December 25th, 2013, 06:47 PM
I've read a lot from those who side with science and logic who totally reject faith/belief as illogical and irrational, and there's basically no budging their stance. Yet on the other side of the spectrum I've read a lot of people with faith/belief saying that they embrace science and feel it's all part of God's plan and/or that God created the laws of science.
So are logic and faith/belief mutually exclusive? What would be your reasons?
Thanks.
Yes they are mutually exclusive.
On the other hand people have rather remarkable ability to compartmentalize their views and be complete irrational and superstitious with regard to one aspect of their lives, while completely rational in another part. And of course there is overlapping "rational" internal consistencies, often backed by confirmation bias with regard to their faith, which can in turn strengthens that faith, tricks and comforts themselves that their faith is rational.
I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say they were mutually exclusive, but they do certainly seem to be contradictory.
I'd say that logic and faith are as opposite as heads and oranges. Or apples and tails.
I wouldn't lump belief and faith together into single categories. I would say that beliefs are things that everybody has, religious or not. Whereas faith and logic are two of many methods of justification for beliefs. Below is how I use the terms.
Beliefs are the conclusions you reach having rationalised the input given to you, together with your previous knowledge. They are the things that inform your decisions and your view of the world. For example, most people believe that living humans have blood in them, you need air to live and bears can eat you. These happen to be demonstrably true beliefs. Religious beliefs are the same as other beliefs in that they involve the same process in your mind and they also inform your decisions and view of the world. However, they often rely on faith for justification.
Faith is a means of believing something without evidence, or even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I don't have a very high opinion of faith because it is basically an admission that you don't care whether or not a belief is actually true. Also, faith doesn't have to apply exclusively to religious beliefs. There are people out there who have faith that the earth is flat, or hollow, or that we have a large population of extraterrestrial lizard people controlling major world governments.
Logic is a tool to check whether a belief is internally consistant. If you can make a logical connection, that's going to be pretty convincing and solidify your belief. That doesn't necessarily make the belief true, especially if the initial premises of the logical argument are flawed or wrong. There are several religious apologetics that rely on logic to lend them credibility, but they usually fall prey to the "garbage in, garbage out" principle.
They cannot be proven to be mutually exclusive I think, or, maybe it depends on the time of day.
A simple argument would be if praying can calm your nerves to get a task at hand done.
And then what happens is something unbelievably extraordinary, an odds defying event that in reality is nothing more than a remarkable coincidence or happenstance. Of course I'm referring to the so called miracle, where it appears not even the most sophisticated science can explain. It may be all a person of faith needs, confirmation that their logic and reason is beyond reproach. A short trip to the incomprehensible universe from there and as long as you reason that there are things we cannot explain, it is the perfect place to entrench a deity. Trying to get a god out of that realm into the real universe is damn near impossible.
Whatever is going to help you survive could also be a task at hand as well.
I wonder how many believers would say it was a miracle the soldier wasn't killed. He's was probably just lucky but it's this sort of stuff that seems convincing to people who pray for the soldier or know the soldier's prayers were answered. His whole platoon may have been wiped out in a firefight but God for whatever reason decided to spare this guy. Try and logic luck against a firm belief in God. I wonder if luck actually plays a part in a believer's world. Is anything fortunate God's way of smiling on you? Is an unfortunate occurrence God's way of teaching a lesson or as in the case of a death, being called by God to join Him?Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Whatever is going to help you survive could also be a task at hand as well.
I could also be thinking that what is or isn't mutually exclusive outside of a deck of cards can be indeterminate.
Logic and faith can easily go together, because true scientists look for cause and effect, they look for laws that bind things together. Hence many of the great scientists had faith because they intuitively knew their had to be a logicsal rational unseen design or law behind what was seen, or the invisable that was not seen. It is logical to have faith in design because design is seen in laws and everything that has been created.
The problem is that most deny faith because they have been taught that luck and chance designed what is around them, even going to the extreme saying luck and chance luckily designed the laws as well. They putting their faith in luck and chance, to the degree that they close their minds, to design and rational thought.
The argument from design has been debunked many times. See here: An Index to Creationist Claims: CI100-CI199
Laws of nature are not formulas drawn up by a legislator, but a mere summary of the data.
Objects do not act in a particular way because there is a law, but scientists state the 'law' because objects act in that way.
Design can not be debunked, the impossibility of the statistical chance of beneficial mutations, or luck and chance designing the world and worlds can..... but we shall get to that. Design rules, logic rules and rational thought rules as its laws do rule us and everything around us.
In my scientific opinion
Later on the appropriate forum we shall discuss design, but not with one word denials. Design takes a while to study and discern.
Luck and chance faith takes no time to study and learn as all is based merely on luck and chance
The god belief should be mutually exclusive from all other beliefs associated with it. I really don't think anyone wants to hear my 'god is only a belief' speech again. A designer? How in hell can you extrapolate that conclusion from 'I believe in a god'? Designer is a belief as well as everything else connected to theism. If you want to say I believe in a god because I think someone had to design everything then that's fine but let's not jump to God actually being a designer.
The link in my previous post lists several rebuttals to the design argument. It has been debunked.
Concerning the impossibility of statistical chance of beneficial mutations: CB101: Most mutations harmful?
Also debunked.
Words and theories do not debunk reality of design.
You can't change mathematical templates.
Faith in luck and chance is illogical, whereas faith in design is logical and rational and follows the laws of design.
As the link in post #11 demonstrates that the argument from design does not hold, there is no "reality of design".
To continue to argue against "luck and chance", despite the fact that scientific theories do not rely on them, in favor of something that has been debunked many times, is basically rejecting logic.
Presumably they don't allow sharp objects where you're staying, but congratulations on writing that with a crayon.
December 26th, 2013, 12:59 PM
Design is the logical, rational law of what exits. It is based on science and reason and what we know or have found out about the real seen or unseen world. Believing that chaos created the logical rational world is illogical. Its beyond logic and statistics, as every detail of design denies the possibility of luck and chance designing anything.
This thread will prove that laws also called design, have shaped this world, and is what logiccal scientists look for. They do not look to irrational illogical laws that differ each time and are based on luck and chance. Laws are consistent, luck and chance are not.
True scientists study the math, and physics and measurements and ratios and do experiemnts when possible, look at evidences, but do not rely on mere luck and chance theories and religious hope and faith in luck and chance.
Therefore, lets further confirm that design is scientific, luck and chance is not.
Some worship chaos, and some say it is the driving force for order, but its only their religious belief system rather than scientific and rational and logical. They will supposed say, that design doesn;t exist because they prove logically that there is no design, even though that in and of itself would be 'design'
Just a short thread before we go to the Math Forum or the Frequency Forum...I came to go on...
Good to meet you, rational, logical scientic folks.
Thanks for the welcome, Daffy.
And your modus operandi is duly noted.
Since you have repeatedly stated that design is observable and based on science and reason and that none of my counterarguments are correct, the onus is on you.
Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; December 26th, 2013 at 06:37 PM.
But Daffy, if there is a forum on language, and writing, it would be very interesting proving how language and writing came about by design. How Hebrew is alphanumeric, how Greek is alphanumeric, and how writing just appeared. Amazing.... but not on this thread....
Oops, more unsupported claims.
To return to the O.P.:
In my opinion, the concepts "logic" and "faith" are not compatible, based on their definitions.
And Davidjayjordan's splendid example.To return to the O.P.:
In my opinion, the concepts "logic" and "faith" are not compatible, based on their definitions.
Lack of a designed response can never deny design, and a designed first response, and designed creation.
Only a thinker or scientist or design oriented individual can ever add to confirm or try to deny 'DESIGN, Logic and FAITH in design'
But the latter, is impossible as only design confirs design, only the real world further confirms the real world and real world evidence.
Lack of design equates to pure faith and hope and a belief system in pure luck and chance as their response, or one liners as shown above.
Design proves the DESIGNER,
You're either incredibly bad at writing down what you're thinking (e.g. lack of design equates to lack of design, it does NOT equate to, or even imply, "faith") or you're incredibly bad at thinking.
So what?Design proves the DESIGNER,
To believe in the existence of God with no evidence, DEFINES faith. This isn't to say that a person of faith, doesn't have respect for science and scientific reasoning. Many people can separate the two. It is when people of faith/religious people try to put a scientific spin on faith, OR vice versa...try to put a religious/spiritual 'spin' on science, that it becomes a problem. (in my opinion)
...
The history of writing is pretty well understood. One thing that is clear is that, with a small number of exceptions, design doesn't come into it. There is no evidence that language is designed either - and given how illogical it is, that is probably a good thing as it would disprove your "theory".
What do you mean by alphanumeric?How Hebrew is alphanumeric, how Greek is alphanumeric
It didn't "just appear". It evolved.and how writing just appeared.
Why not? It seems you have already dragged this and many other threads off track.but not on this thread....
Letters representing numbers and the addition of those numbers in a word is an alphanumeric language. Sadly I have been warned that I can not post on this sub-board so shall have to stop posting unless you ask the moderator to allow a different point of viewThe history of writing is pretty well understood. One thing that is clear is that, with a small number of exceptions, design doesn't come into it. There is no evidence that language is designed either - and given how illogical it is, that is probably a good thing as it would disprove your "theory".
What do you mean by alphanumeric?How Hebrew is alphanumeric, how Greek is alphanumeric
It didn't "just appear". It evolved.and how writing just appeared.
Why not? It seems you have already dragged this and many other threads off track.but not on this thread....
So you are talking about the crap pseudo-science of numerology? I think we can safely discount everything you have to say, in that case.
No, the responder asked about alphanumeric languages and I responded.
I personnally stay away from it because it is not exact, and is too easily manipulated, but its basis is still there.
I like exact measurements and distances and speeds and times, arther than loose additions that are supposedly only accurate plus or minus one. Not exact enough for me, and YES pseudoscience, in most cases.
Only confirming in the rarest of cases as a confirmation, nothing more in my opinion.
Must go now, see honest researchers on other sub boards, I made a great mistake in coming to this sub-board. I hate religion !!!!
You take an inordinate amount of time to do the things you claim you will do; whether it be providing support for your claims or leaving this forum.
The unfortunate thing is that the word "faith" has been somewhat bastardized in current society. The Biblical use of the word "faith" is in no way related to what people are describing today -- the idea that faith lacks a foundational basis. I think the word "trust" could be substituted for most Bible uses of the word "faith" and that would more accurately capture the concept the Bible writers were attempting to convey.
Largely agree for the Abrahamic faiths, mostly because the Torah, Christine bible, and Koran writers, and vast majority of followers, were not aware of any formal logic or reasoning, not even as developed by Aristotle. Later faithful developers of reason such as Thomas Aquinos and Ibn Rushd were strongly restricted. Other philosophical developers of formal reasoning were often focused on specific areas such as math, or rejected, in some cases both such as happened to Omar Khayam. Followers even today for the most part don't get formal reasoning education until rather late and generally only if they go into a science, law, mathematics or one of their supported fields such as computer science. And regardless of this history, the use of "faith" today, is a lot closer to the idea put forth by Betrand Russell, which expressed something akin to not having to refer to faith where there is evidence than broader idea of trust.
Don't worry Panda, your censors have already struck as they fear design above all other things and they must protect you from thinking cohesively. So go back to sleep Panda... I will be gone and you can rest in peace until meeting the Designer or Creator or your Maker.You take an inordinate amount of time to do the things you claim you will do; whether it be providing support for your claims or leaving this forum.
John 17, Jesus said Its in the doing of His words that one gets faith not in just theorizing about them.
Fiorst hand experience in samll steps of faith give faith that larger ones will again prove to be successful.
But this forum does not allow such freedom to mention the invisable nor the freedom to allow people the right to study design, mathematics, history, physics or chemsitry that the Lord created. Shameful
Tell that to the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Greeks, Norse, Aztecs, etc...John 17, Jesus said Its in the doing of His words that one gets faith not in just theorizing about them.
Fiorst hand experience in samll steps of faith give faith that larger ones will again prove to be successful.
But this forum does not allow such freedom to mention the invisable nor the freedom to allow people the right to study design, mathematics, history, physics or chemsitry that the Lord created. Shameful
Enough preaching and trolling.Don't worry Panda, your censors have already struck as they fear design above all other things and they must protect you from thinking cohesively. So go back to sleep Panda... I will be gone and you can rest in peace until meeting the Designer or Creator or your Maker.You take an inordinate amount of time to do the things you claim you will do; whether it be providing support for your claims or leaving this forum.
That doesn't make sense.
:EDIT:
Never mind.
I suppose what has always struck me as odd in this type of argument is this: If you walked down the street and saw stones on the sidewalk arranged so they spelled out your name, you would know that it was not the result of happenstance. If you see a rock formation that looks like two lizards kissing, you know that is the result of random erosion. When you get into your car, you know it did not evolve right there in your driveway. And when you drive down the street, you know the pavement did not just evolve from the elements that were there before. We generally recognize the difference between that which has occurred naturally and that which has been designed. Of there are two things which point us in the direction of design -- the complexity of the object under scrutiny and the orderliness of the object. And while we can easily understand that the simple idea of stones aligned to spell a name is obviously the result of some intellect arranging them that way, we want to teach that the most complex and orderly systems known to man -- the living cell and the Universe -- are the result of happenstance.
No, you wouldn't know that. At best you could say it was unlikely. With my shortened name (Bill) I could give long but not astronomical odds of a bunch of rocks thrown down forming something that looked like that name.
Right - but that's because you know that it had been built.If you see a rock formation that looks like two lizards kissing, you know that is the result of random erosion. When you get into your car, you know it did not evolve right there in your driveway.
Now take a horse, a once-popular mode of personal transportation. Since they share traits with the species they are closest to, and their DNA is very similar to their closest relatives, it can be demonstrated that they most likely have a recent common ancestor with their cousins (zebras, asses etc.)
But again that's because you know it was laid. If you drove on the Giant's Causeway you would not know that.And when you drive down the street, you know the pavement did not just evolve from the elements that were there before.
No. Snow crystals are very numerous, very complex AND very orderly. The above-mentioned Giant's Causeway is quite ordered. So are tornadoes and hurricanes when viewed from far away. Their order comes from well-understood physical phenomena rather than any intelligence forcing water to freeze into pretty shapes.We generally recognize the difference between that which has occurred naturally and that which has been designed. Of there are two things which point us in the direction of design -- the complexity of the object under scrutiny and the orderliness of the object.
But that's the point - they're not. Take ten stones and throw them down over and over again. Eventually they will arrange themselves in the rough shape of a B due to random chance. Extend that further and eventually 40 stones will spell out "Bill." Might take hundreds of years but eventually you would get it. That's why people are always finding the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast or something - because if run through a random process often enough you get something that looks like any given pattern.And while we can easily understand that the simple idea of stones aligned to spell a name is obviously the result of some intellect arranging them that way
Not "happenstance" - evolution. That is not the same thing as random chance. Indeed, randomness is only one part of what drives evolution.we want to teach that the most complex and orderly systems known to man -- the living cell and the Universe -- are the result of happenstance.
I am not exactly sure that we have a formula for pragmatically differentiating between that which has been designed and that which has occurred naturally. I have never seen one. And, by the way, only and idiot would not recognize that someone had purposely laid out the stones in the form of a name.
A pragmatic formula isn't what is used to differentiate between design and natural processes. Physical evidence and experience are. Each situation is unique. That's not to say that such a formula can't be devised, but I believe it would be incredibly difficult due to variability and complexity.
If every single time you have seen your name is when it has been deliberately written by a person, then it would be fair to assume that the pile of rocks taking the shape of your name has also been deliberately made by a person. Of course, there will be other evidence leading to the truth of the situation, and it should be taken into consideration for your conclusion.
For things like "life" or "the universe", however, you can't really apply experience to your conclusion. There is only 1 sample of life and 1 universe that we know about. We have never observed another sample of life or another universe, let alone one that we know is designed, so to say ours look designed is a huge stretch. All we have in these instances is physical evidence, and all of it so far suggests that these things follow natural processes which occur spontaneously, making a designer unnecessary.
Daecon said:
I agree that it would be incredibly difficult but not quite for the same reason you posit. It would be difficult because we could never agree on the criteria. Those who descry design as an explanation for the Universe and the beginning of life would never accept any criteria which pointed to creative design. While those of a design bent would not accept criteria which did not lead to that conclusion. This, in the face of the fact that we can look at virtually anything and innately recognize whether it is a natural phenomenon or something that was designed. That is, until we come to the Universe and living cells.A pragmatic formula isn't what is used to differentiate between design and natural processes. Physical evidence and experience are. Each situation is unique. That's not to say that such a formula can't be devised, but I believe it would be incredibly difficult due to variability and complexity.
Daecon said:
Well, first of all, I would need no other evidence because I know the chances of this happening by some natural process is so negligible that the odds would put the chances in the realm of impossible. Leaves falling from a tree might provide a process by which this could happen but I still think the odds would calculate out as impossible. I suppose, if the rocks in the bottom of a dry river bed after a flash flood were aligned such that they appeared to spell out a word, I would consider that it was possibly the result of a natural phenomenon, but I would remain highly suspicious that there was some human input.If every single time you have seen your name is when it has been deliberately written by a person, then it would be fair to assume that the pile of rocks taking the shape of your name has also been deliberately made by a person. Of course, there will be other evidence leading to the truth of the situation, and it should be taken into consideration for your conclusion.
Daecon said:Sorry, but I believe I can apply my experience to my conclusion that leans toward design. The living cell is a repository of enough information to fill several libraries. The only source of this kind of information is from some form of intelligence. There are many things which I have never seen or come into contact with which I think I could, with reasonably high accuracy, determine if it were a naturally existing thing or a designed thing. And my bet is that anyone else could do this also.For things like "life" or "the universe", however, you can't really apply experience to your conclusion. There is only 1 sample of life and 1 universe that we know about. We have never observed another sample of life or another universe, let alone one that we know is designed, so to say ours look designed is a huge stretch.
Daecon said:
Necessity is not the criterion which determines the existence of a thing. Meanwhile, many things we thought unnecessary, we later learned were essential -- take, for example, what was formerly considered "junk" DNA. Turns out the "junk" DNA is essential to the development of a living form.All we have in these instances is physical evidence, and all of it so far suggests that these things follow natural processes which occur spontaneously, making a designer unnecessary.
Um... no I didn't.
I'm apparently Daecon, now. Apologies to Daecon, and everyone else, for the wall of text this is becoming.
Not true. Anyone who is interested in discovering the actual truth of a situation will go wherever the evidence leads. If it is designed, so be it, the evidence will lead to that conclusion. So far, none of the evidence has led to that conclusion. And no, nobody can innately recognise design. You use previous experience to determine those things, as I said before. Consider an ordinary rock in the middle of a field. Is it there because it rolled down the nearby hill? Or is it there because someone rolled it there on purpose. You cannot innately tell such a thing.
Common fallacy. Improbable is not equal to impossible. If you base your entire conclusion on probability, you're doing it wrong. Even worse if you're applying probability inappropriately, like to an object you only have a single sample of. This is just another example of our lack of innate knowledge of design.
So you're saying that you do have another example of life with which you can compare ours? Where's your immortal fame and renown in the field of biology? The inner workings of a cell are chemistry, not some ill-defined, nebulous thing you call 'information'. The chemistry is very well understood and all of it works spontaneously. Without another example of life or another universe to compare ours to, this is just an unsubstantiated assertion.
Key words: Reasonably high accuracy. Your gut feeling doesn't count for anything. You can't know what happened without evidence. And, I'm feeling a bit like a broken record now, all of the evidence so far points to life and the universe occurring without design.
And this bit is just one great big misunderstanding. Considering the amount of time you've spent on such a science forum, I'd expect you to know better. "Junk" DNA is a name that popular media gave to non-coding DNA. It doesn't suggest that the biologists ever considered the DNA to be unnecessary. The most you can say about it is that there was a point in time where biologists didn't know what it was for.
Although you're right that necessity doesn't determine existance, it is most certainly strong evidence. Occam's Razor is a useful tool in most situations.
Yes. Exactly that.Pareidolia - RationalWiki
People looked at this
and said: "It was designed by intelligent beings!"
So much for people being able to "innately know" if something is designed.
And, more generally, Apophenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I find faith may be rediscovered through reason, science, logic. And better appreciated so we willingly embrace it, kinda like we take advice from a doctor and make a lifestyle change.
Faith - I mean belief regardless of evidence - is closely related to promises. When one makes a vow, one is setting a course in life that won't change no matter what. It's not something one re-evaluates as the situation unfolds. It's a refusal to reconsider. Keeping promises is not always profitable to the individual. Champions of rationality stress this failing, and easily show how at any moment in time the winning position may be calculated from the latest information. But they ignore the value of individuals maintaining positions within the larger group. The value of this human capacity - to hold a position or carry through a promise though it sometimes seems irrational - it's value to us as families, societies, and as a species is immeasurable. I think it would make sense to have the tendency hard-wired in such a socially interdependent animal as ourselves. Anyway, we can appreciate the larger value of fixed beliefs if we look beyond individualism.
Subtler, is the choosing of life paths one makes in private, to oneself. This is like the social trait above, because a person isn't really of one mind without impulses or second-thoughts. Again, it's a refusal to reconsider. So a weird, uniquely human part of the mind dictates "this is how it is and it won't change" to the other parts of mind. And thus we quit smoking or we keep going to church or whatever it was we resolved on.
The intrinsic value of choosing and doggedly pursuing paths in life is illustrated by the mouse in the maze: the second-worst choice it can make is no choice; the worst choice is to back out of a half-completed route. Because life happens in real-time and no living thing can afford to spend it's life deciding what to do with its life. Perhaps in our lives too it's often better to choose anything than choosing nothing? Then to rise beyond agnosticism, we may employ faith in one way or another. "Faith" itself is no more biased toward any particular choice than "promise" is. Thus faith, ironically, enables strong atheism.
If you take just one thing from the above, take this: Faith is a powerful human capacity pretended to belong to religion.
Sorry about the mixup on whom I was quoting.
Pong said:
I am not sure that religion pretends that it is the only application of faith. Most of the people in this forum have faith in science even though they think it is not faith. Faith as expressed in the Bible is about trust and reliance which is exactly how the materialistic, naturalistic members of this forum feel about science. It is never a question of whether one has faith, but what do they place that faith in. Personally, if trust and rely on both science and God.If you take just one thing from the above, take this: Faith is a powerful human capacity pretended to belong to religion
<strong>Pong said:</strong><br>
<br>
<br>If you take just one thing from the above, take this: Faith is a powerful human capacity pretended to belong to religion
<br>
I am not sure that religion pretends that it is the only application of faith. Most of the people in this forum have faith in science even though they think it is not faith. Faith as expressed in the Bible is about trust and reliance which is exactly how the materialistic, naturalistic members of this forum feel about science. It is never a question of whether one has faith, but what do they place that faith in. Personally, I trust and rely on both science and God.
But that faith is based on the fact it produces useful practical results. The same cannot be said for theology/philosophy.
Designers beget designers. If the universe is designed by an entity known as God then the next question is who designed God? In such a case, the god who designed our universe is a design Himself. He would not be the designer but a tool to complete the design. But of course we could go on and on like this forever. So if one is to suggest that there is only one designer and it is this entity called God then it must be explained just how God came into existence if only to dispel any prior designer's existence. Otherwise the god who designed our universe should never be considered the one true god. I guess I just took a circular journey back to faith, didn't I?
Yeah, but what sort of rationality would you expect from someone who claims to "have faith in science and god"?But that faith is based on the fact it produces useful practical results. The same cannot be said for theology/philosophy.
Zin said:
No, what you did was try to explain in finite, material and natural terms something which is not finite and not material and not natural. This is because you are see only a part of the picture. And, believing that you have the whole picture, you attempt to render meaningless that of which you are unaware. Infinity cannot be defined in finite terms. If it could be so defined, it would not be infinity. That which is not material cannot be defined in material terms; else it would not be non-material. That which is super-natural cannot be defined in natural terms, else it would not be supernatural.Designers beget designers. If the universe is designed by an entity known as God then the next question is who designed God? In such a case, the god who designed our universe is a design Himself. He would not be the designer but a tool to complete the design. But of course we could go on and on like this forever. So if one is to suggest that there is only one designer and it is this entity called God then it must be explained just how God came into existence if only to dispel any prior designer's existence. Otherwise the god who designed our universe should never be considered the one true god. I guess I just took a circular journey back to faith, didn't I?
You cannot even say God is supernatural because all you do is believe He exists.
God is supernatural. Hmmm, I thought you said I could not say that!
You cannot even say God is supernatural because all you do is believe He exists.A retort for the person hampered by his own belief. There's no getting around it Dayton, you need more than a belief, because if you only believe then you are not convinced yourself.
This is why I don't use the word "faith" in that way. It leads to confusion.
I maintain that to have faith is to hold a belief without evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
I may have faith in some beliefs, but it will be purely accidental. If you can show me that there is no evidence, or that I am wrong, then I will change that belief. I will do this because I care whether or not I am actually right. I want to have as many true beliefs and as few false or unsupported beliefs as possible.
Last edited by Karsus; December 28th, 2013 at 10:59 PM. Reason: Speeling
That's not faith, Strange. It's an educated decision, 'cause like you say it's based on evidence. Now, you could harden the position to one of faith, by resolving that no new evidence will change your position. This might actually be wise if you admit the possibility of mental instability, hallucination, simple gullibility, or raw survival instinct like... you know, deathbed grovelling. See faith in itself can have practical use, in real life.But that faith is based on the fact (science) produces useful practical results. The same cannot be said for theology/philosophy.
Karsus, the "faith" I'm talking about is willful belief, like a resolve to hold a position no matter what. This is qualitatively different than degrees of preference. For analogy consider the difference between knowing more-or-less about firefighting, and being a firefighter: the firefighter, regardless of aptitude, is committed and responsible for the building. I suppose all soldiers understand this distinction.
I think likewise. The pretense is where debaters say they're arguing for science against religion, but actually attack faith. Often they're lumped together. The religious side generally plays along by defending the rationality/scientificness of their religious beliefs... so the "argument" effectively collaborates to kick faith back and forth. I feel compelled to intervene because it looks to me like Freethinking - infecting atheists and theists alike - lately trammels social virtues since few moderns know how to restrain Freethought. I don't really care if people worship the supernatural, but I do care when debaters fall over each other to uphold rational preference as the guiding principle we should all live by.
In other works that which if make-believe cannot be defined in natural terms, else it would not be make-believe. That's what it boils down to and why at its core, faith is mutually exclusive to logic and formal reasoning. It doesn't matter if faith was similar to "trust" for early Christians, they rejected or didn't accept Hellenic reasoning and even actively tried to destroy it in some cases, while building their own internally consistent philosophy on a foundation of sand.
Lynx Fox said:What book of fiction did you find this in?they rejected or didn't accept Hellenic reasoning and even actively tried to destroy it in some cases, while building their own internally consistent philosophy on a foundation of sand.
Quite. I was just pointing out that daytonturners argument was a fallacy. (Like pretty much all his arguments. That one was just particularly easy to refute.)That's not faith, Strange.But that faith is based on the fact (science) produces useful practical results. The same cannot be said for theology/philosophy.
Positively, most people in this forum endorse rationality above all so place no serious faith in anything, including science.
I think "faith" to a person of science is faith that the laws of the Universe will be the same tomorrow as they are today.
Previous exchange:
Upon posting this knee jerk response, I got to thinking about it and realize that Lynx Fox' statement has a lot of truth hidden in the disparaging terms and intent. Originally I was put off by the implication that Christianity was trying to "destroy" Hellenistic thinking that riled me along with the non-sequiter part about a foundation of sand.Lynx Fox said:
they rejected or didn't accept Hellenic reasoning and even actively tried to destroy it in some cases, while building their own internally consistent philosophy on a foundation of sand.
What book of fiction did you find this in?
It was not trying to destroy a civilization or even a thinking process. Rather, they (probably more reasonably focused on a him -- Paul) were more attempting to show where Hellenistic reasoning was inappropriately directed.
The thoughts from I Cor. 1 came to mind though I had to look up the verses:
While the reasoning basis may have changed over the nearly 2000 years since Paul wrote this, the problem is essentially the same. Non-believers continue to think they can find God through wisdom and/or knowledge.So what about these wise men, these scholars, these brilliant debaters of this world's great affairs? God has made them all look foolish, and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. For God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and then he stepped in and saved all those who believed his message, which the world calls foolish and silly. It seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven as proof that what is preaches is true; and it is foolish to the Gentiles because they believe only what agrees with their philosophy and seems wise to them." (I Cor. 1:20-22 Living Bible)
Today, non-believers seem to think that if God exists, he should give them a "sign" or that they should be able to prove it through scientific methods. Lynx Fox' claim, transposed into the current day would suggest that Christianity is trying to "destroy" science. And nothing could be further from the truth. We merely attempt to removed the blinders from the eyes of the naturalistic materialists. We attempt to replace the ambivalence of relativism with a solid foundation of basic absolutes. We attempt to counter post-modernism with actual realism.
The situation has not really changed that much other than the bases of and the lengths to which people will go to justify their unwillingness to believe.
Daecon said:
I'm sure the laws of the Universe will be the same until the Universe comes to an end in compliance with its own laws. The question is not whether the laws of the Universe are constant but whether we have accurately determined what they are. So now, I must ask if your faith in the laws of the Universe are based on our ever changing statements of these laws based on discoveries and alterations of our understanding of the law or if you have faith that we will ultimately determine with 100 percent accuracy all of the Universal laws, including the ones we don't even know about yet?I think "faith" to a person of science is faith that the laws of the Universe will be the same tomorrow as they are today.
Your statement is rather broad and fails to take into account that our understanding of these laws is continually changing. So, I would think you seem to have placed your faith in a constantly moving goal post, perhaps more the foundation of sand that Lynx Fox was referring to earlier.
Ignorance in action!
Woohoo!
Just because our understanding of the laws is constantly changing, doesn't mean that the laws themselves are.
Yes.
Earth used to orbit Saturn before Einstein finally discovered that Newton's understanding of gravity was inaccurate.
I am dreading when they discover something new about electricity and my PC stops working.
And people call me sarcastic...
In his defense he said that the laws themselves don't change, just our understanding of them.
Ah ok.In his defense he said that the laws themselves don't change, just our understanding of them.
I'll correct it then:
"We used to think Earth orbited Saturn until Einstein finally discovered that Newton's understanding of gravity was inaccurate."
Better?
On a less sarcastic note: science is rarely wrong, but it is usually incomplete.
Computers will always work - but they will work better as our knowledge becomes more complete.
Rofl.
--
Most hypothesis that apologist site as example of incorrect science are either before science, or hypothesis subsumed into broader hypothesis--the later is what happened to Newton's laws of motion.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 30th, 2013 at 01:56 AM.
I believe it was people on your side who were mentioning the idea that at one time people may have thought the Earth revolved around Saturn. I have never heard of that before. My point was that science is an ever shifting base of knowledge and that sounds like a sandier foundation you accused me of having.
Here's an extra-special face-palm for you:
Self portraits should not be allowed here.
Because it was a joke you fell for. ROLF. Newton used the orbits of the moons around Saturn to check his ideas about orbital mechanics--a pretty good model considering he got it right.
I am unaware that Newton ever suggested that Earth revolved around Saturn which is was the stupid suggestion of the scientifico.
Um... noooo. Very no.
The whole "Earth around Saturn" thing was a joke.
Faith and logic are not mutually exclusive.
The only reason to even suggest such an incorrect supposition is that there are no double blind, prospective, reproducible, studies to prove the existence of God. This is also true of a large part of science, as well as a myriad of nonscientific disciplines.
There is a massive amount of anecdotal evidence in the experiences of believers and especially devout believers (saints etc.) that the Christian theology is consistent with their individual experiences.
One area of science that relies heavily on anecdotal evidence is the science of high hazard industry. This industry does not do prospective double blind studies with large samples to study plane crashes. Rather, it does careful analysis of individual events, and then acts on the analysis. One exception to this practice in the high hazard arena is medicine. In medicine, anecdotes have very little weight and are even difficult to publish. It is interesting that medicine is by far the least safe high hazard industry.
Insisting that only one type of evidence is acceptable is really just a reflection of bias. It is not science or logical thinking.
From Christian theology, a period is described where beings could know for certain that God existed without knowing or seeking God. According to Christian theology, this lead to the rebellion of a group of angels lead by Satan and the creation of Hell.
How the "logical thinkers" believe that a loving God would repeat this disaster is beyond me.
I wouldn't say that the aeronautics industry relies on anecdotes at all. Aircraft designs are exhaustively tested under controlled conditions before anyone is put at risk. The tests provide operating boundaries for the aircraft, so the pilots and engineers know what conditions will cause an accident and informs them on how to avoid those situations. That's why air travel is remarkably safe. It's not anecdotal evidence keeping them in the sky, it's empirical testing.
I was referring to the extensive regulatory changes made from incident analysis from the aviation safety reporting system (ASRS) (managed by NASA for the FAA), as well as accident investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as well as the predecessors to these agencies.I wouldn't say that the aeronautics industry relies on anecdotes at all. Aircraft designs are exhaustively tested under controlled conditions before anyone is put at risk. The tests provide operating boundaries for the aircraft, so the pilots and engineers know what conditions will cause an accident and informs them on how to avoid those situations. That's why air travel is remarkably safe. It's not anecdotal evidence keeping them in the sky, it's empirical testing.
dedo, some of your point is only because your views of science methods appear to be very narrow. For natural sciences, for example, most times there's no ability for double blind testing--many other means are necessary and conducted. Being a trained safety manager, I'm thinking it might be similar to the process you describe... a quite formal process of identifying possible risk, conducting an estimate of posible consequences, and mitigation strategies. It's miles above anything presented in the Abrahamic religious text.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 31st, 2013 at 09:22 AM.
Reading comprehension is not one of your strengths, is it.
In other words, it is evidence based rather than anecdotal or faith-based. I think you will find there are no regulations about how many prayers must be said before each flight.
Unlike some people here, I see no conflict between someone being both religious and a scientist. So in that sense, I agree with you.
However, there is a conflict when both views are applied to the same thing. For example, logic has nothing to do with your belief in god (and if you think it does, that is a post-hoc justification of your faith - although it shouldn't need justification, especially not logical justification). And faith has nothing to do with the logic used in mathematics or science.
There is no evidence of any sort for the existence of god. That is why it is purely a matter of faith.The only reason to even suggest such an incorrect supposition is that there are no double blind, prospective, reproducible, studies to prove the existence of God.
Anecdotes have little weight in any area of science; they are not meaningful evidence.In medicine, anecdotes have very little weight and are even difficult to publish.
Only one type of evidence is acceptable in science: objective, preferably reproducible, scientific evidence. That is not bias, it is the definition of science.Insisting that only one type of evidence is acceptable is really just a reflection of bias. It is not science or logical thinking.
Strange said:
followed bythere is a conflict when both views are applied to the same thing
followed byThere is no evidence of any sort for the existence of god.
Only one type of evidence is acceptable in science
First, Strange points out you cannot use the same standards concerning two different things and then turns around and uses the same standard applied, by implication, to two different things, using scientific criteria to disprove something that is not scientific. God, a non-material being, is subjected to the evidence of materialism.
Second, Strange uses this moronic, idiotic statement that there is "no evidence of any sort. . ." I could understand it if Strange said there is no evidence which convinces him that God exists. Strangely (pun intended), there is enough evidence of God that 93 percent of the people on earth are convinced that some sort of deity exists while only seven percent are unconvinced.
When it comes to the Judeo-Christian God, I suggest a reading of Josh McDowell's books, "evidence that demands a verdict" and "more evidence that demands a verdict." While I am sure Strange and the rest of the non-believers on this forum would not be convinced, at least you could find what intellectually convinced one person who set out to prove that God could not exist based on the evidence.
I think a certain moron needs to learn what evidence means, reviewing the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum couldn't hurt either. I am not an atheist but if anything was going to persuade me to be one it would be the illogical, sloppy, stupid thinking of the believers who spout utter bullshit on this forum.
Why do you think that "the same thing" means "two different things"?
Come on dayton, there you go again. Why can't you just believe in your god and keep it personal? You do know that no one can prove whether God exists or not yet you constantly toss in your inane descriptions of the deity. Why?
PhDemon said:
As a person with a J.D., I know what evidence is. Most morons here have no idea what evidence is. They think it is whatever they want it to be and think it exclude whatever they want it to exclude. They are their own judges, not the standards which have been set by society.I think a certain moron needs to learn what evidence means
He just gets better... (by which I actually mean: significantly worse).
The fun never ends.
Zin said:Because you folks cannot be atheists and keep it to yourselves, but insist on berating the 93 percent of the people in the world who do believe in a deity. You cloister up in a little group here on a foolish forum and laugh amongst yourselves at your derogatory disrespectful snide comments about people you do not understand and then take offense when someone tries to tell you the other side of the story.Come on dayton, there you go again. Why can't you just believe in your god and keep it personal? You do know that no one can prove whether God exists or not yet you constantly toss in your inane descriptions of the deity. Why?
Well, it's a science forum. How would we be treated if we tried to explain the "other side" to a Christian forum?
You clearly haven't been listening. If you can present independently verified empirical evidence, you will at least be taken seriously. But if the best you have are old, tired and heartily refuted apologetics, the likes of which are all throughout McDowell's books, then you might as well go home.
If we're recommending books now, you should read "A History of God - Karen Armstrong". She's a theist herself, so she's batting for your team, but she has the integrity to present the archaeological evidence surrounding the Juedo-Christian god and the evolution of belief in god over the centuries. This book certainly isn't comprehensive, and she's a bit too kind for my tastes, especially towards Islam. But she doesn't pretend that she can twist the evidence to present the bible as a historically accurate document, like McDowell and his ilk.
| « Why should it matter not to believe in God? | Quote from Darwin » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
84Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
