcation and I guess some people cannot handle it as well as others who do.

Moridin

Nov16-07, 05:37 PM

I liked the thesis from the movie Contact: Science and religion both seek truth.

I am inclined towards that as well, but what happens when those two attempts collide?

Ivan Seeking

Nov16-07, 05:42 PM

I am inclined towards that as well, but what happens when those two attempts collide?

We grow.

Ivan Seeking

Nov16-07, 05:45 PM

"I believe in democracy" is a conviction, but does not require that you accept thing in the absence of evidence. Then a claim that tries to equate 'belief in democracy' (evidence-based conviction) with belief in, say, the supernatural (conviction in the absence of evidence) is not that valid. Semantics, I guess.

However, to reject the God concept is to reject 4000 years of human experience [claims]. That is an act of faith.

Lucretius

Nov16-07, 05:59 PM

However, to reject the God concept is to reject 4000 years of human experience [claims]. That is an act of faith.

But there is no real link between human experience (natural) and the conclusion (supernatural). The logical relationship between experience and God is too weak to be a justifiable reason to call denying the God concept an "act of faith". At best we can conclude that human beings have similar make-ups and are prone to draw similar irrational conclusions when experiencing things.

Take hypnogogic imagery; most humans experience the same sort of imagery and sounds (ones that invoke fear) but it isn't due to the reality of hypnogogic images that the mind creates, it's the fact that humans are social creatures and tend to see (and fear) the same sort of things. I see God as just another example of this. Just like denying the reality of hypnogogic imagery (even though many people experience it), I deny the existence of God.

Moridin

Nov16-07, 06:08 PM

However, to reject the God concept is to reject 4000 years of human experience [claims]. That is an act of faith.

I think that is a mischaracterization of atheism. It simple means a lack of belief in deities. That is like arguing that being a non-astrologer or a non-unicornist is an act of faith.

In fact, a lot can be gained by the scientific study of the natural emergence and evolution of religion. Religion and so on is a lot older and dates back to ancestor worship and natural religions thousands of years earlier. It is also fascinating to see that religions started to pop up into human culture when it did compared to the biological evolution of the brain. At the time, such a vast part of the world was unknown that only an equally or more vast entity could settle the minds of the humans. What would our ancestors have responded to the sunrise, for instance?

An interesting books on religion from an anthropological / evolutionary perspective is Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer.

Garth

Nov17-07, 03:33 AM

Why do people think they have to give up a belief in God to believe in science and vice versa?
Some don't, as here (http://www.thesosc.org/index.html).

Garth

Hurkyl

Nov17-07, 03:54 AM

But there is no real link between human experience (natural) and the conclusion (supernatural). The logical relationship between experience and God is too weak to be a justifiable reason to call denying the God concept an "act of faith". At best we can conclude that human beings have similar make-ups and are prone to draw similar irrational conclusions when experiencing things.

Take hypnogogic imagery; most humans experience the same sort of imagery and sounds (ones that invoke fear) but it isn't due to the reality of hypnogogic images that the mind creates, it's the fact that humans are social creatures and tend to see (and fear) the same sort of things. I see God as just another example of this. Just like denying the reality of hypnogogic imagery (even though many people experience it), I deny the existence of God.
This appears to be an accurate summary of what you wrote:
Some things we see are imaginary. Therefore God is imaginary.
That's not especially persuasive. :tongue:

Ivan Seeking

Nov17-07, 05:29 AM

I think that is a mischaracterization of atheism. It simple means a lack of belief in deities. That is like arguing that being a non-astrologer or a non-unicornist is an act of faith.

In fact, a lot can be gained by the scientific study of the natural emergence and evolution of religion. Religion and so on is a lot older and dates back to ancestor worship and natural religions thousands of years earlier. It is also fascinating to see that religions started to pop up into human culture when it did compared to the biological evolution of the brain. At the time, such a vast part of the world was unknown that only an equally or more vast entity could settle the minds of the humans. What would our ancestors have responded to the sunrise, for instance?

An interesting books on religion from an anthropological / evolutionary perspective is Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer.

Yes, it would seem that God concept is intrinsic, which coincidentally is what many religions tell us. But as for your specific objection:

have often tried to talk to theists about my reasons for dumping the idea of God and found that theists are unaffected by any of these reasons due to the jacket of faith they wear.

So I was responding within the context of the OP. However, to believe in a God or not is to reject the claims of others [and a good part of history], or not, and is still a choice that must be taken on faith.

Brin

Nov17-07, 05:46 AM

Ivan makes a good point:

However, to not believe in a God is to reject the claims of others, which is still a choice.

If I am correct in saying so - to actively deny the existence of God (i.e. make a claim that God does not exist; How do you know a god doesn't exist? You don't.) is just as fallacious as believing in one. However, remaining unsure of the existence of a God isn't a logical fallacy.

What I am saying is, you can't ever reject the experience of others - to do so would be a 'leap in faith,' as Ivan said. So, if your next door neighbor, parents, other family, random forum-goer claim to have had a religious experience, you'd be irrational to claim that what they experienced was not real (You aren't them!). You may of course be able to find 'better explanations,' but most likely it'd be a mistake to even attempt to persuade them.

Yes, this would also mean that if you have a little girl, and she claims she saw a monster in the closet, you'd be mistaken to actively deny her experience as being "real." However, you could provide persuasive evidence against this - "See? There's nothing in here! It's probably just the shadows, or this stack of coats, etc..."

Ivan Seeking

Nov17-07, 05:51 AM

But there is no real link between human experience (natural) and the conclusion (supernatural). The logical relationship between experience and God is too weak to be a justifiable reason to call denying the God concept an "act of faith".

Religion has defined a good part of human history and we have thousands of years of testimonials of divine intervention in human affairs. I hardly consider that weak. And even when we see what some claim to be miracles, such as in cases of the spontaneous remission of incurable diseases, we either ignore or deny the evidence, or we chalk it up to unknown scientific explanations, which is yet another act of faith.

Do you want an example of an alleged modern miracle witnessed by thousands of people? How about the vision at Fatima? Seventy thousand people gathered to witness a promised miracle in the sky, and by official accounts, the miracle occurred as promised and when promised.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=149860

I'm not saying that this was God, but the event is in the historical records. If true, it surely gave many people a concrete reason to believe.

At best we can conclude that human beings have similar make-ups and are prone to draw similar irrational conclusions when experiencing things.

And you think this is the only way that history can be interpreted? That is clearly a leap of faith.

Take hypnogogic imagery; most humans experience the same sort of imagery and sounds (ones that invoke fear) but it isn't due to the reality of hypnogogic images that the mind creates, it's the fact that humans are social creatures and tend to see (and fear) the same sort of things. I see God as just another example of this. Just like denying the reality of hypnogogic imagery (even though many people experience it), I deny the existence of God.

Sure, that is the party line, but all that this says is that we can make mistakes. It doesn't invalidate every human experience that science can't explain.

Ivan Seeking

Nov17-07, 06:50 AM

One last comment: Mostly because of me, this thread is dangerously close to being lockable... if its not already. Please keep this generic and not about any particular religion or beliefs.

Moridin

Nov17-07, 12:33 PM

Some don't, as here (http://www.thesosc.org/index.html).

Garth

Others that attempt to do this is AnswersInGenesis and Institute for Creation Research. Some do better (more pro-science) as you linked to, others do not (less pro-science; anti-science).

However, to believe in a God or not is to reject the claims of others [and a good part of history], or not, and is still a choice that must be taken on faith.

Now you are asserting that belief is a choice? Can you make yourself believe in a given proposition? Let us take an example:

Statement: "Your daughter is being tortured in an English prison".

You probably do not believe this; you may not have a daughter or you may know where she is or that English prisons do not torture people. I assert that you cannot make yourself believe in this proposition because of its contradictions with the facts you have and the lack of evidence?

Atheism is simply skepticism about deities. Skepticism is certainly not a faith-based enterprise. You are probably skeptical about the existence of unicorns or witches. Does that skepticism require faith (to accept something without evidence)? No.

Bertrand Russel had an analogy

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

People have believed in some forms of demons and mystical creatures as long as there have been religions. Do this very fact suggests that demon and mystical creatures exists? Not quite. In fact, it says nothing about their existence or lack thereof. At all. However, it certainly requires no faith at all to be skeptical of those.

A scientific explanation of the abundance of belief in mystical creatures would be that the brain is hardwired to recognize patterns by evolution, even if none are there.

Of course, this does not address the question if they, including deities, really exist in reality, but gives a scientific view of how such belief can have arisen.

Hopefully this was generic enough.

Lucretius

Nov17-07, 02:12 PM

This appears to be an accurate summary of what you wrote:
Some things we see are imaginary. Therefore God is imaginary.
That's not especially persuasive. :tongue:

I think both you and Ivan didn't quite get my point.

My point was not that, because some experiences are invalid that ALL are invalid — it is simply that because some experiences are invalid, other human experiences (when taken alone) cannot be concluded to be evidence for the existence of a given thing. Experiences have to be validated — and while most people don't take the experiential claims of alien existence at face value, I don't take the experiential claims of God-believers at face value either, and (on a very basic level) for the very same reason.

Hurkyl

Nov17-07, 02:15 PM

Atheism is simply skepticism about deities.
In my experience, this watering down of the word "atheism" is fairly recent. Five years ago, I think I had never seen anyone use the word other than to refer to the rejection of deities.

And even if, today, it is correct to label a skeptic as an atheist, it is still fact that many atheists actually do reject God.

People have believed in some forms of demons and mystical creatures as long as there have been religions. Do this very fact suggests that demon and mystical creatures exists? Not quite. In fact, it says nothing about their existence or lack thereof. At all. However, it certainly requires no faith at all to be skeptical of those.
Actually, yes it does. It's neither deductive proof nor scientific evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

A scientific explanation of the abundance of belief in mystical creatures would be that the brain is hardwired to recognize patterns by evolution, even if none are there.
This is not a scientific explanation; it is a hypothesis. It's only a scientific explanation if, y'know, it has scientific proof to back it up. :wink:

Hurkyl

Nov17-07, 02:17 PM

I think both you and Ivan didn't quite get my point.

My point was not that, because some experiences are invalid that ALL are invalid
But you did say that this one is invalid:

I see God as just another example of this. ... I deny the existence of God.

Lucretius

Nov17-07, 02:37 PM

But you did say that this one is invalid:

I suppose my wording should have been a bit clearer. I am just inductively reasoning (myself) that God is another invalid experience, just like hypnogogic imagery. However, my point was not that everyone should follow my lead, and reject the existence of God for that one reason.

My point was that experience alone is not enough to even give credence to the idea that God exists, and that other lines of evidence would be necessary. I reject the existence of God for a lot more reasons than this one.

Crosson

Nov17-07, 03:02 PM

Religion is a form of life, an ungrounded behavior that stems from a primitive reaction. The rules for what counts as a mistake in religious language-games are different from the rules for what counts as a mistake in the science language-game.

Moridin

Nov17-07, 04:47 PM

In my experience, this watering down of the word "atheism" is fairly recent. Five years ago, I think I had never seen anyone use the word other than to refer to the rejection of deities.

And even if, today, it is correct to label a skeptic as an atheist, it is still fact that many atheists actually do reject God.

Indeed, the strong religious forces during the last two millenniums has made their very best effort to polarize the situation, even when no such exist. Still, it is all about basic Greek prefixes. Atheism relates to theism as asymmetry relates to symmetry or acommutativity relates to commutativity. The same has happened to the concept of agnosticism. Due to the influence of religion it is generally though of as a denial of knowledge, even though it is simple the lack of knowledge about deities.

Also, rejecting something does not mean embracing its antithesis. Rejecting the claims of the existence of unicorns does not make you a unicorn denier. It is one of the false dichotomies that religion has tried to pull since the dawn of the entire concept. If we should be extra precise of the definition, it is technically a rejection of theism (belief in god) not deities.

Also, you might be confusing weak atheism on the one hand with strong atheism / antitheism on the other.

Actually, yes it does. It's neither deductive proof nor scientific evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

No, since it is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum).

This is not a scientific explanation; it is a hypothesis. It's only a scientific explanation if, y'know, it has scientific proof to back it up.

It actually has scientific evidence, believe it or not.

Faces and patterns are very important to humans and all other animals from an evolutionary perspective. It is the way we recognize our group and what is strange. When it comes to errors in pattern recognizing, we can either detect a pattern that isn't really there, or fail to detect a real pattern. To recognize a false pattern will make you loose some energy (at most) with the chance to discover something you can benefit from, whereas the act of not recognizing a pattern that exists can be potentially fatal. This is why, for instance, you are more likely to mistake a shadow for a burglar, than the other way around. Evolution has selected from "superstition". The same mechanism is responsible for the man in the moon, the faces on mars, the religious iconography (virgin Mary on a cheese sandwich, the nun-bun etc.), wearing a lucky shirt during the playoffs, rituals when playing slot machines and so on.

Controlled experiments have also been done to test this. Two groups of people where allowed to play a computer game (one of which rewarded the player in a pattern, the other at random). Both groups claimed that they where given points by a pattern.

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001554.php?page=1

Skinners pigeons is also a classic example of this:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/

In the ancient world, there was so much that was unexplained and 'purpose' was usually assigned to nature. King Xerxes I of Peria, for instance, sentenced the water to 300 lashes for destroying his pontoon bridge (the ocean was though of as a malevolent force back then).

The evolution of religion / superstition unites a wide range of observations.

Hurkyl

Nov17-07, 05:10 PM

I suppose my wording should have been a bit clearer. I am just inductively reasoning (myself) that God is another invalid experience, just like hypnogogic imagery. However, my point was not that everyone should follow my lead, and reject the existence of God for that one reason.

My point was that experience alone is not enough to even give credence to the idea that God exists, and that other lines of evidence would be necessary. I reject the existence of God for a lot more reasons than this one.
The form of argument is invalid1 -- the possibility of mass delusion is not a sufficient reason to deny any anything. The argument is only reasonable when you already have a very strong a priori belief that the masses did not see what they claim to have seen.

1: unless, of course, you're in the habit of assuming everything is a figment of the imagination.

Hurkyl

Nov17-07, 05:23 PM

Indeed, the strong religious forces during the last two millenniums has made their very best effort to polarize the situation, even when no such exist. Still, it is all about basic Greek prefixes.
Greek prefixes aren't the ultimate authority on the meaning of words. :tongue:

Also, rejecting something does not mean embracing its antithesis. Rejecting the claims of the existence of unicorns does not make you a unicorn denier.
But rejecting something does mean embracing its negation. Rejecting the existence of unicorns makes you a unicorn denier.

No, since it is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum).
Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive proof nor scientific evidence. But it is evidence nonetheless. (Hrm, didn't I already say that? :uhh:)

It actually has scientific evidence, believe it or not.
I'm quite familiar with experiments that suggest people seek patterns where there are none. But that's a very long way from being able to assert that this is the cause of belief in mystical creatures.

Moridin

Nov17-07, 05:36 PM

But rejecting something does mean embracing its negation. Rejecting the existence of unicorns makes you a unicorn denier.

Rejecting the claims of the existence of unicorns does not make you a unicorn denier (only in a world of (false) dichotomies). There are plenty of positions that reject claims of unicorns, but do not assert the nonexistence of unicorns, such as agnosticism, unicornal noncognitivism, ignosticism, skepticism etc.

Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive proof nor scientific evidence. But it is evidence nonetheless. (Hrm, didn't I already say that? )

How can it be evidence if it is a logical fallacy (unless you are a postmodernist)?

Hurkyl

Nov17-07, 05:46 PM

Rejecting the claims of the existence of unicorns does not make you a unicorn denier
Yes, but rejecting the existence of unicorns does. Lots of people really do reject the existence of God -- we have at least one in this very thread. :tongue: (Lucretius)

How can it be evidence if it is a logical fallacy (unless you are a postmodernist)?
Since I presume that you are not insisting upon strict rationalism, I cannot make sense of this question.

Lucretius

Nov17-07, 05:53 PM

The form of argument is invalid1 -- the possibility of mass delusion is not a sufficient reason to deny any anything. The argument is only reasonable when you already have a very strong a priori belief that the masses did not see what they claim to have seen.

1: unless, of course, you're in the habit of assuming everything is a figment of the imagination.

If you want to get into strict logical statements, population-based arguments are invalid as well. As I stated earlier, reasoning from natural experience to supernatural existence is invalid because there is no logical correlation between natural and supernatural. These are two entirely different "realms" of being (if supernatural can be called a state of being). Your premise does not support your conclusion.

Besides, it appears as if you are altering my statement. I again, am not saying because the populus can be deluded, that anything I don't agree with is a product of mass delusion. I am saying that experience alone is not enough evidence to conclude that a God exists because, similarly, experience alone can verify the existence of alien encounters and other absurd things. I am only saying that it must be verified by other means, experience alone cannot validate the existence of God.

Hurkyl

Nov17-07, 06:07 PM

I am only saying that it must be verified by other means, experience alone cannot validate the existence of God.
You have said more than just that.

I deny the existence of God.
I am just inductively reasoning (myself) that God is another invalid experience

Lucretius

Nov17-07, 06:59 PM

You have said more than just that.

Hurkyl,

I as a person deny that God exists — the two statements you quoted me on are true. However, they are not part of my argument that I am making here. The argument I am making here is simple, and I've stated it time and time again: experience alone is not enough of a justification to demonstrate the existence of God.

I do believe things that I have not chosen to lay out entirely here in argument form. There are many arguments that I base my nonbelief on. This is just one of them. I didn't tell you all of them — but still told you my personal conclusion — that I don't believe in a God.

The entire point of my post, and subsequent posts, have been to show the flaw in Ivan's reasoning: that because lots of people claim to experience God, that he is somehow more reasonable to believe in than before. I sought to show the lack of a link between the supernatural and the natural, and I believe that lack is present by definition. Thus my point was demonstrated. That is all.

Thrice

Nov17-07, 07:07 PM

What's this? Save us from teh religious thread, zz!

Pythagorean

Nov18-07, 02:44 AM

depends on how you define God. There are some definition that are not theist, but deist.

Personally, I'm an atheist when it comes to theist gods and an agnostic when it comes to deist gods. The general principal is that theists give their god form and desires and (inevitably) human characteristics; they also have scriptures, prophecies, divinity, etc. A deist doesn't particularly see a god as an entity with a thinking process or a pension for people's moral behavior. Einstein seemed to see god as order and determinism.

I tend to think that if there is such a deist god, it would be the the universe itself, or some fundamental aspect of it. With the lack of 'theory of everything' it's doubtful.

None of this, however, should affect my ability to do science. When I actually do science, it's a more technical process. The discussion of deism seems to have little to do with it, especially the more hands-on type of science I do.

Ivan Seeking

Nov18-07, 06:27 AM

But rejecting something does mean embracing its negation. Rejecting the existence of unicorns makes you a unicorn denier.

Yes, many people seem to argue that there is a choice in addition to A and not-A.

Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive proof nor scientific evidence. But it is evidence nonetheless. (Hrm, didn't I already say that? :uhh:)

So it really becomes a choice as to how we weight the evidence.

There is another option not discussed here. There are many people [including many scientists] who believe that they have direct personal experience with... well, God in the classic Judeo-Christian sense, or however they may think of God, at any rate, they have had some sort of intense spiritual experience. So these people are operating from a different frame of reference. In this sense, not everyone who believes in some concept of God is operating on faith alone. However, what they actually experienced is obviously subject to interpretation - another leap of faith.

Hurkyl

Nov18-07, 06:45 AM

What's this? Save us from teh religious thread, zz!
Actually, very little of this thread is religion specific. I know I, for example, am giving essentially the same arguments I would be giving if the topic was alien abductions, rogue waves, or the Mpemba effect. (For the latter two, I mean if this discussion was happing before they got scientific proof)

There are other philosophical issues that religion tends to spawn, but they haven't come up yet.

Ivan Seeking

Nov18-07, 07:04 AM

There is another concept that I think applies to this discussion. When we talk about faith, what we really mean in most cases is choosing to accept certain things as true even though we may not actually "believe" them to be true. That is to say that there is no such thing as faith without doubt. We learned recently that even Mother Theresa acted as if she "believed" in God, when in fact she spent most of her life plagued with doubts about the presence of God in her life and feelings of guilt because of this. But, in spite of this, she continued to do her life's work. That is fantastic example of faith in the classic Christian tradition. To continue the work today, or not, was a choice that she probably had to make thousands of times.

Moridin

Nov18-07, 09:25 AM

In this sense, not everyone who believes in some concept of God is operating on faith alone. However, what they actually experienced is obviously subject to interpretation - another leap of faith.

Searching for God in the Brain (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7&chanId=sa013&modsrc=most_popular)

I am quite fascinated by the relationship (and/or conflict) between science and religion, both presently and historically. I think it requires at least some degree of compartmentalizing (as with any supernaturalistic concept) at least on a methodological plane?

Ivan Seeking

Nov18-07, 10:00 AM

Searching for God in the Brain (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7&chanId=sa013&modsrc=most_popular)

I am quite fascinated by the relationship (and/or conflict) between science and religion, both presently and historically. I think it requires at least some degree of compartmentalizing (as with any supernaturalistic concept) at least on a methodological plane?

The thing is that there can never be certainty either way. So to approach the question for scientific purposes requires accepted methodologies, but as for personal beliefs, ultimately it is a choice. Consider this: If we could say that there is near absolute certainty that all spiritual experiences result from certain types of brain activity, then we must conclude that there is some non-zero chance that our actions in life have some sort of divine signficance. What is the risk to benefit ratio of living as if God exists? Pascal's Wager (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/).

So there is logic in choosing options rejected for conderation by science...esp depending on what possibilities one is willing to accept - a leap of faith no matter what the choice. It does not take an act of faith to recognize the logic.

Very interesting though... and I was not aware of this:
Although a 2005 attempt by Swedish scientists to replicate Persinger’s God helmet findings failed...

Moridin

Nov18-07, 10:30 AM

When it comes to methodologies, I meant that some compartmentalizing would be necessary because it would be hard to (1) apply faith instead of evidence to science and (2) evidence instead of faith in religion (or any other type of supernaturalism)? Surely, a sort of NOMA (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html)-thinking would be necessary?

So there is logic in choosing options rejected for conderation by science...esp depending on what possibilities one is willing to accept - a leap of faith no matter what the choice. It does not take an act of faith to recognize the logic.

I still do not understand how skepticism requires a leap of faith (accepting things without evidence)?

What is the risk to benefit ratio of living as if God exists?

Which one of them?

Pascal was a good scientist, but not such a good philosopher of religion. Pascal's Wager is quite flawed (http://www.religioustolerance.org/pascal_w.htm), but, naturally, the validity or invalidity of Pascal's Wager says nothing about the existence or lack thereof of the supernatural or deities. Objection #2 shows that the situation is more complex than simply P and ~P as you seems to have expressed?

Tony11235

Nov18-07, 11:06 AM

So according to Hurkyl, not believing and lack of belief are the same?

Pascal's Wager? Why assume that such a god would require you to believe in it? Why wouldn't a such a god value being skeptical or value one's need for evidence to even start to believe that something exists?

Hurkyl

Nov18-07, 12:11 PM

So according to Hurkyl, not believing and lack of belief are the same?
Well, according to Englush; "to believe in" and "to have a belief in" are synonyms, aren't they? ...

Tony11235

Nov18-07, 01:00 PM

Well, according to Englush; "to believe in" and "to have a belief in" are synonyms, aren't they? ...

So say I have never heard of this thing that you believe in. Do I not believe in it or do I simply lack (belief or disbelief) in it?

Hurkyl

Nov18-07, 02:26 PM

So say I have never heard of this thing that you believe in. Do I not believe in it or do I simply lack (belief or disbelief) in it?
What does my belief have to do with anything?

Anyways, if you don't know about X (even under a different guise), then obviously you cannot have a belief in X. Just as obviously, you cannot reject X if you don't know what it is.

Moridin

Nov18-07, 02:30 PM

Tony11235

Nov18-07, 02:47 PM

What does my belief have to do with anything?

Anyways, if you don't know about X (even under a different guise), then obviously you cannot have a belief in X. Just as obviously, you cannot reject X if you don't know what it is.

I only meant to use it as an example. All I'm saying is that there is a neutral area, where you don't deny or belief in, but rather lean in either direction as a result of evidence, or lack there of. It can change though.

Lucretius

Nov18-07, 03:44 PM

Moridin

Nov18-07, 04:20 PM

But wait, doesn't it require faith to be skeptical about Pegasus as your path to salvation? :biggrin:

Astronuc

Nov18-07, 07:53 PM

Why do people think they have to give up a belief in God to believe in science and vice versa? Garth gave a good example showing the theism and science are not mutually exclusive.

My father, a minister, encouraged me in my interest and pursuits in science. He accepts evolution are being a rather natural way of things, and cannot see any contradiction. Besides, Charles Darwin, a strong proponent of evolution, was a theist.

This is interesting:
At his father's direction, Charles Darwin started university at 16 in Edinburgh, Scotland as a medical student. He showed little academic interest in medicine and was revolted by the brutality of surgery. He dropped out after two years of study in 1827. His father then sent him to Cambridge University to study theology. It was there that his life's direction took a radical change. He became very interested in the scientific ideas of the geologist Adam Sedgwick and especially the naturalist John Henslow with whom he spent considerable time collecting specimens from the countryside around the university. At this time in his life, Darwin apparently rejected the concept of biological evolution, just as his mentors Sedgwick and Henslow did. However, Darwin had been exposed to the ideas of Lamarck about evolution earlier while he was a student in Edinburgh. . . . http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

Lucretius

Nov18-07, 08:30 PM

Science and the notion of God are not mutually exclusive. However, if the only point of your God is to explain natural phenomena, he becomes more and more unnecessary with more and more discoveries.

Moridin

Nov19-07, 04:09 PM

Besides, Charles Darwin, a strong propoenent of evolution, was a theist.

This is a classical myth that is being perpetuated by all sorts of strange groups. He was actually an agnostic, after his discovery of mechanisms of evolution.

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1)

"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." (p. 304)

"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." (p. 313)

In an 1860 letter to Asa Gray, he wrote:

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol 2 (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1452.2&pageseq=1)

"With respect to the theological view of the question: This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice... On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance." (p. 311)

The Authobiography of Charles Darwin (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=text&pageseq=1)

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

But I was very unwilling to give up my belief;—I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

[...]

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. (p. 86)

Everyone makes mistakes :biggrin:

DaveC426913

Nov19-07, 05:44 PM

I'm not sure why the obvious might have been missed in responding to the OP's claim that s/he needs evidence:

Why does the OP think that s/he is not chock full of his/her own beliefs upon which s/he builds his/her faith in science?

Astronuc

Nov19-07, 07:48 PM

This is a classical myth that is being perpetuated by all sorts of strange groups. He [Charles Darwin] was actually an agnostic, after his discovery of mechanisms of evolution. I know the Unitarians claim him as one of them. I'll have to look into the basis of that claim.

Certainly one is free to change one's mind as one ages, or one's thinking is bound to evolve in the face of new evidence. :biggrin:

LightbulbSun

Nov19-07, 08:12 PM

Dogma vs concept? When I listen to any number of religious leaders speak, it makes my stomach turn, but this is a separate issue from faith.

I liked the thesis from the movie Contact: Science and religion both seek truth.

That's a terrible thesis. Religion seeks to suppress. They could care less about the truth.

Ivan Seeking

Nov19-07, 09:42 PM

Seems like we're straying a bit into ontological statements.

I believe that there is an area inbetween 100% denial and 100% belief (and this is not necessarily 50/50. When I deny the existence of, say Pegasus, it's because I have an idea of what someone has in mind when they say it, and I know that something with those properties is not realized in reality based on my current observations. However, as my observations are subject to change as my life progresses, I cannot say, with 100% certainty, that Pegasus does not exist. Just that it is highly likely that such a being does not exist because I have never observed it or anything like it.

Similarly, God (or any being for that matter) cannot be denied absolutely. The only things that can be denied absolutely are things like triangles with four sides, or square circles — things that by definition make no sense and therefore cannot be known. However, as I have never observed anything like God, nor do I really think it is possible, I can say that God probably does not exist from inductive reasoning.

Again, we are not talking about belief in God but either accepting the claims of others, or not. To say "I don't know" suggests that I do not accept such a claim at this time, but I might be willing to accept it in the future.

As for belief in God, again, what we really mean is acceptance. As I was pointing out about faith, there is no such thing as faith without doubt. In fact this is a common theme in most religions. One of the most notable biblical excerpts is the story of Jesus in the olive garden. The point of the story is that he lost faith. So even by religious teachings, no one has 100% belief, only faith, and by choice.

It is a fallacy to think that all religious "believers" actually believe. Instead, they choose to have faith. I think most people require proof for true belief. Perhaps this is what separates the average "believer" from the fanatics. No rational person can have faith without doubts. According to the bible - the entire basis for Christian faith - this was even true of Jesus.

Ivan Seeking

Nov19-07, 10:02 PM

That's a terrible thesis. Religion seeks to suppress. They could care less about the truth.

That confuses the message with the organizations. There is one defintion in religion that God IS truth. One can argue that some religious people literally worship truth.

I think part of the problem is that only the radical people and religions get the press. There is nothing interesting about someone who quietly prays at night and who by faith tries to be a good person - love your neighbor and your enemy, help the poor, don't steal, don't lie, etc. Pretty boring stuff.

Ivan Seeking

Nov19-07, 10:49 PM

BTW, just to enforce the point that I'm not pushing any particular agenda, if you asked me specifically what I believe about all of this, I couldn't tell you. But I do have a long and strong association with Christianity and spirituality, and I think that because of radical Islam and radical Christianity [which I find to be a contradiction in terms], many people have gotten some very funny ideas about faith. Don't label 100% based on the actions of 10%.

Moridin

Nov20-07, 04:07 AM

Don't label 100% based on the actions of 10%.

I do not think the issue is about people, but what the doctrines and dogmas themselves make people who accepts it fully do. I think that the reason that individuals who practice religious moderation are nice is because of the very fact that they are religious moderates. The new criticism of religion is not about how a few people do bad things and therefore everyone is bad, but about the demonstrated danger of some of the dogmas and doctrines of religion. The religious fundamentalists knowledge of scripture is pretty much unrivaled.

To be honest, I think that religious moderation (or any type of supernatural moderation) is the result of secular knowledge and scriptural leeway, not so much an expression of the 'one true interpretation', but of course, I could be wrong.

Why does the OP think that s/he is not chock full of his/her own beliefs upon which s/he builds his/her faith in science?

I think that the awesomeness of science can be established a posteriori. In the same manner, the potency or lack thereof of religion can as well?

Garth

Nov21-07, 03:05 AM

I know the Unitarians claim him as one of them. I'll have to look into the basis of that claim.
Charles Darwin as a boy was a member, with his mother, of the Shrewsbury Unitarian Church as here (http://darwin.baruch.cuny.edu/biography/shrewsbury/unitarian.html). “Mrs. Darwin was a Unitarian and attended Mr. Case’s chapel, and my father as a little boy went there with his elder sisters. But both he and his brother were christened and intended to belong to the Church of England; and after his early boyhood he seems usually to have gone to church and not to Mr. Case’s. It appears (St. James’s Gazette, December 15, 1883) that a mural tablet has been erected to his memory in the chapel, which is now known as the ‘Free Christian Church.’” [F. Darwin, 1995: 6 fn.]

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 11:57 AM

Trying to stick to the topic, I don't think it's even worth convincing a theist about your agnostic or atheist-like philosophy, not that a philosophy is even needed. I think Sam Harris makes some relevant points in
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

LightbulbSun

Nov21-07, 12:44 PM

Religion has defined a good part of human history and we have thousands of years of testimonials of divine intervention in human affairs.

Appeal to popularity much?

LightbulbSun

Nov21-07, 12:47 PM

Ivan makes a good point:

If I am correct in saying so - to actively deny the existence of God (i.e. make a claim that God does not exist; How do you know a god doesn't exist? You don't.) is just as fallacious as believing in one. However, remaining unsure of the existence of a God isn't a logical fallacy.

First of all, the lack of evidence gives me the confidence to say so. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until something comes up it would be a great leap of faith to say that some deity exists.

And I could just as easily say that denying the existence of the flying spaghetti monster is a logical fallacy. How do you know he doesn't exist?

LightbulbSun

Nov21-07, 12:58 PM

That confuses the message with the organizations. There is one defintion in religion that God IS truth. One can argue that some religious people literally worship truth.

Right. Just because someone says something is truth doesn't make it true. They're going to need evidence in order to further validate it. And for people to deny that we need evidence to validate our conclusions are simply dismissing our experience in nature. Supernatural? If there was such a concept where there was some force above and beyond the universe then humans can't conceive it to begin with. I find it best not to throw out unnecessary gaps like that. Because a supernatural concept would likely need to be derived from something 2xsupernatural.

I think part of the problem is that only the radical people and religions get the press. There is nothing interesting about someone who quietly prays at night and who by faith tries to be a good person - love your neighbor and your enemy, help the poor, don't steal, don't lie, etc. Pretty boring stuff.

And these ways of living are only exclusive to people who pray? Again, I think having faith as some prerequisite for living by a banal moral system to begin with is superfluous.

Hurkyl

Nov21-07, 01:21 PM

Appeal to popularity much?
Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive nor scientific proof, but it is evidence nonetheless. Funny, I'm sure I've said that twice already...

First of all, the lack of evidence gives me the confidence to say so. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until something comes up it would be a great leap of faith to say that some deity exists.
You seem confused: possibly suffering from a false dilemma. "Affirming the existence of a deity" and "denying the existence of a deity" do not exhaust the possibilities here.

Assuming there was no evidence either way, it would be reasonable not to believe a deity exists... but it would be a great leap of faith to believe no deity exists.

If there was such a concept where there was some force above and beyond the universe then humans can't conceive it to begin with.
Your lack of imagination does not imply that everyone else lacks imagination.

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 01:24 PM

Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive nor scientific proof, but it is evidence nonetheless. Funny, I'm sure I've said that twice already...

Why are you making it seem like anecdotal evidence has a place in determining whether something is true or not?

LightbulbSun

Nov21-07, 01:36 PM

Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive nor scientific proof, but it is evidence nonetheless. Funny, I'm sure I've said that twice already...

An isolated event does not construct a new truth.

You seem confused: possibly suffering from a false dilemma. "Affirming the existence of a deity" and "denying the existence of a deity" do not exhaust the possibilities here.

Where is the false dilemma in that?

Assuming there was no evidence either way, it would be reasonable not to believe a deity exists... but it would be a great leap of faith to believe no deity exists.

I just explained that the lack of evidence gives me the confidence to say a deity doesn't exist.

First of all, the lack of evidence gives me the confidence to say so. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until something comes up it would be a great leap of faith to say that some deity exists.

Then you agree with me, but then you say something contradictory. Are you on something?

Your lack of imagination does not imply that everyone else lacks imagination.

This has nothing to do with imagination. It has everything to do with giving an accurate depiction of this concept which humans simply cannot do. We are not above and beyond our confinements in nature.

Moridin

Nov21-07, 02:00 PM

Actually, when it comes to evidence, the absence of evidence can be considered evidence of absence. There are no evidence for astrology and the 'field' have failed to produce anything of relevance for the past hundreds of years that would suggest astrology is true; the same could be argued for other types of supernaturalism.

Trying to stick to the topic, I don't think it's even worth convincing a theist about your agnostic or atheist-like philosophy, not that a philosophy is even needed.

Indeed. The faithful (in any type of supernaturalism; particularly in ghosts etc.) will hardly change their mind that much; isn't that what faith means (accepting something as true in the absence of evidence or even in the face of evidence against their faith)?

DaveC426913

Nov21-07, 02:43 PM

Actually, when it comes to evidence, the absence of evidence can be considered evidence of absence. There are no evidence for astrology and the 'field' have failed to produce anything of relevance for the past hundreds of years that would suggest astrology is true; the same could be argued for other types on naturalism.
I think something to consider here is whether a hypothesis can be falsified. I think it's fairly easy for Astrology to make predictions that can then be falsified, showing that the 'field' is ... (let's be generous) in dire need of modification.

I'm not sure the same thing can be said for the existence of a deity, since it does not predict anything that we can test. (Sure, there are lots of things we might detect - miracles, lightning bolts upon non-believers, etc., but I do not believe most deities do command performances for human experiments.)

Moridin

Nov21-07, 02:52 PM

I think something to consider here is whether a hypothesis can be falsified. I think it's fairly easy for Astrology to make predictions that can then be falsified, showing that the 'field' is ... (let's be generous) in dire need of modification.

I'm not sure the same thing can be said for the existence of a deity, since it does not predict anything that we can test. (Sure, there are lots of things we might detect - miracles, lightning bolts upon non-believers, etc., but I do not believe most deities do command performances for human experiments.)

Indeed, a general deity cannot. However, some versions certainly make testable predictions, at least if one takes the literal approach.

Technically, since astrology is claimed as a supernatural concept, science with its tool of methodological naturalism should not be able to test it, per definition. But it can. I think that just because one claims that an entity or phenomena is supernatural does not necessarily mean that it is, in fact, supernatural or outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Any supernatural concept that yields testable predictions cannot, by definition, be supernatural.

Of course, ad hoc hypothesis will be introduced by the general supernaturalism (such as claims that the "energy" was not "right" for the astrological prediction etc.) making most attempts at falsification useless.

EnumaElish

Nov21-07, 03:44 PM

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 03:48 PM

Why is this thread under Soc. Sci.?

Is Atheism/Theism an inherent, natural, or perhaps proposed subject of social science?

If it is any of these, where are the social science references? And I don't mean philosophy, or religion.

I moved it here based on the idea that we are discussing why people make the choices that they do.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 03:54 PM

Why are you making it seem like anecdotal evidence has a place in determining whether something is true or not?

It can be used to make personal choices. Are you a person or an experiment? Is science a religion or a tool? If you wish to base all belief on only scientific evidence, then that is your choice, but science can never really prove anything, so if all belief requires scientific proof, then you will never believe anything. And since science cannot falsify the existence of a deity, there is no possible resolution here.

As a friend once pointed out: If the heavens opened up and God spoke to him directly, he would simply assume that he is hallucinating. Be it God or a hallucination, to choose either for belief requires a leap of faith.

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 04:03 PM

It can be used to make personal choices. Are you a person or an experiment? Is science a religion or a tool? If you wish to base all belief on only scientific evidence, then that is your choice, but science can never really prove anything, so if all belief requires scientific proof, then you will never believe anything.

As a friend once pointed out: If the heavens opened up and God spoke to him directly, he would simply assume that he is hallucinating. Be it God or a hallucination, to choose either for belief requires a leap of faith.

Personal choices aren't exactly logical choices. And I wasn't under the impression that we were talking about all beliefs, including everyday social beliefs, such as "Are they lying to me? Does she love me?" , which if you try to apply strict scientific reasoning with, you can never decide. Though for cases like what is stated above, I think you can take into account evidence.

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 04:14 PM

As a friend once pointed out: If the heavens opened up and God spoke to him directly, he would simply assume that he is hallucinating. Be it God or a hallucination, to choose either for belief requires a leap of faith.

Your friend can believe whatever he wants to in that case, but it doesn't make a difference to the rest of us. Personal experience (anecdotal evidence) doesn't count. So someone says that God spoke to them. Well there are people that have seen pink elephants. The two are no different.

Moridin

Nov21-07, 04:17 PM

It can be used to make personal choices. Are you a person or an experiment? Is science a religion or a tool? If you wish to base all belief on only scientific evidence, then that is your choice, but science can never really prove anything, so if all belief requires scientific proof, then you will never believe anything. And since science cannot falsify the existence of a deity, there is no possible resolution here.

Science can certainly apply Modus tollens. All that is needed is that science supports the various conclusions about the world, as it should be common knowledge that all truth in science is tentative, becoming more and more correct as time passes. Again, just because a deity is claimed to be supernatural does not make it, per definition, outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

Then it is of course a question between scientific realism and instrumentalism, but I feel that you are still trying to invoke equivocation?

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 04:17 PM

Personal experience (anecdotal evidence) doesn't count.

That is a leap of faith. When your dad or someone close to you tells you something, do you disbelieve until he provides proof?

So someone says that God spoke to them. Well there are people that have seen pink elephants. The two are no different.

How many religions do you see that are based on pink elephants?

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 04:21 PM

That is a leap of faith. When your dad or someone close to you tells you something, do you disbelieve until he provides proof?

How many religions do you see that are based on pink elephants?

That's not the point. The two are personal experiences.

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 04:23 PM

That is a leap of faith. When your dad or someone close to you tells you something, do you disbelieve until he provides proof?

If I didn't know the person, or know him well, I wouldn't. But a family member, you have been receiving evidence your entire life from this person, enough for you to reason that what he or she is saying is probably true.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 04:26 PM

Science can certainly apply Modus tollens. All that is needed is that science supports the various conclusions about the world, as it should be common knowledge that all truth in science is tentative, becoming more and more correct as time passes. Again, just because a deity is claimed to be supernatural does not make it, per definition, outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

Actually, you and I agree on this point. AFAIC, the word "supernatural" has no meaning. If there is a God, then it would be natural. But at this time we have no way to address or test the claims of a deity.

Then it is of course a question between scientific realism and instrumentalism, but I feel that you are still trying to invoke equivocation?

I am saying that you can choose science as a religion, or not. Do you only believe what your mother tells you when she offers scientific proof [for example], or do you make leaps of faith every day?

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 04:32 PM

If I didn't know the person, or know him well, I wouldn't. But a family member, you have been receiving evidence your entire life from this person, enough for you to reason that what he or she is saying is probably true.

So then you don't require scientific proof for everything. What you believe or don't believe is a choice.

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 04:37 PM

So then you don't require scientific proof for everything. What you believe or don't believe is a choice.

Did you miss the "receiving evidence from this person your entire life" part? It's not entirely belief without evidence.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 04:53 PM

Did you miss the "receiving evidence from this person your entire life" part? It's not entirely belief without evidence.

You may have evidence for past claims, but that does not amount to evidence for all claims.

This is like saying that since scientist X has been right before, we should accept all future claims without proof.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 05:02 PM

One point that I suspect is lost on many here is that people do have reasons for their beliefs. People don't believe just because someone said so. They couple the history of religion with their own experiences and feelings. People go to church and pray because they feel that when they do, they can sense the presence of God. For them, this is evidence.

In fact... this is really what evangelicals are trying to tell everyone: Try it, you'll like it.

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 05:07 PM

You may have evidence for past claims, but that does not amount to evidence for all claims.

This is like saying that since scientist X has been right before, we should accept all future claims without proof.

That's not a correct correlation to my example. All I'm saying is that believing what your dad tells you is not all entirely based on faith.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 05:13 PM

That's not a correct correlation to my example. All I'm saying is that believing what your dad tells you is not all entirely based on faith.

Sure it is. In fact you believe him today because you have learned to have faith.

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 05:19 PM

Sure it is. In fact you believe him today because you have learned to have faith.

BUT I wouldn't believe the person had I not received previous evidence from him my entire life. So it's NOT entirely faith based. And besides, even it you decided to call it faith, it's a different type of faith than believing in some god or supernatural being, from which it is almost impossible to measure or receive evidence.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 05:23 PM

BUT I wouldn't believe the person had I not received previous evidence from him my entire life.
That's right; you have learned to have faith. Being right in the past is not a logical test of the accuracy of future statements. This is a judgement that YOU make.

And besides, even it you decided to call it faith, it's a different type of faith than believing in some god or supernatural being.

How would you know? Have you had any religious experiences? If your dad became very religious, would you convert?

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 05:28 PM

That's right; you have learned to have faith. Being right in the past is not a logical test of the accuracy of future statements. This is a judgement that YOU make.

Say when you are young, your parents feed you everyday. It is called inductive reasoning to believing that they might feed you the next day. According to you, it is faith to believe in gravity.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 05:30 PM

Say when you are young, your parents feed you everyday. It is called inductive reasoning to believing that they might feed you the next day. According to you, it is faith to believe in gravity.

We do take gravity on faith. Theories can only be falsified; they cannot be proven true.

I find humans to be less reliable than gravity.

Everyone has a father. Should I believe your father just because you do?

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 05:31 PM

We do take gravity on faith.

Gravity doesn't stop working if you stop having faith in it.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 05:36 PM

Gravity doesn't stop working if you stop having faith in it.

If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 05:37 PM

I should add that gravity doesn't exist [well, not the classic idea]. There is spacetime curvature...that is if spacetime exists. One day we may have have a more sophisticated description of whatever it is.

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 05:42 PM

If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.

So far this god of most people seems to depend on faith. hehe.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 05:44 PM

So far this god of most people seems to depend on faith. hehe.

Not at all. The people depend on faith. According to most beliefs, God was around before there was anyone to have faith.

Explain existence without using faith.

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 05:52 PM

Not at all. The people depend on faith. According to most beliefs, God was around before there was anyone to have faith.

Explain existence without using faith.

Now you're sounding very silly. I think I'll stop here. Believe what you want, I would need better reason.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 05:54 PM

You mean that you ran out of objections, and you know that existence can't be explained.

That's right. It's a choice based on faith either way.

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 05:57 PM

You mean that you ran out of objections, and you know that existence can't be explained.

That's right. It's a choice based on faith either way.

Not at all.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 05:58 PM

Then show me the error in my logic.

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 06:03 PM

Then show me the error in my logic.

We disagree on "everyday faith" and having faith in deities. Not quite the same. A lot of things for which you say you take on faith, you actually receive feedback.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 06:03 PM

What bothers people here is the idea that we are not logically bound as humans to accept only scientific evidence. But, if you think about it, you will certainly conclude that it's not even possible to live this way. We have to make judgements about what we choose to believe every day.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 06:05 PM

We disagree on "everyday faith" and having faith in deities.

How exactly do you define the difference? You have no knowledge of how others obtain their faith.

If you are arguing why you believe the way that you do, that's fine for you but not absolute. I don't mean to interfere with your faith. :biggrin:

Tony11235

Nov21-07, 06:09 PM

There is only a certain degree of rationality that we can maintain as humans, I don't disagree with you there.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 06:11 PM

late edit on my last post:

And we all have different experiences in life.

Another late edit: Like I said, I'm not trying to convert anyone because I wouldn't know what to tell you to believe, but I do understand why people choose to have faith in deities. I have also fallen into the logical trap of the requirement of proof for any belief. People who think they live this way are only deluding themselves. We make leaps of faith every day, and most are based on what we want to believe.

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 07:36 PM

Okay, one more thought that I've been meaning to throw in. This all applies both ways. Very religious people will often get angry when challenged about their beliefs. Clearly this is a fear reaction. They know that no matter how much they talk about belief, ultimately they are making a leap of faith the can't be defended. There is no way to resolve the issue through logic. If you choose to require scientific evidence before being willing to consider a claim, that is your choice. But let's not confuse pink elephants with religion. People make choices based on the sum of their life experiences. And unless a person has been religious and experienced the basis for belief in a deity, then IMO they lack a frame of reference critical to understanding religion.

Doc Al

Nov21-07, 07:48 PM

I like Mark Twain's quip about religious faith: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

And Bertrand Russell's: "We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Ivan Seeking

Nov21-07, 08:10 PM

Russell has faith in his defintion. :biggrin:

Brin

Nov21-07, 08:59 PM

Science itself requires a "leap of faith" - we assume that the universe is constant. Based on what? We use our past experiences as inductive evidence for the future - don't know about you, but that sounds like a "leap of faith."

None the less, it seems to have worked out for us so far.

I'd like to bring up the topic of "The Spaghetti Monster," and Santa Clause. I am going to assume you are all somewhat acquainted with these figures, and I want to know why anyone would not believe in these? Why is a god so much more believable over the existence of the Spaghetti Monster? Or Santa Clause? Especially to any single one individual here...

DaveC426913

Nov21-07, 09:12 PM

Science itself requires a "leap of faith" - we assume that the universe is constant. Based on what? We use our past experiences as inductive evidence for the future - don't know about you, but that sounds like a "leap of faith."
No. The difference is that science as a principle welcomes the opportunity to be wrong.

We assume the universe is the same every where merely because it is the best road to more knowledge. The moment some aspect of that assumption turns out to be false, science as a principle is modify its outdated models.

I'd like to bring up the topic of "The Spaghetti Monster," and Santa Clause. I am going to assume you are all somewhat acquainted with these figures, and I want to know why anyone would not believe in these? Why is a god so much more believable over the existence of the Spaghetti Monster? Or Santa Clause? Especially to any single one individual here...

For the same reason that we follow The Standard Model rather than Mr. Gravity-is-a-Push; there is a preponderance of evidence that points towards The Standard Model, and that is factored in.

As with deities, there is a preponderance of evidence that weighs heavily in favour of God over the FSM.

Note: I am not saying preponderance means it's conclusive or inescapable, I'm just saying that it does point to a good place to put your bets and away from a bad place to put your bets.

Doc Al

Nov21-07, 09:20 PM

For the same reason that we follow The Standard Model rather than Mr. Gravity-is-a-Push; there is a preponderance of evidence that points towards The Standard Model, and that is factored in.

As with deities, there is a preponderance of evidence that weighs heavily in favour of God over the FSM.
What evidence? Popularity and familiarity does not represent evidence. Bad example with the Standard Model, which has oodles of hard-core experimental evidence to back it up.

LightbulbSun

Nov21-07, 09:21 PM

You mean that you ran out of objections, and you know that existence can't be explained.

That's right. It's a choice based on faith either way.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ScienceVFaith.jpg/ScienceVFaith-full.jpg

Debunked.

Now you can choose to ignore all the scientific knowledge that has been incremented over the centuries and it doesn't change a thing. Reality doesn't require you to have faith in it.

Hurkyl

Nov21-07, 09:52 PM

LightbulbSun

Nov21-07, 10:13 PM

So, in your silly science versus faith flowchart... which side are we using if we have the idea
The scientific method can be used to help us explain the universe
and we continue to keep that idea, despite all of the errors it had previously led us to believe?

What errors exactly? Are you creating the strawman claim that science should automatically be omniscient to begin with otherwise it's useless? Religious people use that strawman all the time.

Hurkyl

Nov22-07, 01:15 AM

What errors exactly? Are you creating the strawman claim that science should automatically be omniscient to begin with otherwise it's useless? Religious people use that strawman all the time.
No. I'm making the claim I actually implied. :tongue:

When science runs into problems (e.g. incompatability of GR and QFT), do you even consider the possibility that science itself is the flawed idea? Or do you retain an unwavering faith in science itself, and insist that a new scientific theory will be discovered that doesn't have the known problems?

GleefulNihilism

Nov22-07, 01:34 AM

What that we should give up using a rational, naturalistic attempt to find the secrets of the universe? To ridicule and cast aside that which raises us above the beasts, our ability to be rational and objective?

Hell no.

Plus, Science has built in self-improvement protocalls- flaws are hunted down and cut out daily.

LightbulbSun

Nov22-07, 01:49 AM

No. I'm making the claim I actually implied. :tongue:

When science runs into problems (e.g. incompatability of GR and QFT), do you even consider the possibility that science itself is the flawed idea? Or do you retain an unwavering faith in science itself, and insist that a new scientific theory will be discovered that doesn't have the known problems?

Now why would science be the flawed idea and not the theory being proposed itself? I don't have any unwavering faith. Scientific theories and laws are not meant to be sacrosanct. Look at that flowchart again. Do you see an end on the science side?

Hurkyl

Nov22-07, 02:50 AM

Now why would science be the flawed idea and not the theory being proposed itself?
The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.

I don't have any unwavering faith. Scientific theories and laws are not meant to be sacrosanct. Look at that flowchart again. Do you see an end on the science side?
I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.

The left hand flow chart indeed has no end -- which means there is no provision for the possibility that science itself is flawed. When contradictory evidence appears, you blissfully go back to your "Get an idea" box on the left hand flow chart -- that is the means by which you "keep idea forever".

LightbulbSun

Nov22-07, 11:22 AM

The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.

I don't. There isn't a better methodology than science, and until there is one then why should I consider it?

I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.

I don't. If there's a better methodology that can successfully replace science someday then I will use that methodology instead.

The left hand flow chart indeed has no end -- which means there is no provision for the possibility that science itself is flawed. When contradictory evidence appears, you blissfully go back to your "Get an idea" box on the left hand flow chart -- that is the means by which you "keep idea forever".

That's not necessairly true. Look at the flowchart again. You only go back to "get an idea" if the new evidence can't modify a theory. See how it's a self-correcting process while faith does not need to self-correct itself?

Hurkyl

Nov22-07, 12:04 PM

Now why would science be the flawed idea and not the theory being proposed itself?
The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.
I don't.
There is your faith.

LightbulbSun

Nov22-07, 12:22 PM

There is your faith.

That's not faith. That's recognizing the fact that against all other methodologies that it's the best one, and will be until another methodology can surpass it. As a sports analogy if I say team X was the best team in a particular season because they won it all would you consider that faith or would you simply recognize it as me reasoning that against all other teams they were the only team that fulfilled their goal of winning the championship?

Hurkyl

Nov22-07, 12:29 PM

That's not faith. That's recognizing the fact that against all other methodologies that it's the best one,
Nuh-uh. I'm not letting you squirm out of it that easily.

You said that you don't even consider the possibility that science is flawed. That's not the same thing as simply going along with science because you think it's better than the alternatives.

LightbulbSun

Nov22-07, 12:38 PM

Nuh-uh. I'm not letting you squirm out of it that easily.

You said that you don't even consider the possibility that science is flawed. That's not the same thing as simply going along with science because you think it's better than the alternatives.

You've misinterpreted my quote then. Here's what I said, followed with an exposition.

I don't. There isn't a better methodology than science, and until there is one then why should I consider it?

Exposition

What I meant was against all the other current methodologies it's the best one so science would be the last methodology that I would consider flawed. If a methodology that can successfully surpass science comes along in the future then I can compare what the two methodologies conclude on certain topics and see where science goes awry.

I'm not trying to squirm away from this topic. You just cherry picked my last quote down to two words and then tried to label that as faith.

DaveC426913

Nov22-07, 01:22 PM

I think Hurkyl's point is that, if you don't consider the possibility that science is flawed, then you have no method by which you will examine any other methodologies that come along.

In order to consider alternatives, you must allow that there's a reason to even look at them.

It's a pretty fine point. Seems to me that Hurkyl could say you are hoisted on your own pitard, while you could point out that, with a pitard only three feet tall, it less 'hoisting' you than merely poking you in the belly while you eat your sandwich.

LightbulbSun

Nov22-07, 01:45 PM

I think Hurkyl's point is that, if you don't consider the possibility that science is flawed, then you have no method by which you will examine any other methodologies that come along.

You can only consider it flawed if a better methodology is produced and lets the scientific methodology know where it went awry. This has not come along yet. If it does, I will not deny it's existence and take a look into it. Faith doesn't have that self-correcting mechanism attached to it which was my point. Self-correcting when reasonable to do so is not faith by any stretch of the imagination.

In order to consider alternatives, you must allow that there's a reason to even look at them.

Right. See my post above because I just explained it.

It's a pretty fine point. Seems to me that Hurkyl could say you are hoisted on your own pitard, while you could point out that, with a pitard only three feet tall, it less 'hoisting' you than merely poking you in the belly while you eat your sandwich.

I don't see how his points are fine as he has yet to prove any of the following claims:

1) That science relies on faith.
2) That I'm relying on faith because I use the scientific methodology (which is the best currently out of all the other current methodologies) to explain the universe.

DaveC426913

Nov22-07, 02:05 PM

Question: do you examine other methodologies to see if they are better? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Moridin

Nov22-07, 04:00 PM

Actually, you and I agree on this point. AFAIC, the word "supernatural" has no meaning. If there is a God, then it would be natural. But at this time we have no way to address or test the claims of a deity.

The term supernatural certainly has meaning; it is simply something above nature, or for our intent, above scientific inquiry. It is certainly possible that there are entities above the scope of science or above the natural world. Anything other would almost constitute as scientism. If the Abrahamic deity exists, then it would certainly be supernatural.

We certainly have ways to address and test some claims of the features of certain deities, such as special creation, age of earth and so on.

I am saying that you can choose science as a religion, or not. Do you only believe what your mother tells you when she offers scientific proof [for example], or do you make leaps of faith every day?

I think this is a somewhat fussy statement. An operational definition of religion could be "a social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. (Dennett 2006), even though this is not set in stone. Science would not qualify as a religion.

Another operational cluster definition of religion is worship of the supernatural, sacred versus profane places, times and events, rituals dealing with these, forms of spiritual communication etc. I do not see how science fulfills these, even 'sort of'. You might be confusing religion with strong evidence-based trust?

One point that I suspect is lost on many here is that people do have reasons for their beliefs. People don't believe just because someone said so. They couple the history of religion with their own experiences and feelings. People go to church and pray because they feel that when they do, they can sense the presence of God. For them, this is evidence.

Be so that it may, not all possible deities can be true; some 4 billion people on earth would therefore have a delusion no matter how you put it.

We do take gravity on faith. Theories can only be falsified; they cannot be proven true.

No, you take gravity on evidence. Tons and tons of mutually supporting evidence that you experience every day. You be convicted of the reality of gravity, but you certainly do not accept it without evidence.

No one is claiming that science can prove something beyond truth, but it is all about the evidence. The evidence makes a certain position reasonable and others less reasonable. Just because you cannot prove something to be true does not make it any less approximately correct in its explanatory and prediction power.

If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.

Be so that it may, if it can be shown that religion is a natural construction, any attempts at inference or justification via religion becomes less convincing.

I should add that gravity doesn't exist [well, not the classic idea]. There is spacetime curvature...that is if spacetime exists. One day we may have have a more sophisticated description of whatever it is.

Indeed, GTR makes more accurate predictions than NM, but according to instrumentalism, all that matters is its explanatory and prediction power. That is why we still make use of Newtonian Mechanics today. To my knowledge, the first shuttle that landed on the moon made use of NM, exclusively.

What bothers people here is the idea that we are not logically bound as humans to accept only scientific evidence. But, if you think about it, you will certainly conclude that it's not even possible to live this way. We have to make judgements about what we choose to believe every day.

Not quite - your brain makes constant updates on your life and future based on the available evidence - even if you do not consciously think of it.

Russell has faith in his defintion.

Faith as in conviction; not faith as in blind acceptance without evidence. This is a crucial semantic difference.

When science runs into problems (e.g. incompatability of GR and QFT), do you even consider the possibility that science itself is the flawed idea? Or do you retain an unwavering faith in science itself, and insist that a new scientific theory will be discovered that doesn't have the known problems?
[...]
I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.

The left hand flow chart indeed has no end -- which means there is no provision for the possibility that science itself is flawed. When contradictory evidence appears, you blissfully go back to your "Get an idea" box on the left hand flow chart -- that is the means by which you "keep idea forever".

No faith in science is needed, since methodological naturalism has demonstrated its enormous potency as well as the knowledge gained by it. We can certainly treat science as enormously powerful because of its demonstrated success; the same cannot be said for various types of religion or general supernaturalism.

Discussions on whether the methods of science is valid or not is certainly a big part of science / philosophy of science and is treated with the same approach as scientific theories are. If some part of the philosophy of science is demonstrated to be false or less good as an approximation (such as logical positivism or verficationism), it will be replaced.

You said that you don't even consider the possibility that science is flawed. That's not the same thing as simply going along with science because you think it's better than the alternatives.

We do not need to consider science flawed because of the enormous power of scientific methodology and the massive amount of knowledge gained by it. That is a large plateau to stand on. Naturally, as time goes on new methods, ideas and results will appear; if they are shown to be successful, they will simply incorporate them into science and proceed.

Methodological naturalism has put forward a general challenge to any types of supernaturalism. Today, thousands of years later, none have successfully stepped up to the plate. MN is waiting.

Question: do you examine other methodologies to see if they are better? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Even though this was not directed at me, I will give my thoughts on it.

I think that there are at least 3 questions any form of supernaturalism must address before trying to call the shots:

i. methodology (by what methods are knowledge reached?)
ii. epistemology (what separates, say, a valid revelation from a false and why?)
iii. evidence (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)

Methodological naturalism has two major things going for it; its power and the massive amount of verifiable knowledge that it has discovered. Methodological naturalism have well-defined methodology, epistemology and ideas of evidence.

Naturally, I am always open for attempts to answer these fundamental questions.

LightbulbSun

Nov23-07, 12:49 AM

Question: do you examine other methodologies to see if they are better? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes, I do. And a big part of my criteria is to examine how well each methodology can explain our universe. All the other ones I have examined have fallen flat on their faces in that category.

Ivan Seeking

Nov23-07, 05:47 AM

The term supernatural certainly has meaning; it is simply something above nature, or for our intent, above scientific inquiry.

Do you mean magic? Sorry, I don't believe in magic, and you certainly can't produce any evidence that it exists. It is also a leap of faith to conclude that if a deity exists, it can't be described by science. In fact we have already attempted to do so with Type IV civilizations. It is said that a type IV being would meet our expectations for a deity.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

We certainly have ways to address and test some claims of the features of certain deities, such as special creation, age of earth and so on.

These are indirect tests for a deity. But if your point is that such efforts might produce indirect evidence of a deity, then perhaps that is true.

I think this is a somewhat fussy statement. An operational definition of religion could be "a social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. (Dennett 2006), even though this is not set in stone. Science would not qualify as a religion.

New-agers don't seek any approval. They seek universal harmony and awareness of the divine. There are also religions groups like the Unitarians who make no specific demands for belief.

Here is one definition for religion:
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The point was that one can make a religion out of science. I'm not saying that in itself science qualifies as a religion.

Be so that it may, not all possible deities can be true; some 4 billion people on earth would therefore have a delusion no matter how you put it.

Perhaps the problem is the perception and not the essence of that allegedly perceived.

No, you take gravity on evidence. Tons and tons of mutually supporting evidence that you experience every day. You be convicted of the reality of gravity, but you certainly do not accept it without evidence.

No one is claiming that science can prove something beyond truth, but it is all about the evidence. The evidence makes a certain position reasonable and others less reasonable. Just because you cannot prove something to be true does not make it any less approximately correct in its explanatory and prediction power.

There is no guarantee that gravity will work tomorrow as it did today. We take it on faith based on the history of repeatability. Do we have good reason to have faith? Of course.

Be so that it may, if it can be shown that religion is a natural construction, any attempts at inference or justification via religion becomes less convincing.

I was only pointing out that there are no beliefs that I know of in which the existence of a deity is observer dependent.

Indeed, GTR makes more accurate predictions than NM, but according to instrumentalism, all that matters is its explanatory and prediction power. That is why we still make use of Newtonian Mechanics today. To my knowledge, the first shuttle that landed on the moon made use of NM, exclusively.

However, you know as well as I do that observations can be made that violate our original Newtonian concept of gravity. The point is that our concepts may grow more sophisticated - the day may come when gravity is considered an archaic concept. And in some ways this is already true.

Not quite - your brain makes constant updates on your life and future based on the available evidence - even if you do not consciously think of it.

I have faith that I will survive the day, that my house will be here tonight, that my wife won't leave me, that my father is telling the truth, that the world won't end... We make dozens or even hundreds of little leaps of faith a day... all the way down to having faith in other drivers on the road and that the traffic signals are working properly.

Faith as in conviction; not faith as in blind acceptance without evidence. This is a crucial semantic difference.

Not at all. He [Russell] was completely in error. There is plenty of evidence for a deity, but afaik there is no scientific evidence.

Note also that Twain was making a complete leap of faith. By his defintion, no one has faith in anything real, which is clearly false.

The rest of your responses do not apply to me.

Ivan Seeking

Nov23-07, 05:59 AM

Kristy234

Nov23-07, 06:17 AM

Something else struck me today that was funny [well, at least to me]. It can be argued that people choose religion because they find it to be a model that produces good results. One of the promises made by churches is that faith will improve your life. Millions of people will tell you that this is absolutely true. So in this sense it is a logical choice and not one based only on faith.

i can see what you mean, but can't it also be a logical choice based on some faith. Also, i have a different definition of faith than what has been generally said here. My understanding of faith is that faith is the 'substance of things hoped for' and 'the evidence for things not seen'

Ivan Seeking

Nov23-07, 06:29 AM

Is hope logical? Now there's a question!!!

I will have to stew on this, but for now I can say that we can always justify buying a lottery ticket. As a worst case, I see that as being no different than hoping that 4000 years of history is not all false. Of course a lottery always produces a winner, and faith in a God may not ever pay off, but the idea of having faith in spite of logical long odds certainly applies.

Moridin

Nov23-07, 06:38 AM

Do you mean magic? Sorry, I don't believe in magic, and you certainly can't produce any evidence that it exists. It is also a leap of faith to conclude that if a deity exists, it can't be described by science. In fact we have already attempted to do so with Type IV civilizations. It is said that a type IV being would meet our expectations for a deity.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

So you believe that there is nothing above scientific inquiry? The term supernaturalism is defined as 'above scientific inquiry'. This says nothing about whether supernaturalism actually exists.

Indeed, but it is false to claim the reverse, that magic (or any form of supernaturalism) is distinguishable simply future technology.

There is no guarantee that gravity will work tomorrow as it did today. We take it on faith based on the history of repeatability. Do we have good reason to have faith? Of course.

We can certainly know that gravity will continue to work tomorrow, although not by the application of induction. If gravity failed, we would have all sorts of nasty consequences. As long as there are none of those nasty consequence, we can be sure that gravity will continue to work.

If you have a good reason to have faith, then you do not need faith. We have good reasons to have faith as in a conviction, but not faith as accepting things blindly without evidence.

Perhaps the problem is the perception and not the essence of that allegedly perceived.

Perhaps, but it is impossible to escape the dilemma, all forms of deity worship cannot be correct.

I have faith that I will survive the day, that my house will be here tonight, that my wife won't leave me, that my father is telling the truth, that the world won't end... We make dozens or even hundreds of little leaps of faith a day... all the way down to having faith in other drivers on the road and that the traffic signals are working properly.

I would call it approximate predictions based on the available evidence. If more evidence comes in, your brain updates this prediction.

It can be argued that people choose religion because they find it to be a model that produces good results. One of the promises made by churches is that faith will improve your life. Millions of people will tell you that based on their own experience, this is absolutely true. So in this sense belief is a logical choice and not one based only on a leap of faith.

Indeed, I am sure that religion and faith provide comfort in a world torn apart by religion and faith. Literally hundreds of millions of people have died as a direct result of it as well.

"The fact that a religious man is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that that a drunken man is happier than a sober one" Kipling, I think.

Would being an alcoholic be a logical choice because alcoholics think their drinking improves their life? I am sure that millions of people believe this as well?

Kristy234

Nov23-07, 07:00 AM

"The fact that a religious man is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that that a drunken man is happier than a sober one" Kipling, I think.
Would being an alcoholic be a logical choice because alcoholics think their drinking improves their life? I am sure that millions of people believe this as well?

I can see your point, but people make their choice based on other things than an improved life quality. People also make decisions on what they believe is right, not in the good and bad sense but in what they think is the truth.

Link deleted by Ivan: Please refrain from posting religious links. I am really pushing my luck here but if we all be good the thread will be allowed to continue. We have to stick to the logic and sociological considerations.

mjsd

Nov23-07, 08:07 AM

If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.

Not at all. The people depend on faith. According to most beliefs, God was around before there was anyone to have faith.

Explain existence without using faith.

ah ha, an interesting point.... methink.
The existence of something without any entities asking the question (about the validity of existence) or have any knowledge of the something is a fascinating idea.... well perhaps debatable.

perhaps the term "existence" needs a bit of clarification first before any more meaningful (or perceived to be meaningful within the powers of the human mind) discussion on it and its relation to faith can be constructed.

anyway, I have slightly different idea (which you may say I took a big leap of faith in it in order to construct this argument..well.. we have to start somewhere otherwise we can't go anywhere :rolleyes:), if a duck or a dog invents their brand of science based on their own logical system or simply, let them define what is rational thinking, wouldn't it make human's version of science or logical/rational thinking any more/less important?

And suppose, they don't have the concept about God, simply because their brains can't handle it or whatever, does it then make it meaningless to talk about God ar all?

my point is that human tends to believe that their way of thinking or system of logic is the most proper. And that rational, simply means that human's version of rational, and should not be taken as the universal version of rational. IT is highly possible that there are other more advanced creatures with brain powers far beyond ours who will again see things differently (cf. the duck and dog analogy) and that in their mind all we do/think are absolute B***s***! As a result, the disc