Log in

View Full Version : Faith?


Lion eats man
2007-07-01, 03:00
Hello, I have often heard people make remarks along the lines of “I would only believe in God if there was conclusive evidence that he exists” or "I'd believe if a giant came from the sky in a fiery blaze demanding to be worshiped".

Faith is required to believe in God. Hebrews 11:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:6&version=9) clearly states that without faith it is impossible to please God. Facts, evidence, and the such render faith useless.


This has probably been stated numerous times before but I would like to see the respond to this, or the discussion that stems from this.

The_Brammig
2007-07-01, 03:19
Tell that to the guy who says he has a logical basis for his faith.

Q777
2007-07-01, 03:21
Yes, Facts and evidence render faith useless.

xray
2007-07-01, 03:21
Most atheists are without belief in God/gods because the claim that any exists is an extraordinary claim (based on the miraculous attributes most give to God/gods). Most skeptics are of the healthy opinion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not necessarily "conclusive evidence".

It seems you are claiming that since the Bible says that it is impossible to please God without faith, this somehow makes God's existence any more plausible. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

AngryFemme
2007-07-01, 03:41
Hello, I have often heard people make remarks along the lines of “I would only believe in God if there was conclusive evidence that he exists” or "I'd believe if a giant came from the sky in a fiery blaze demanding to be worshiped".

Believing with conclusive evidence is one thing. Actually subscribing to it is another. One could even believe in the actual "force" of the claim, as recanted in earnest by trusted others - but submission is the end-all, and some people are just comfortable going through life without clinging to a Higher Power to guide them along.

Martini
2007-07-01, 04:02
Faith is required to believe in God. Hebrews 11:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:6&version=9) clearly states that without faith it is impossible to please God. Facts, evidence, and the such render faith useless.

Does this god want as to have faith (you seem to be defining it as belief without evidence, as do I) in all sorts of things? Or does He think it's only good with regards to Him? Is believing in things without evidence actually a good attribute for humans to have? I think history and common sense would tell you that it isn't. You wouldn't trust that a mechanic is the best in town merely because his sign says "Best Mechanic in Town", would you?

If He (the Christian God you're mentioning) wants us to believe in Him without evidence, how are we to know to choose him over any other god? How would it be fair for Him to not save someone who chooses Islam (or one of the other multitudes of religions) as a religion and not Christianity, when this person is most likely trying to be of the religion he believes God wants him to be?

The Christian god (if I recall correctly) claims something along the lines of being all-good. An all good god would not refuse to save those that are doing their best to do what they believe is right and real. This is one of the reasons we don't need "conclusive evidence" that He exists. The contradictions within the Bible are enough evidence to believe your Christian god cannot possibly exist as He is being described.

Spike Spiegel
2007-07-01, 07:03
Faith is required to believe in God. Hebrews 11:6 clearly states that without faith it is impossible to please God. Facts, evidence, and the such render faith useless.

Why should I have to take my time to please a non-existent deity?

I think the real question is, why aren't you pleasing (worshiping ;) ) Poseidon? Those Hurricanes just don't occur by themselves, and it's obvious that it's his mighty triton at work stirring up those hurricanes...

I believe this, because I have "Faith" that it is true... and that's all that is required my friend ;)

Lion eats man
2007-07-01, 13:28
Most atheists are without belief in God/gods because the claim that any exists is an extraordinary claim (based on the miraculous attributes most give to God/gods). Most skeptics are of the healthy opinion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not necessarily "conclusive evidence".

My use of the term conclusive (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conclusive) in my original post is correct. A claim of that magnitude, or an extraordinary claim like you put it requires evidence which is rock solid, irrefutable, without a shadow of a doubt.


It seems you are claiming that since the Bible says that it is impossible to please God without faith, this somehow makes God's existence any more plausible. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
Never said that, nor is that my point. But it does make having faith in God more plausible.

I'll reply to other posts later. :D

Rust
2007-07-01, 13:53
If you read the rest of Hebrews 11, you'll see a long list of people who had faith, even after the Christian god presented himself to them. Like Abraham and Moses, for example.

If a burnish bush suddenly began to talk to me, or if an angel came to stop me from killing my child (after god had commanded that I do so), then I sure as hell would consider that conclusive evidence that a god exists. Obviously, god sees no problem with this.

boozehound420
2007-07-01, 14:25
you MUST have faith in the giant pink dildo in the sky, if you dont it will ass rape you for eternity.

Do you believe?

xray
2007-07-01, 14:48
My use of the term conclusive (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conclusive) in my original post is correct.
Not sure why you're saying your use of a word is correct. I never doubted that you know what "conclusive" means. You may have heard people make remarks as you say you did in the OP, but my point was that most atheist don't talk about having "conclusive" proof in anything. Many atheist may become theists if even "some" reliable evidence was brought forth for God/gods. Most atheists I've encountered or read about are of the opinion that there is zero. I guarantee you that everybody, not just theists, believe in things for which there is some, or lots of evidence for, without conclusive proof ever being brought forth (and by most peoples definition, there isn't conclusive proof for anything).

Never said that, nor is that my point. But it does make having faith in God more plausible.
I may have misunderstood your point, but you DID say what I said you did. You said that the Bible says "Faith is required to believe in God. Hebrews 11:6 clearly states that without faith it is impossible to please God."

So, what was your point in mentioning Hebrews 11:6?

What do you mean it makes having faith in God more plausible? That doesn't really make sense. Do you mean it makes it more understandable that others would believe in God because the Bible makes that statement? If that's what you mean, I disagree. I doubt that statement's ever caused an atheist o become a theist or ever had anything to do with converting one to Christianity.[/QUOTE]

VD+MA
2007-07-02, 21:27
Hello, I have often heard people make remarks along the lines of “I would only believe in God if there was conclusive evidence that he exists” or "I'd believe if a giant came from the sky in a fiery blaze demanding to be worshiped".

Faith is required to believe in God. Hebrews 11:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:6&version=9) clearly states that without faith it is impossible to please God. Facts, evidence, and the such render faith useless.


This has probably been stated numerous times before but I would like to see the respond to this, or the discussion that stems from this.

Do you have faith in the laws of gravity? Can evidence warrant faith in something? I believe so. 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof. Now it seems that faith can be trust or belief not based on proof. I trust in the Lord my God, but he has also given reason for me to trust in him. Therefore my faith is in reason as well.

xray
2007-07-02, 21:32
I trust in the Lord my God, but he has also given reason for me to trust in him.
Such as?

VD+MA
2007-07-02, 21:43
The design of the universe and the historical records for starters.

xray
2007-07-02, 21:51
The design of the universe and the historical records for starters.
There is no evidence the universe was "designed"and what historical records are you talking about? Multitudes of religions claim to have 'historical' records as evidence of God's/gods' existence.

Do you believe that the first man only existed around 10,000 years ago? You would pretty much have to going by the genealogy of the Bible.

Uranium238
2007-07-02, 22:39
It's funny that religious people never cease to attempt to back up their faith with "facts" or "evidence." The fact is, there is zero evidence to support the existence of a god. It merits repeating: There is zero evidence to support the existence of a god. All religious belief must be based entirely on faith. There are no "good reasons" to believe in a god.

Obbe
2007-07-02, 22:59
I think its necessary to have faith before one has any chance of trying to understand the truth to the nature of reality/existence. Not because its some test you have to pass, or some trick to keep out all but 'true-believers'. I just don't think absolute truth is something we can't even begin to comprehend, much less demonstrate with evidence.

I think the only way anybody can begin to understand absolute truth is by being taught about it through lies. Its all perspective anyways.

xray
2007-07-02, 23:12
I think its necessary to have faith before one has any chance of trying to understand the truth to the nature of reality/existence.
No, it's not. One needs zero faith when attempting to figure out what is true. I do not need to come to any conclusions about "absolute" truth. I can be fairly certain that a dropped rock will fall downwards and not upwards based on what I know of gravity and how dropped objects always go down unless affected by another force. On a scale of 1 to 10, my level of certainty that anything will or won't happen may never reach 10, but I don't need faith in my life because of that.

Obbe
2007-07-03, 00:13
No, it's not. One needs zero faith when attempting to figure out what is true. I do not need to come to any conclusions about "absolute" truth. I can be fairly certain that a dropped rock will fall downwards and not upwards based on what I know of gravity and how dropped objects always go down unless affected by another force. On a scale of 1 to 10, my level of certainty that anything will or won't happen may never reach 10, but I don't need faith in my life because of that.

You are certain it will fall to the ground because you have experienced that event so many times. Now, this may just be me, but I still don't see how being very certain that it will fall down helps to explain very much about the absolute true nature of reality and existence.

It does help to explain a very small part...that rocks, when dropped in this particular wold-line, in this particular universe of all possible ones, with these particular 'universal constants', fall down.

Discovering things about the world around you using logic and evidence is great! It helps us learn a lot.

However, it also posses further questions. Such as, what exactly is gravity? What are rocks? Why are you able to perceive such things?

In all honesty, no human will ever know the truth. We cannot comprehend that. And no, its not something anyone needs to know. But for those wishing to take a crack at it, those who want to try and understand a little of absolute truth...will not archive that by looking for evidence. Something that can only be taught through lies, cannot be proven, much less based on evidence. It can only be accepted through faith.

xray
2007-07-03, 00:40
Now, this may just be me, but I still don't see how being very certain that it will fall down helps to explain very much about the absolute true nature of reality and existence.
It doesn't. I was arguing against your notion that "its necessary to have faith before one has any chance of trying to understand the truth to the nature of reality/existence."

One need not have faith to attempt to understand what is true. I am completely without faith as are many others.




In all honesty, no human will ever know the truth. We cannot comprehend that. And no, its not something anyone needs to know. But for those wishing to take a crack at it, those who want to try and understand a little of absolute truth...will not archive that by looking for evidence.
You're making a bit of a straw man. No one is trying to understand absolute truth. We attempt to get closer to finding truths, while accepting that absolute truth in anything will ever be found. We are more certain today then 500 years ago that germs cause disease and this is through evidence. That fact, and every other fact, theory, etc., can never be proven absolutely.

Pilsu
2007-07-03, 00:40
Faith doesn't help you understand it either moron

Only eating raw potatoes gets you closer to the ultimate truth OooOoOOoh AaaAAaah!

Martini
2007-07-03, 00:50
its necessary to have faith before one has any chance of trying to understand the truth to the nature of reality/existence.

Faith doesn't help you understand it either moron

Pilsu makes a good point. Why is faith necessary in trying to understand "the truth to the nature of reality/existence"?

Why do you believe it's necessary and how will it help in understanding?

Obbe
2007-07-03, 01:01
Why is faith necessary in trying to understand "the truth to the nature of reality/existence"?

Why do you believe it's necessary and how will it help in understanding?

Because no other way caps it off. Any 'truth' based on evidence is open ended.

And I'm not saying that whatever you have faith in is the truth....hell no. Those would be lies. However, I think its through certain lies that the truth shines through.

Faith doesn't help you understand it either.

It makes you think you do, which is the closest to actually understanding the truth anyone of us will ever get.

However, I will say that I think most people who base their beliefs on faith DON'T discover truth. Thats because most people don't think for themselves.

One need not have faith to attempt to understand what is true. I am completely without faith as are many others.

I agree. You can attempt it all you want.

Martini
2007-07-03, 01:14
Because no other way caps it off. Any 'truth' based on evidence is open ended.
If you mean equally open ended, you're wrong. I design radiation treatments for cancer patients for a living. I must be extremely certain my calculations are correct or I will kill my patients. It's extreme certainty (without ever reaching a level "10" of certainty) that proper procedure will do more good then harm that allows me to be in practice.

And I'm not saying that whatever you have faith in is the truth....hell no. Those would be lies. However, I think its through certain lies that the truth shines through.
Alrighty then. :rolleyes:



It makes you think you do, which is the closest to actually understanding the truth anyone of us will ever get.
See above.



One need not have faith to attempt to understand what is true. I am completely without faith as are many others.
I agree. You can attempt it all you want.
You didn't agree earlier. You said:

I think its necessary to have faith before one has any chance of trying to understand the truth to the nature of reality/existence.

Obbe
2007-07-03, 01:37
If you mean equally open ended, you're wrong. I design radiation treatments for cancer patients for a living. I must be extremely certain my calculations are correct or I will kill my patients. It's extreme certainty (without ever reaching a level "10" of certainty) that proper procedure will do more good then harm that allows me to be in practice.

I mean that evidence is great for understanding your perspective of reality.

But in trying to understand the truth behind the nature of reality, evidence only ever causes more questions. The truth we are trying to understand is way too much for any of us to ever actually understand.

The only way for someone to feel they understand is through faith. Even then, they might not actually be understanding anything but lies.

But if they are smart, and keep their eyes open...they'll be able to understand certain lies for what they are...and understand them as lessons as well.

You didn't agree earlier. You said:

No...someone can attempt to understand all they want. Doesn't mean they will.

Maybe they'll end up believing in some magical bearded giant who created the earth in 7 days. Or that thats the only possible meaning behind God. Maybe they'll end up thinking God an impossibility.


And yes, I can see how it would sound like I've suddenly flip flopped. But when I said the nature of reality/existence in your quote, I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the absolute truth about reality/existence, not our measly individual and subjective perspectives of those.

Seeing rocks fall is great for understanding your perspective of reality...hell, thats what make it your perspective, its your understanding. But if you are trying to understand reality as a whole...then its only through faith you will find satisfaction.

Martini
2007-07-03, 02:12
I mean that evidence is great for understanding your perspective of reality.
My perspective of reality? Not following proper procedure will result in the deaths of my patients. That's a fact.

The truth we are trying to understand is way too much for any of us to ever actually understand.
And you have evidence of this?

The only way for someone to feel they understand is through faith.
I need no faith to feel I understand how to save lives.

But if you are trying to understand reality as a whole...then its only through faith you will find satisfaction.
Not true. I try to understand the reality of many things in my life and occupation, and it is through evidence that I find satisfaction. Faith does zero for me.

xray
2007-07-03, 02:17
But if you are trying to understand reality as a whole...then its only through faith you will find satisfaction.
Is that even relevant? Is anyone trying to understand reality as a whole?

Obbe
2007-07-03, 02:50
My perspective of reality? Not following proper procedure will result in the deaths of my patients. That's a fact.

Quite. Something we all agree occurs in consensual reality.

Does it at all help you to understand why you are here, and why things are the way they are?

And you have evidence of this?

No, but nobody has yet. Not even those who spend their lives attempting it.

Although, I do believe that the truth is too complex for a humans ego to comprehend.

I need no faith to feel I understand how to save lives.

But it is needed to feel you understand the absolute nature of reality/existence.

Not true. I try to understand the reality of many things in my life and occupation, and it is through evidence that I find satisfaction. Faith does zero for me.

And why are you believing in the evidence?

Is that even relevant? Is anyone trying to understand reality as a whole?

Uh, I am, for one...

I always thought that was one of the main points of religions.

Martini
2007-07-03, 03:22
Quite. Something we all agree occurs in consensual reality.
Not sure what you're saying here.



Does it at all help you to understand why you are here, and why things are the way they are?
Does what help? Evidence? Of course it does.



No, but nobody has yet. Not even those who spend their lives attempting it.
How do you know? Do you mean that no one knows how everything works? So what? It doesn't mean we might not one day have the answers to everything or that we're not on the right track.

Although, I do believe that the truth is too complex for a humans ego to comprehend.
A human's ego?


But it is needed to feel you understand the absolute nature of reality/existence.
What do you mean by "the absolute nature of reality/existence"? Why are you inserting the "absolute" word again. I know of no one that is trying to convince themselves that they understand anything "absolutely", so your talk of faith on this issue is irrelevant.



And why are you believing in the evidence?
Why do I believe that evidence is reliable? Because when a rock falls every time and scientific principles explain how fast it will fall, why it will fall, which direction it will fall, etc., and that evidence has never failed yet, that is plenty good reason to believe evidence is a better reason to believe something will happen then for any other reason.

Why do you believe rocks fall downward? Isn't because of evidence? If so, why are you believing in the evidence?



Uh, I am, for one...

I always thought that was one of the main points of religions.
You believe that what has been written in holy books has/will be better at helping you understand reality better then science?

fallinghouse
2007-07-03, 03:39
Why do I believe that evidence is reliable? Because when a rock falls every time and scientific principles explain how fast it will fall, why it will fall, which direction it will fall, etc., and that evidence has never failed yet, that is plenty good reason to believe evidence is a better reason to believe something will happen then for any other reason.

It's interesting to note that said scientific principles were formed using inductive logic, which requires faith.

It's interesting to note that said scientific principles were formed using the senses, which requires faith in their accuracy.

Furthermore, to say this is closer to a 10 then the belief that rocks won't fall assumes that it comes closer to a description of the external world, and the external world can only be taken to exist using faith.

Martini
2007-07-03, 04:06
It's interesting to note that said scientific principles were formed using inductive logic, which requires faith.

It's interesting to note that said scientific principles were formed using the senses, which requires faith in their accuracy.

Furthermore, to say this is closer to a 10 then the belief that rocks won't fall assumes that it comes closer to a description of the external world, and the external world can only be taken to exist using faith.
We've done this before with you, Fallinghouse. You were intent on going around in circles and repeating the same points over and over.

Science carefully tests all hypotheses and theories. When you analyze the results of an experiment, you get a probability that the results are due to chance. This has to be small enough (typically < 5%) to consider the hypothesis unfalsified.

As for the real world, we do experiments all the time on the reality of that. Maybe it's an illusion, but odds are it isn't.

If religion had a mechanism for testing its predictions, it might be a lot more believable. But any time one doesn't come true, like Jesus returning before his listeners died, they invent some explanation.

If a scientist did this, he'd get laughed out of the field. If a religious person does it, they give him a doctorate of theology.

Obbe
2007-07-03, 04:16
Not sure what you're saying here.

Does what help? Evidence? Of course it does.

If you observe that you don't help one of your patients, and they die, and I also observe this then it is an event taking place in both our perspectives of reality. Its taking place in a consensual reality shared by both of us. When I talk about consensual reality, I am usually referring to a reality shared by the majority of the observers (and most times, humans specifically) on Earth.

A third person observing you not helping the same patient, and witnessing them amazingly survive would be experiencing an event not included in the consensual reality.

Understanding the consensual reality, or events unique to your own reality, doesn't seem to answer the bigger questions for me.

How do you know? Do you mean that no one knows how everything works? So what? It doesn't mean we might not one day have the answers to everything or that we're not on the right track.

A human's ego?

I don't know. But, I obviously believe it. I do believe it will always require faith, and I do believe we will never know for sure. Maybe after a thousand lives, maybe after enlightenment, maybe after a rise in consciousness. But never as living, stupid humans living in this society on Earth.

The ego is the mask your consciousness wears. Underneath it, we are all the same. Your concept of self, all the experiences and possibly genes which shape your personality, the voice in your head. The thing you think you think your thoughts with. The thing you use to interpret and make sense of the world around you.

What do you mean by "the absolute nature of reality/existence"? Why are you inserting the "absolute" word again. I know of no one that is trying to convince themselves that they understand anything "absolutely", so your talk of faith on this issue is irrelevant.

Absolute, as in the complete picture. The total full whole concept, how it all ties together and fans apart so. The biggest of all, where everything ceases to be separate and all is one.

Why do I believe that evidence is reliable? Because when a rock falls every time and scientific principles explain how fast it will fall, why it will fall, which direction it will fall, etc., and that evidence has never failed yet, that is plenty good reason to believe evidence is a better reason to believe something will happen then for any other reason.

fallinghouse said it better then I could.

You believe that what has been written in holy books has/will be better at helping you understand reality better then science?

I believe science is great. But it only goes so far. I believe most religions/holy books are crap.

I believe thinking for myself and understanding myself help me to understand reality better then anything.

Obbe
2007-07-03, 04:18
This (http://www.totse.com/en/religion/eastern_religions/shivasutra174153.html) is great, IMO.

xray
2007-07-03, 04:43
and the external world can only be taken to exist using faith.
Possibly, but it's about as useful a position as assuming the entire universe was created last Thursday, with all our memories of prior events being created as well, or theorizing that all objects turn pink when no-one is looking at them, or that you are the only creature in the universe and your brain (or not a brain but something else very roughly analogous to what we describe as a brain) is in a jar somewhere, with all external stimuli merely faked. It's a premise that can't be used to build anything or disprove anything so what good is it?

fallinghouse
2007-07-03, 04:49
We've done this before with you, Fallinghouse. You were intent on going around in circles and repeating the same points over and over.

Points which you repeatedly ignored.

Science carefully tests all hypotheses and theories

None of the things I mentioned above are testable, and yet you accept them.

When you analyze the results of an experiment, you get a probability that the results are due to chance.

That probability does not take into account any of the factors that I mentioned above. In fact, it would be impossible to take them into account, because we can't know how likely or unlikely any are.

As for the real world, we do experiments all the time on the reality of that.

Sure, by taking the accuracy of the senses on faith.

Maybe it's an illusion, but odds are it isn't.

Please show how you calculated this probability, as I'm betting you pulled it out of your ass.

fallinghouse
2007-07-03, 04:51
Possibly, but it's about as useful a position as assuming the entire universe was created last Thursday, with all our memories of prior events being created as well, or theorizing that all objects turn pink when no-one is looking at them, or that you are the only creature in the universe and your brain (or not a brain but something else very roughly analogous to what we describe as a brain) is in a jar somewhere, with all external stimuli merely faked. It's a premise that can't be used to build anything or disprove anything so what good is it?

It's useful here, as it helps to demonstrate that the foundation of all science is faith.

Scraff
2007-07-03, 04:57
It's interesting to note that said scientific principles were formed using inductive logic, which requires faith.

It's interesting to note that said scientific principles were formed using the senses, which requires faith in their accuracy.

Furthermore, to say this is closer to a 10 then the belief that rocks won't fall assumes that it comes closer to a description of the external world, and the external world can only be taken to exist using faith.
Technically faith means "belief in anything", so in that sense you're correct. However, those who say "faith" typically mean a deliberate grounding in some doctrine or set of standards, to guard against humanity's natural swings of mood and belief. Now as far as trusting the senses, most of us don't have such swings. I'm not much prone to vacillating as to whether the chair I'm sitting on actually exists or not, so no "faith" is required.

Believing in science does require faith, but it's because most people who venerate science have never actually seen scientists at work and thus don't know what the process looks like. Consequently they have faith in science only because they believe the facade that the scientific community puts forward. They believe that scientists follow the scientific method as described in elementary school textbooks. They believe that individual researchers pursue truth with full scientific rigor at all times. They believe that scientific institutions such as labs, journals, and universities are dedicated to science and above any lesser concerns. All of these beliefs require faith. I might even say an absurd level of faith, except that I happened to believe all these things until the time that I became a researcher myself. Then I learned better.

(For the record, here's the truth. Your elementary school textbook was wrong about the scientific method, much as elementary school textbooks are wont to be wrong about most things. Individual researchers are driven less by pursuit of truth and more by pursuit of grants and fear of deadlines. And scientific institutions function precisely like other human institutions, which is hardly surprising given that they're run by the same sort of beings: human beings.)

Scraff
2007-07-03, 04:59
It's interesting to note that said scientific principles were formed using inductive logic, which requires faith.

It's interesting to note that said scientific principles were formed using the senses, which requires faith in their accuracy.

Furthermore, to say this is closer to a 10 then the belief that rocks won't fall assumes that it comes closer to a description of the external world, and the external world can only be taken to exist using faith.

Are you sure of these statements, or do you just believe them on faith?

xray
2007-07-03, 05:28
It's useful here, as it helps to demonstrate that the foundation of all science is faith.


And that's useful... how? I assume the foundation of faith is also faith. Is there anything with a foundation that's not faith? If not, does that mean "foundation" has no foundation?

fallinghouse
2007-07-03, 05:32
Technically faith means "belief in anything", so in that sense you're correct. However, those who say "faith" typically mean a deliberate grounding in some doctrine or set of standards, to guard against humanity's natural swings of mood and belief. Now as far as trusting the senses, most of us don't have such swings. I'm not much prone to vacillating as to whether the chair I'm sitting on actually exists or not, so no "faith" is required.

Does faith mean that? That just seems to be an arbitrary way of redefining faith so that scientists can say "it's not faith when we do it". Regardless, changing the definition of the word doesn't change the fact that from a position where one has committed themselves to ignore unprovable and/or unevidencable ideas/beliefs/concepts/etc.., science must be tossed out the window in the same garbage bag as religion.

Are you sure of these statements, or do you just believe them on faith?

I can present arguments (and I have, in previous threads) to back them up that do not rely on experience. All take the basic form of arguing that an attempt at justifying beliefs in inductive reasoning, the accuracy of the senses or an external world requires that one first assumes that one's desired conclusion it true, which is a logically fallacious circular argument.


And that's useful... how?

The notion of what is useful is usually subjectively defined as whatever achieves one's ends.

I assume the foundation of faith is also faith. Is there anything with a foundation that's [/i] not[i] faith?

Not that I know of.

If not, does that mean "foundation" has no foundation?

If you take skepticism to it's conclusions, then yes.

xray
2007-07-03, 06:06
In order to believe in science, we must smurf; if we do not smurf our smurfs or smurf the smurfiness of the smurf, the word "science" can have no meaning. This is in contrast to religion, which is clearly based on smurfing a smurf for our smurfiness in order to smurf the Smurf, or Smurfiness of the Smurfitude; or ethics, which is based on smurfing smurfiness. And art or esthetics is a whole other thing, based on smurfing the smufiness of smurfs.

In other words, what does "faith" mean anyway? Are you asserting that there is no distinction between formulating theories about why iron behaves more like nickel than it does like argon, based on the structure of iron, nickel, and argon atoms; and being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit? If we accept this, is there anything that's not a matter of faith: Studying astrophysics, becoming a Buddhist, believing your mother loves you, investing in stocks, proceeding straight through the intersection on a green light, looking both ways before you cross the street, becoming a nun, finding for the defendant, thinking Firefly was the greatest show ever to air on television, liking dark chocolate better than milk chocolate, or sitting in a chair without worrying that you'll fall straight through and right on down to the center of the planet. Destroying all distinctions doesn't explain everything; it makes it impossible to explain anything.

It also seems pretty odd to me to claim that science is all about having "faith in the accuracy of our senses"; when scientists so frequently and in so many fields tell us the myriad ways our senses are inaccurate, from neurobiology to astronomy to quantum mechanics. Square A is the same shade of gray as square B; the Sun doesn't move around the immovable Earth; the chair I am so confidently sitting in is really mostly empty space--all of which is news to my unaided senses.

Scraff
2007-07-03, 06:14
Does faith mean that? That just seems to be an arbitrary way of redefining faith so that scientists can say "it's not faith when we do it". Regardless, changing the definition of the word doesn't change the fact that from a position where one has committed themselves to ignore unprovable and/or unevidencable ideas/beliefs/concepts/etc.., science must be tossed out the window in the same garbage bag as religion.

No, it does not.

Let's look at one aspect of science, the experimental model. (There are others, of course.) In this model, a hypothesis is put forth. Then a means of testing the hypothesis is described. The premises, the procedures, and the expected outcomes are all described. Following the actual experiments, the results, (including the methodology) are published. Then other researchers attempt to follow the outlined procedures to see whether they can duplicate the results. If they are successful in duplicating the results, we now have separate persons in different places who have witnessed corresponding events and observed the same results. While one may posit that the results in both cases are not really identical because human senses are fallible, you are still left with the fact that two sets of researchers, separated by distance and by time, appear to have seen the same results. Even if it is a delusion, the very fact that it is a shared delusion makes it interesting.

Given that the same antibiotics fight the same diseases, airplanes take off, travel, and land with millions of people aboard, iron subjected to specific temperatures for specific lengths of time with specific additions of carbon produce steel that appears to demonstrate the same hardness and/or flexibility, it would seem that science does an excellent job of predicting exactly the same shared delusions.

If you want to assert that science rests, ultimately, in some faith or belief in some system, that is fine. However, to claim that because of this "science must be tossed out the window" is pretty silly.
It should also be noted that "tossing religion out the window" is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, so trying to defend against those who denigrate religion by attacking science is a dead end game that really has no point.

Scraff
2007-07-03, 06:37
Destroying all distinctions doesn't explain everything; it makes it impossible to explain anything.
This is the most important line of the argument so far. fallinghouse, you don't get to prove points by redefining a bunch of words until they fit whatever argument you're making.

Faith implies belief in something that can't be reliably tested. Science operates in an opposite manner.



From your original post, fallinghouse, it appears you define faith as "believing a proposition which has not been given a deductively valid proof."

To be clear, by "Deductively valid proof" I mean a proof demonstrating that, necessarily, its premises imply its conclusion.

Is that what you think faith is?

If so, and if you're trying to argue that science is somehow on the same level as religious belief in that both are "by faith," then I don't think you've got a good argument. You've shown that both the religious believer and the scientific believer do not require deductive proof prior to belief. But that's not saying much. You haven't said anything, for example, about how trustworthy religious beliefs are as compared to scientific ones, or how probable, and so on.


The notion of what is useful is usually subjectively defined as whatever achieves one's ends.
How do you know when you've achieved your ends, if objective evidence doesn't exist? How do you even know you're even approaching your ends? How do you know this message board exists?

fallinghouse
2007-07-03, 06:56
In order to believe in science, we must smurf; if we do not smurf our smurfs or smurf the smurfiness of the smurf, the word "science" can have no meaning. This is in contrast to religion, which is clearly based on smurfing a smurf for our smurfiness in order to smurf the Smurf, or Smurfiness of the Smurfitude; or ethics, which is based on smurfing smurfiness. And art or esthetics is a whole other thing, based on smurfing the smufiness of smurfs.

Um...what?


In other words, what does "faith" mean anyway?

I don't know about you, but I'm taking it to mean belief in an idea or concept that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

Are you asserting that there is no distinction between formulating theories about why iron behaves more like nickel than it does like argon, based on the structure of iron, nickel, and argon atoms; and being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit?

Ultimately, both rest on assumptions that are both untestable and of unknown accuracy, meaning that belief in either is the result of instinct, socialisation or personal preference.

If we accept this, is there anything that's not a matter of faith: Studying astrophysics, becoming a Buddhist, believing your mother loves you, investing in stocks, proceeding straight through the intersection on a green light, looking both ways before you cross the street, becoming a nun, finding for the defendant, thinking Firefly was the greatest show ever to air on television, liking dark chocolate better than milk chocolate, or sitting in a chair without worrying that you'll fall straight through and right on down to the center of the planet. Destroying all distinctions doesn't explain everything; it makes it impossible to explain anything.

It makes it impossible to explain anything without using faith.

It also seems pretty odd to me to claim that science is all about having "faith in the accuracy of our senses"; when scientists so frequently and in so many fields tell us the myriad ways our senses are inaccurate, from neurobiology to astronomy to quantum mechanics. Square A is the same shade of gray as square B; the Sun doesn't move around the immovable Earth; the chair I am so confidently sitting in is really mostly empty space--all of which is news to my unaided senses.

How do you think they know these things about neurobiology or astronomy or quantum mechanics or optical illusions? Experimental evidence is gathered using the senses, then molded into theories and such.

Let's look at one aspect of science, the experimental model. (There are others, of course.) In this model, a hypothesis is put forth. Then a means of testing the hypothesis is described. The premises, the procedures, and the expected outcomes are all described. Following the actual experiments, the results, (including the methodology) are published. Then other researchers attempt to follow the outlined procedures to see whether they can duplicate the results. If they are successful in duplicating the results, we now have separate persons in different places who have witnessed corresponding events and observed the same results. While one may posit that the results in both cases are not really identical because human senses are fallible, you are still left with the fact that two sets of researchers, separated by distance and by time, appear to have seen the same results. Even if it is a delusion, the very fact that it is a shared delusion makes it interesting.

That's good, but there's long way to go from showing that people see the same results (which, as you mentioned, may be an illusion), to justifying the use of science. Can you go the rest of the way?

Given that the same antibiotics fight the same diseases, airplanes take off, travel, and land with millions of people aboard, iron subjected to specific temperatures for specific lengths of time with specific additions of carbon produce steel that appears to demonstrate the same hardness and/or flexibility, it would seem that science does an excellent job of predicting exactly the same shared delusions.

This argument uses token examples to attempt to establish relationships or properties, this means it is an inductive argument. Since all of the principles and theories used by science to make these predictions were formed by generalising token pieces of evidence; this argument attempts to use inductive reasoning to justify inductive reasoning, in a circular argument.


If you want to assert that science rests, ultimately, in some faith or belief in some system, that is fine

That's all I'm doing. When I said that "science must be tossed out the window" I said that one must do that if "one has committed themselves to ignore unprovable and/or unevidencable ideas/beliefs/concepts/etc.."


It should also be noted that "tossing religion out the window" is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, so trying to defend against those who denigrate religion by attacking science is a dead end game that really has no point.

The form of the argument is reductio ad absurdum; meaning that I show that their starting principles necessarily lead to conclusions that they dislike, hence they can either accept the unfavorable conclusions or change the starting principles.

xray
2007-07-03, 07:14
Regardless, changing the definition of the word doesn't change the fact that from a position where one has committed themselves to ignore unprovable and/or unevidencable ideas/beliefs/concepts/etc.., science must be tossed out the window in the same garbage bag as religion.

In the same way the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater.

All human knowledge has the basic problem that no one has come up with any absolute way of knowing of anything other than our own existence. I think therefore I am. No one has come up with any way of absolutely verifying anything else. The argument that "we could be dreaming it all" raised by Descarte (amongst others) is a philosophical show stopper, fer sure.

The question then becomes, "how can we minimize the effects of unavoidable uncertainty, and build a knowledge structure that is as certain as we can make it?"

Science is an answer to that question. It doesn't avoid unavoidable uncertainty, but it does avoid as much uncertainty as possible.

Your premise is a crock because it indulges in the silly suggestion that if something is good but not perfect, it's no better than something that is complete tosh.

xray
2007-07-03, 07:20
You are confusing Occam's Razor and useful assumptions with faith. The assumption that there is an external world fits what we see; it explains how the world maintains consistency even when we aren't paying attention and why we can't affect it by mere thought like our imagination. It's the simplest hypothesis that fits our observation. and it's useful, while solipsism is sterile.

Scraff
2007-07-03, 07:31
Your premise is a crock because it indulges in the silly suggestion that if something is good but not perfect, it's no better than something that is complete tosh.
Damn right. And if you haven't read it already, I suggest Isaac Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong, which addresses the fallinghouse's particular kind of willful ignorance.

fallinghouse
2007-07-03, 07:40
This is the most important line of the argument so far. fallinghouse, you don't get to prove points by redefining a bunch of words until they fit whatever argument you're making.

What words have I redefined?

Can you find a single dictionary that defines faith as something like "a deliberate grounding in some doctrine or set of standards, to guard against humanity's natural swings of mood and belief"? If not, it seems you are the one redefining words.

Faith implies belief in something that can't be reliably tested. Science operates in an opposite manner.

Can you suggest a method for reliably testing the accuracy of the senses or the existence of an external world or the validity of inductive reasoning? If not, can you construct a system of science that does not rely on any of these things? If the answer is no to both, then science operates in pretty much the same manner.



From your original post, fallinghouse, it appears you define faith as "believing a proposition which has not been given a deductively valid proof."

To be clear, by "Deductively valid proof" I mean a proof demonstrating that, necessarily, its premises imply its conclusion.

Is that what you think faith is?

I think the definition I used above is suitable, which was "belief in an idea or concept that hasn't been demonstrated to be true"

You haven't said anything, for example, about how trustworthy religious beliefs are as compared to scientific ones, or how probable, and so on.

Actually I have:

"Furthermore, to say this is closer to a 10 then the belief that rocks won't fall assumes that it comes closer to a description of the external world, and the external world can only be taken to exist using faith."

This means that I believe we can't know how trustworthy or probable scientific or religious beliefs are.

How do you know when you've achieved your ends, if objective evidence doesn't exist? How do you even know you're even approaching your ends?

Good point. Allow me to answer this specific point again:


Possibly, but it's about as useful a position as assuming the entire universe was created last Thursday, with all our memories of prior events being created as well, or theorizing that all objects turn pink when no-one is looking at them, or that you are the only creature in the universe and your brain (or not a brain but something else very roughly analogous to what we describe as a brain) is in a jar somewhere, with all external stimuli merely faked. It's a premise that can't be used to build anything or disprove anything so what good is it?

The usefulness of a theory is something that appears to be unknowable without first assuming at least the accuracy of the senses and the validity of inductive reasoning. This means that to say something is useful or not useful requires faith.

How do you know this message board exists?

Without bringing faith into the equation I can't say that I do.


The question then becomes, "how can we minimize the effects of unavoidable uncertainty, and build a knowledge structure that is as certain as we can make it?"

Science is an answer to that question. It doesn't avoid unavoidable uncertainty, but it does avoid as much uncertainty as possible.

There are no unavoidable uncertainties that must be asserted, as solipsism neatly avoids asserting anything that is uncertain. This means that science chooses to assume that these uncertainties are irrelevant, not because these assumptions must be made, but because they are seen as desirable.

This notion of choosing to make an assumption that is seen as desirable is also the core of religious faith.


Your premise is a crock because it indulges in the silly suggestion that if something is good but not perfect, it's no better than something that is complete tosh.

It's not so silly if you consider the other part of my argument, which says that we can't know whether something is good or complete tosh.


You are confusing...useful assumptions with faith.

What is seen as a useful assumption depends on who you ask. Many would argue that believing in some form of religion is very useful.


You are confusing Occam's Razor...with faith. The assumption that there is an external world fits what we see; it explains how the world maintains consistency even when we aren't paying attention and why we can't affect it by mere thought like our imagination. It's the simplest hypothesis that fits our observation. and it's useful, while solipsism is sterile.

Although it is commonly said to support the simplest explanation, more specifically, Occam's razor supports the position which makes the fewest assumptions and requires the existence of the least number of hypothetical objects. Consider then how Occam's razor looks at the idea that there is an external world:

All beliefs other than solipsism.
Number of assumptions > 0
Theoretical objects hypothesised > 0

Solipsism
Number of assumptions = 0
Theoretical objects hypothesized = 0

Hence Occam's razor prefers solipsism to the belief in an external world.

xray
2007-07-03, 08:11
It makes it impossible to explain anything without using faith.

So: Earth is about 4.5 billion years old; or Earth is about 6,000 years old. Beginning in 1969 NASA landed a total of 12 men on the Moon; or the Apollo program was all an elaborate hoax. The Nazis under Hitler carried out a systematic program of extermination directed against Jews, Gypsies, and various other groups; or a huge Zionist conspiracy has systematically distorted history to justify its various machinations. All of these claims have to be accepted or rejected as a matter of "faith", since none of them can be proven in the way you can prove things in a Euclidean geometry textbook. And I suppose there's no way to say that the beliefs of the Moon Hoaxers or the Holocaust Deniers is better or worse than the beliefs of the NASAists or the Holocaust Believers, right? Surely it would make no sense to claim that one set of faith-based beliefs is better than another.

xray
2007-07-03, 08:16
That's good, but there's long way to go from showing that people see the same results (which, as you mentioned, may be an illusion), to justifying the use of science. Can you go the rest of the way?
I probably could if it was not almost 4:00 a.m. However, I do not need to. Aside from solipsism and Last Thursdayism, it is enough that I and everyone with whom I am in contact agree on our shared illusion. If you wish to stop eating because you realize that there is no physical world and you will not starve, help yourself. I will continue to indulge the illusion I share with everyone else in the world and I will still be sharing it after your illusory body has ceased to function.

I repeat: there is no point in attacking science as some sort of odd defense of spiritual belief. That is simply an exercise in sophistry that has no point except to give one the feeling one has accomplished something while everyone else points and laughs at that person.

fallinghouse
2007-07-03, 08:16
So: Earth is about 4.5 billion years old; or Earth is about 6,000 years old. Beginning in 1969 NASA landed a total of 12 men on the Moon; or the Apollo program was all an elaborate hoax. The Nazis under Hitler carried out a systematic program of extermination directed against Jews, Gypsies, and various other groups; or a huge Zionist conspiracy has systematically distorted history to justify its various machinations. All of these claims have to be accepted or rejected as a matter of "faith", since none of them can be proven in the way you can prove things in a Euclidean geometry textbook. And I suppose there's no way to say that the beliefs of the Moon Hoaxers or the Holocaust Deniers is better or worse than the beliefs of the NASAists or the Holocaust Believers, right? Surely it would make no sense to claim that one set of faith-based beliefs is better than another.

Correct.

fallinghouse
2007-07-03, 08:25
Aside from solipsism and Last Thursdayism, it is enough that I and everyone with whom I am in contact agree on our shared illusion. If you wish to stop eating because you realize that there is no physical world and you will not starve, help yourself. I will continue to indulge the illusion I share with everyone else in the world and I will still be sharing it after your illusory body has ceased to function.

That's fine, but this means that you are accepting a belief that has not been demonstrated to be true, which is faith. Which means that you can finally get this discussion back to asking Obbe how faith can help form a deeper understanding of reality.

I repeat: there is no point in attacking science as some sort of odd defense of spiritual belief. That is simply an exercise in sophistry that has no point except to give one the feeling one has accomplished something while everyone else points and laughs at that person.

I've outlined the point of the argument above. It's called reductio ad absurdum.

xray
2007-07-03, 08:36
What is seen as a useful assumption depends on who you ask. Many would argue that believing in some form of religion is very useful.
They are wrong, unless their goal is tyranny or exploitation. Religion is a form of madness, useful primarily for excusing evil and manipulating the gullible.



Although it is commonly said to support the simplest explanation, more specifically, Occam's razor supports the position which makes the fewest assumptions and requires the existence of the least number of hypothetical objects. Consider then how Occam's razor looks at the idea that there is an external world:

All beliefs other than solipsism.
Number of assumptions > 0
Theoretical objects hypothesised > 0

Solipsism
Number of assumptions = 0
Theoretical objects hypothesized = 0

Hence Occam's razor prefers solipsism to the belief in an external world.

Hardly; Occam's Razor supports the explanation with the fewest assumptions that explains the observed data. Solipsism leaves many things unexplained, like why we can't just make things happen by sheer will, and why the universe appears consistent among others.

And even solipsism is better than most religion, since most religion outright contradicts observed reality, or is internal contradictory, or both. Religion is simply one of the stupidest, most worthless ideas ever to exist, and no attempt to drag science down to it's level will change that.

fallinghouse
2007-07-03, 08:51
They are wrong, unless their goal is tyranny or exploitation. Religion is a form of madness, useful primarily for excusing evil and manipulating the gullible.

And of course many religious people feel the same way about atheism.

Hardly; Occam's Razor supports the explanation with the fewest assumptions that explains the observed data. Solipsism leaves many things unexplained, like why we can't just make things happen by sheer will,

A solipsist can easily say that one can't know why one can't directly manipulate the universe.

and why the universe appears consistent among others.

A solipsist would reply that those others don't exist.

Solipsism knows which things it can't explain without faith, and it says these things are unknowable. It explains all observed data, with absolutely no assumptions.

And even solipsism is better than most religion, since most religion outright contradicts observed reality,

Wait, you are going to say an idea is wrong because you think it contradicts an idea that you hold through faith?

or is internal contradictory, or both.

I didn't want to go in this direction because few people are capable of accepting this idea; but even the axioms of logic are reliant on faith. Meaning that if any religions actually are internally contradictory, their proponents are still only having faith in something that contradicts what you have faith in.

xray
2007-07-03, 14:13
And of course many religious people feel the same way about atheism.
And the facts are against them. Atheism doesn't cause anyone to do anything, or excuse anyone from anything. It is not a belief system, unlike religion; it makes no commands, no demands, and no unprovable or reality-denying assertion about the world. Therefore atheism doesn't warp people's behavior the way religion does. It doesn't twist people's judgement, or motivate them to do anything.



solipsist can easily say that one can't know why one can't directly manipulate the universe.
No, he can't, because he doesn't believe that there is a universe to manipulate.




A solipsist would reply that those others don't exist.
I meant among other reasons, and a solipsist would say no such thing. What would be the point of saying anything ? To whom will he speak ?

Solipsism knows which things it can't explain without faith, and it says these things are unknowable. It explains all observed data, with absolutely no assumptions.
Wrong. I've already mentioned some of it's assumptions; here's another one. How can mind exist at all without a substrate ?

And saying that something is unknowable isn't an explanation.


Wait, you are going to say an idea is wrong because you think it contradicts an idea that you hold through faith?
Except that believing in reality isn't faith. And you're damned right I'll say an idea is wrong if it contradicts reality.


[QUOTE=fallinghouse;8566598]I didn't want to go in this direction because few people are capable of accepting this idea; but even the axioms of logic are reliant on faith. Meaning that if any religions actually are internally contradictory, their proponents are still only having faith in something that contradicts what you have faith in.
Ah, the last refuge of the religious zealot; the claim that your beliefs don't have to make sense. That kind of attitude is one reason I hold religion and those who believe it in contempt.

Martini
2007-07-03, 18:19
Points which you repeatedly ignored.



None of the things I mentioned above are testable, and yet you accept them.



That probability does not take into account any of the factors that I mentioned above. In fact, it would be impossible to take them into account, because we can't know how likely or unlikely any are.



Sure, by taking the accuracy of the senses on faith.
Hardly. We exchange information to check that your senses report the same thing as do mine. We have machines that record information, which serve as a check against our senses, and which are often more accurate. (No one looks at stars anymore, they photograph them.) Plus, we have many cases where our senses aren't accurate (optical illusions, for instance) and psychologists study why this is.

The canals of Mars are a great example of how our senses were proved not to be accurate.



Please show how you calculated this probability, as I'm betting you pulled it out of your ass.
The exact probability of "odds are?" :confused: I can probably plug a billion true impressions vs no deluded ones into a statistics package I use and get p < .000000000000...1, but that would be kind of pointless.

Have any examples of our senses deluding us not already accepted by science, or have you watched The Matrix once too often?

I'm kind of fed up with extreme skepticism, since I suffered through a Theory of Knowledge class where a few students brought it up all the time, wasting the time of everyone else.



I don't know about you, but I'm taking it to mean belief in an idea or concept that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.
That's the source of your confusion. You seem to think the opposite of proof is faith. In science, where proof does not exist, what we have is provisional acceptance. That's why the sentences in scientific papers are so long - you make a statement, then add five clauses on the assumptions made and ways in which the statement may be false. Underlying every scientific statement is a "maybe." The classic case is Newton's Laws. After over 200 years, they were as close to holy writ as anything in science, yet got overturned practically overnight by convincing evidence of relativity. If religion worked like science, Genesis would be on Rev. 5.3 by now, and would be unrecognizable.

fallinghouse
2007-07-04, 00:00
And the facts are against them. Atheism doesn't cause anyone to do anything, or excuse anyone from anything. It is not a belief system, unlike religion; it makes no commands, no demands, and no unprovable or reality-denying assertion about the world. Therefore atheism doesn't warp people's behavior the way religion does. It doesn't twist people's judgement, or motivate them to do anything.

Facts? What facts?

No, he can't, because he doesn't believe that there is a universe to manipulate.

Wrong. If the universe is the sum of existence, then he is the universe.

I meant among other reasons, and a solipsist would say no such thing. What would be the point of saying anything ? To whom will he speak ?

To his doubts?

Wrong. I've already mentioned some of it's assumptions; here's another one. How can mind exist at all without a substrate ?

Think about why you think a mind needs a substrate. It comes from your observations about reality, observations which are seen as useless to a solipsist.

And saying that something is unknowable isn't an explanation.

Yet it is not scientific to pretend to know something when one doesn't.


Except that believing in reality isn't faith. And you're damned right I'll say an idea is wrong if it contradicts reality.

You have yet to demonstrate that your observations of reality are accurate, or that that reality even exists.

Ah, the last refuge of the religious zealot; the claim that your beliefs don't have to make sense. That kind of attitude is one reason I hold religion and those who believe it in contempt.

How would you justify the use of logic? Using logic? Can't because that is circular. There is no reason to believe that logic has any relationship with the truth, and unless you can give any evidence that it does, you are taking logic on faith.


Hardly. We exchange information to check that your senses report the same thing as do mine. We have machines that record information, which serve as a check against our senses, and which are often more accurate

Begging the question. You can't rely on sense data to prove the accuracy of the senses, which is what you have done.

. (No one looks at stars anymore, they photograph them.) Plus, we have many cases where our senses aren't accurate (optical illusions, for instance) and psychologists study why this is.

The canals of Mars are a great example of how our senses were proved not to be accurate.

Even though people may say that the senses can be inaccurate, they could only have derived this idea by using other sense data, which they assume to be true. How do you think people know what is on the photographs of Mars? They look at them.

The exact probability of "odds are?"

Odds are a type of probability. If you say something has odds of 1:3, that is a 25% chance of the first and a 75% chance of the second.

I can probably plug a billion true impressions vs no deluded ones into a statistics package I use and get p < .000000000000...1, but that would be kind of pointless.

It would also be begging the question, because you don't know which impressions are true.


Have any examples of our senses deluding us not already accepted by science, or have you watched The Matrix once too often?

I never said the senses are deluding us, just that it is an assumption to say they aren't. An untestable assumption because there is no way to observe without using the senses.

That's the source of your confusion. You seem to think the opposite of proof is faith. In science, where proof does not exist, what we have is provisional acceptance. That's why the sentences in scientific papers are so long - you make a statement, then add five clauses on the assumptions made and ways in which the statement may be false. Underlying every scientific statement is a "maybe." The classic case is Newton's Laws. After over 200 years, they were as close to holy writ as anything in science, yet got overturned practically overnight by convincing evidence of relativity.

That would be all good and well, if science was a purely theoretical undertaking. But every time science is used for a practical purpose, it is because the scientist or engineer or doctor or whatever thinks that it will provide the results that are desired. And the only reason he thinks this is because he takes the assumptions I have mentioned without any evidence or proof that it will work.

KikoSanchez
2007-07-04, 00:43
So: Earth is about 4.5 billion years old; or Earth is about 6,000 years old. Beginning in 1969 NASA landed a total of 12 men on the Moon; or the Apollo program was all an elaborate hoax. The Nazis under Hitler carried out a systematic program of extermination directed against Jews, Gypsies, and various other groups; or a huge Zionist conspiracy has systematically distorted history to justify its various machinations. All of these claims have to be accepted or rejected as a matter of "faith", since none of them can be proven in the way you can prove things in a Euclidean geometry textbook. And I suppose there's no way to say that the beliefs of the Moon Hoaxers or the Holocaust Deniers is better or worse than the beliefs of the NASAists or the Holocaust Believers, right? Surely it would make no sense to claim that one set of faith-based beliefs is better than another.

Though it may be stated that no one thing can be said to be true or fact, some things have support for them and some have less, thus there are beliefs and better, more justified beliefs. If everything is simply faith with disregard of support, then arguing/debate is simply inane and we all need to get off here and believe anything or everything, because they're all equally valid. I disagree. Even if we base our belief on something that can't be proven, such as inductive reasoning, I still see it as more logical or reasonable to hold than a belief with no support whatsoever.
Yet, this debate of faith is not a correct way to look at the faith for god, because the unbelievers, simply have no belief. The onus is on those that have the faith.

Scraff
2007-07-04, 03:19
That would be all good and well, if science was a purely theoretical undertaking. But every time science is used for a practical purpose, it is because the scientist or engineer or doctor or whatever thinks that it will provide the results that are desired. And the only reason he thinks this is because he takes the assumptions I have mentioned without any evidence or proof that it will work.
Wrong, scientists are dispassionate about the results. At least, good scientists are.

You really need to understand the philosophy of science before you spout off claims about science relying on faith.

Martini
2007-07-04, 03:43
Wrong, scientists are dispassionate about the results. At least, good scientists are.

You really need to understand the philosophy of science before you spout off claims about science relying on faith.

You are missing his attempted point. He is not making any claims about the objective or subjective efforts of scientists; he is claiming that the entire world could be an illusion and all your thoughts, including what you have encountered in this thread, might be nothing more than some perturbances in your illusion that a world exists outside your mind.

fallinghouse
2007-07-04, 03:44
Though it may be stated that no one thing can be said to be true or fact, some things have support for them and some have less, thus there are beliefs and better, more justified beliefs.

AFAIK all possible forms of support for a belief are reliant on at least one of the assumptions I have outlined in this thread, meaning that without introducing faith, there is no way to gather support or justify any beliefs.

If everything is simply faith with disregard of support, then arguing/debate is simply inane and we all need to get off here and believe anything or everything, because they're all equally valid.

Pretty much.

Even if we base our belief on something that can't be proven, such as inductive reasoning, I still see it as more logical or reasonable to hold than a belief with no support whatsoever.

That's interesting, but unless you can somehow demonstrate this, it's just your system of personal values.

Yet, this debate of faith is not a correct way to look at the faith for god, because the unbelievers, simply have no belief. The onus is on those that have the faith.

No faith? Even when you yourself admitted induction can't be justified, and it is used regardless?


Wrong, scientists are dispassionate about the results. At least, good scientists are.

What I said there has nothing to do with any real or imagined passion that scientists have. Please re-read.

You really need to understand the philosophy of science before you spout off claims about science relying on faith.

You say this, but you don't appear to have even read Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Scraff
2007-07-04, 03:46
You are missing his attempted point. He is not making any claims about the objective or subjective efforts of scientists; he is claiming that the entire world could be an illusion and all your thoughts, including what you have encountered in this thread, might be nothing more than some perturbances in your illusion that a world exists outside your mind.

And of course, the answer to this is, if so, so what? The methods we use to determine scientific accuracy of this perception work equally well if all that we perceive is as it seems, or if it is some grand, consistent illusion. It is outside the scope of the problem if there is some unseen mover, or if all this exists as a quantum fluctuation. Our observations have described this reality, and that is all we can do.

HellzShellz
2007-07-04, 04:43
The amplified brings this passage out.


HEBREWS 11:1 We need to know what faith is, before we know that without it we can't please God. 11:1 comes before 11:6.

NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].


Faith is.. Assurance
Faith is.. proof
of things we CAN'T SEE
Faith is... conviction
of the things that we can't see's reality
Faith....perceives as real fact what is not revealed to the sense.


If you have a car without the deed/title, then you have a car that you can't prove is yours. If you have a car, and the title to it, not only do you KNOW that it's yours, you can prove it to anyone else who doubts that it belongs to you.
(We need to stand on this when you go to stand on other scriptures. "GOD IT'S RIGHT HERE, YOU SAID IT, YOU SAID YOU KNOW THE PLANS YOU HAVE FOR ME, PLANS TO PROSPER ME AND GIVE ME HOPE AND A FUTURE. I BELIEVE IT, SO NOW I JUST THANK YOU FOR IT. HALLELUJAH." See, faith doesn't have to visibly see it before it believes it. Faith BELIEVES before it sees, and then sees after it believes. You have to BELIEVE in your heart, and THEN you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord.

Excellent post!

fallinghouse
2007-07-04, 04:55
And of course, the answer to this is, if so, so what? The methods we use to determine scientific accuracy of this perception work equally well if all that we perceive is as it seems, or if it is some grand, consistent illusion. It is outside the scope of the problem if there is some unseen mover, or if all this exists as a quantum fluctuation. Our observations have described this reality, and that is all we can do.

If the external world does exist (pretending the other assumptions are justified for the moment), then for example, the scientific description of planetary formation is as close to truth as we can currently get. But if the external world doesn't exist, then the scientific description is just an interpretation of what could possibly be an illusion, meaning that if it contradicts say, one of the Australian Aborigine stories that says the earth was created by the killing of a giant snake, then there is no rational reason to take the scientific view over the tribal story, just personal preference.

If the assumption that the external world exists is not made, then science is too powerless to assert anything.

Obbe
2007-07-04, 12:04
Goods Posts FH.

xray
2007-07-04, 15:00
Facts? What facts?
The facts that atheism, as I said, doesn't have the record for creating bad behavior that religion does. And before your predictable ( and probably pre-written ) reply, Communism isn't atheism. It's a belief system, which atheism is not, and atheism is only a small part of it. The communists suppressed ( other ) religions for the same reasons Christians do when they can; to eliminate the competition.




Wrong. If the universe is thesum of existence, then he is the universe.




Think about why you think a mind needs a substrate. It comes from your observations about reality, observations which are seen as useless to a solipsist.
No, it comes from the logical idea that mind has to have some sort of subsrate, or it simply wouldn't hold together. Your imaginary solipisist mind with no substrate would evaporate, because there's nothing to stop it. No underlying stability.



Yet it is not scientific to pretend to know something when one doesn't.

Your point ?



You have yet to demonstrate that your observations of reality are accurate, or that that reality even exists.
Occam's Razor; it makes the least assumption that explain perceived reality. As opposed to solipsism, which makes many assumptions, and doesn't explain anything.



How would you justify the use of logic? Using logic? Can't because that is circular. There is no reason to believe that logic has any relationship with the truth, and unless you can give any evidence that it does, you are taking logic on faith.
Because it works, obviously, while faith fails. Because logic fits the way the world works, the way successful mental processes work.





But every time science is used for a practical purpose, it is because the scientist or engineer or doctor or whatever thinks that it will provide the results that are desired. And the only reason he thinks this is because he takes the assumptions I have mentioned without any evidence or proof that it will work.
No, he believes it because it holds together logically and because it has worked millions of times before. As opposed to faith and religion, which are generally logically incoherent and have failed millions of times. Science is the attempt to discover the nature of the world and the rules that govern the world; religion makes "facts" about the world up, and faith is intellectual version of closing your eyes, covering your ears and screaming "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU ! !"

xray
2007-07-04, 15:05
Another question for fallinghouse here is: do you really want to dilute the term 'faith' down to such a bland, meaningless level?

If it takes faith to believe in science, faith to turn on a lightbulb, faith to pick your nose, and the term 'faith' here means the same as faith in God, then faith in God isn't really very special, is it?

Scientific principles were formed using inductive logic, which requires faith.
I disagree. Logic does not require faith, it requires an understanding of mathematics. And principles are not necessarily formed using inductive logic. Often it's deductive logic - q.v. Newton's apple and Newton's principles of motion.

Scraff
2007-07-04, 19:47
You say this, but you don't appear to have even read Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
I haven't read it, but that doesn't stop me from questioning the logic of your silly little "illusion" theory which you've conveniently used a "double invisible" to prevent yourself from having to prove anything. They use the same technique in religion and in the "paranormal." The fact is you can cry all you want about how the physical world is becoming too real for you, and I understand in times of desperation one will tend to question the objective lens of science because you know everyone likes to bully on science for some unknown reason. But not only is your "illusion" theory an untestable hypothesis, but it's a waste of time in general.





Seconding the 'have taken enough philosophy not to be impressed' position. Clever insights tend to be equally distributed with harebrained propositions. If you want to argue from authority, at least have the decency to pick better authorities.

As for the skeptic's argument:

The fact that one recognizes that all might not be real does not undermine the observed consistency and predictability of what we have observed, be it reality, a simulation, or merely a remarkably stable dream. So, due to this long-observed consistency and predictability, it is entirely reasonable to continue to interact with the dream-or-whatever (for as long as we have to interact with it) based on the observations we've made of it and the conclusions drawn therefrom. These observations are known as "science". As noted, we can have these observations, this science, whether or not observed reality is absolute reality. In fact, the absolute reality of observed reality is an irrelevant question. Science requires only consistency and predictability; it does not require that the thing being studied be 'really real'.

So: being a pure skeptic is no reason to abandon science. No reason at all.

Spike Spiegel
2007-07-04, 22:24
Faith is.. Assurance

Faith is.. proof of things we CAN'T SEE
Faith is... conviction of the things that we can't see's reality

Faith....perceives as real fact what is not revealed to the sense.



So this example of "Faith" is Ignorance...

Gotcha.

Thanks for clarifying things, because I have Faith that Jesus exists, therefore he had to of existed!

http://i19.tinypic.com/4r94i02.jpg

fallinghouse
2007-07-05, 00:03
The facts that atheism, as I said, doesn't have the record for creating bad behavior that religion does. And before your predictable ( and probably pre-written ) reply, Communism isn't atheism. It's a belief system, which atheism is not, and atheism is only a small part of it. The communists suppressed ( other ) religions for the same reasons Christians do when they can; to eliminate the competition.

The Spanish Inquisition isn't religion. It was a systematic way of eliminating political opponents, which religion is not.


No, it comes from the logical idea that mind has to have some sort of subsrate, or it simply wouldn't hold together. Your imaginary solipisist mind with no substrate would evaporate, because there's nothing to stop it. No underlying stability.

Pray tell, which logical law forbids the existence of a mind without a substrate?

Occam's Razor; it makes the least assumption that explain perceived reality. As opposed to solipsism, which makes many assumptions, and doesn't explain anything.

1. You have yet to show any assumptions made by solipsism.
2. Solipsism does explain reality, it doesn't exist. Every explanation made by the theory that the external world exists, be it 'that apple is green' or 'the moon orbits the earth' or anything else, is matched by an explanation in solipsism, 'that apple doesn't exist', 'the moon doesn't exist'.
3. How do you think Occam's razor was derived? Using patterns observed in the external world. Hence using it to prove the existence of this world is a circular argument.

Because it works, obviously, while faith fails. Because logic fits the way the world works, the way successful mental processes work.

Your argument is self defeating, as even if it did demonstrate the validity of logic, that would be a breach of the logical rule against circular arguments because it uses logic to prove logic.


No, he believes it because it holds together logically

Logical validity is no proof of truth, even if one assumes that logic has connection to truth.

and because it has worked millions of times before.

This argument uses token examples to attempt to establish relationships or properties, this means it is an inductive argument. Since all of the principles and theories used by science to make these predictions were formed by generalising token pieces of evidence; this argument attempts to use inductive reasoning to justify inductive reasoning, in a circular argument.


Another question for fallinghouse here is: do you really want to dilute the term 'faith' down to such a bland, meaningless level?

If it takes faith to believe in science, faith to turn on a lightbulb, faith to pick your nose, and the term 'faith' here means the same as faith in God, then faith in God isn't really very special, is it?

I honestly don't care what the consequences of my thought processes are. Once one has dismissed logic, one can easily hold positions that they believe are logically unsound.


I disagree. Logic does not require faith, it requires an understanding of mathematics.

Mathematics is just an abstract universe that has been created over many millenia and has never been demonstrated to have any connection to reality.

And principles are not necessarily formed using inductive logic. Often it's deductive logic - q.v. Newton's apple and Newton's principles of motion.

Wrong. If it was deductive logic then scientists would not have replaced Newton's laws with General Relativity, as they believe that a deductive proof has absolute certainty.

I haven't read it, but that doesn't stop me from questioning the logic of your silly little "illusion" theory which you've conveniently used a "double invisible" to prevent yourself from having to prove anything. They use the same technique in religion and in the "paranormal." The fact is you can cry all you want about how the physical world is becoming too real for you, and I understand in times of desperation one will tend to question the objective lens of science because you know everyone likes to bully on science for some unknown reason. But not only is your "illusion" theory an untestable hypothesis, but it's a waste of time in general.

You haven't even flirted with answering any points here.

Seconding the 'have taken enough philosophy not to be impressed' position. Clever insights tend to be equally distributed with harebrained propositions. If you want to argue from authority, at least have the decency to pick better authorities.

I have not once in this thread argued from authority.

The fact that one recognizes that all might not be real does not undermine the observed consistency and predictability of what we have observed, be it reality, a simulation, or merely a remarkably stable dream. So, due to this long-observed consistency and predictability, it is entirely reasonable to continue to interact with the dream-or-whatever (for as long as we have to interact with it) based on the observations we've made of it and the conclusions drawn therefrom. These observations are known as "science". As noted, we can have these observations, this science, whether or not observed reality is absolute reality. In fact, the absolute reality of observed reality is an irrelevant question. Science requires only consistency and predictability; it does not require that the thing being studied be 'really real'.

If you told that to the Aborigines, they could just say that the consistency of an illusion is no reason for them to change their views toward a scientific explanation of the formation of the earth. As I said before, if there is no external world, science loses it's previously intrinsic right to asserting that something is closer to the truth than something else. All it can say is that it appears more consistent with their possible illusion than something else; and there is no rational problem with denying the repercussions of an illusion.

FunkyZombie
2007-07-05, 01:53
Let us assume fallinghouse is correct for a moment.
What exactly does fallinghouse believe we should do with this "knowledge" that nothing can be truly known?

What do we gain?

Should we all turn inward and ignore the world as an irrelevant illusion?

Or should we do as we please without care for consequence as consequence is an illusion?

Obbe
2007-07-05, 11:57
I don't think he believes you should 'do' anything.

And really, why should you?

I would just use it to think further into things.

xray
2007-07-05, 12:15
The Spanish Inquisition isn't religion. It was a systematic way of eliminating political opponents, which religion is not.
Wrong; political control is one of the major functions of religion, and always has been. And they spent a great amount of time going after Jews, for example, not just political opponents.



TPray tell, which logical law forbids the existence of a mind without a substrate?
I already told you; that there's nothing to give such a mind any stability, to keep it from vanishing. Your claim that it wouldn't is one of those assumptions you say you aren't making.



1. You have yet to show any assumptions made by solipsism.
2. Solipsism does explain reality, it doesn't exist. Every explanation made by the theory that the external world exists, be it 'that apple is green' or 'the moon orbits the earth' or anything else, is matched by an explanation in solipsism, 'that apple doesn't exist', 'the moon doesn't exist'.
3. How do you think Occam's razor was derived? Using patterns observed in the external world. Hence using it to prove the existence of this world is a circular argument.
1 : I, and others, have shown you various such assumptions; you simply choose not to acknowledge them. Probably because whatever handout or website you are cutting and pasting from doesn't have any prewritten answers.

2 : That doesn't explain any number of things about the world we perceive, such as it's stability and order, as I and others have pointed out. Repeatedly.

3 : Occam's Razor is a logical necessity for proper reasoning, otherwise you will be lost in an infinity of possibilities. You need to start from the smallest number of postulations you can and work out; that's just the way rational thought works.



Your argument is self defeating, as even if it did demonstrate the validity of logic, that would be a breach of the logical rule against circular arguments because it uses logic to prove logic.
We know logic works because we do it and it DOES work. And the alternative is insanity, literally. If you truly reject logic, you need medical care.



Logical validity is no proof of truth, even if one assumes that logic has connection to truth.
Which is why he tests it, of course. Unlike religion, which doesn't.



This argument uses token examples to attempt to establish relationships or properties, this means it is an inductive argument. Since all of the principles and theories used by science to make these predictions were formed by generalising token pieces of evidence; this argument attempts to use inductive reasoning to justify inductive reasoning, in a circular argument.
What ARE you babbling about ? Billions of pieces of evidence are not "token", and trying something and having it work isn't generalizing.



I honestly don't care what the consequences of my thought processes are.
You are lying. Otherwise, you would be dead, or restrained.



It would also be begging the question, because you don't know which impressions are true.


I never said the senses are deluding us, just that it is an assumption to say they aren't. An untestable assumption because there is no way to observe without using the senses.
You need to explain why the unreliable senses of lots of people agree. If the impressions we are getting are random, then the probability of everyone agreeing that the light is red would be tiny. (And I asked you for the exact odds - by the evidence you don't understand probability very well .)


That would be all good and well, if science was a purely theoretical undertaking. But every time science is used for a practical purpose, it is because the scientist or engineer or doctor or whatever thinks that it will provide the results that are desired. And the only reason he thinks this is because he takes the assumptions I have mentioned without any evidence or proof that it will work.
We think it will? Hardly. Engineers and doctors test things first. The FDA tests drugs, and no one builds a chip without a test chip going through first. In fact the one thing we know about a new chip is that it won't work the first time. Before it gets released, after debug, there is tons of evidence that it will work (mostly.) Only someone absolutely ignorant about science would make the statements that you do.

Now, if it is all an illusion, the illusion seems to be equivalent to what we see as reality. Since you are typing your posts on something that you claim you have no evidence of working, let alone proof, that you continue to do so shows you are either lying or being a hypocrite. Are you living up to your beliefs?

fallinghouse
2007-07-05, 13:24
Let us assume fallinghouse is correct for a moment.
What exactly does fallinghouse believe we should do with this "knowledge" that nothing can be truly known?

What do we gain?

Should we all turn inward and ignore the world as an irrelevant illusion?

Or should we do as we please without care for consequence as consequence is an illusion?

If there exist things that we should do, it is impossible to know about them. So now we don't know anything, where do we go? Well, if you want to escape then I suspect there are an infinite number of ways out of this hopeless situation, but the only one I perceive is faith. Unfortunately, it seems many of those among humanity who reject religion and spirituality have some kind of vendetta against the notion of faith, and so remain trapped in the dark, high-fiving one another on their wonderful stories of the light.

Wrong; political control is one of the major functions of religion, and always has been. And they spent a great amount of time going after Jews, for example, not just political opponents.

While political control may be a function of some religions, political control =/= systematic elimination of political opponents. If Stalinist anti-religion activities can be dismissed as reflecting the actions of a perversion of atheism, so can the Inquisition be dismissed as a perversion of religion.

I already told you; that there's nothing to give such a mind any stability, to keep it from vanishing. Your claim that it wouldn't is one of those assumptions you say you aren't making.

Maybe you don't understand what a logical law is. Like perhaps the law of involution, 'not not p = p'

Your words don't appear to show the breach of any logical law I know of, only the breach of your intuition.

1 : I, and others, have shown you various such assumptions; you simply choose not to acknowledge them. Probably because whatever handout or website you are cutting and pasting from doesn't have any prewritten answers.

Actually it's because your arguments were easily demonstrated to be false.

2 : That doesn't explain any number of things about the world we perceive, such as it's stability and order, as I and others have pointed out. Repeatedly.

These things are unable to be known. That is an explanation.

Take the following thought experiment. An astronomer is sent back 5000 years in time and encounters a tribal chief who says that the north star is not a star but the spirit of some past warrior who fought the Gods for a seat in the sky. Since the astronomer is unable to use telescopes or provide any evidence that it's really a massive nuclear reaction millions of miles away, she has no evidence on hand that would justify any theories, so she must conclude that she has no scientific grounds to assert to the chief anything other than that the nature of the star is unknowable and will be until telescopes are invented. The chief laughs at that, because he has a philosophical principle he calls 'Ok H'am's shaver' that says since his story fits the observable data, and since saying you can't know something is no explanation at all, and since his story does explain a number of things, then the north star really is just a warrior spirit.

The way I see it, the chief was mistaken in that admitting you can't know something really is an explanation.

3 : Occam's Razor is a logical necessity for proper reasoning, otherwise you will be lost in an infinity of possibilities. You need to start from the smallest number of postulations you can and work out; that's just the way rational thought works.

Just because the truth of something might be useful does not in any way require that it has any connection to truth.

We know logic works because we do it and it DOES work.

Inductive argument. Self-defeating, as shown above.

And the alternative is insanity, literally. If you truly reject logic, you need medical care.

It's not particularly logical to reject an argument because you don't prefer it's conclusions.

Which is why he tests it, of course. Unlike religion, which doesn't.

And you can't test it without first fallaciously assuming it is true. Which I have shown. Repeatedly.

What ARE you babbling about ? Billions of pieces of evidence are not "token", and trying something and having it work isn't generalizing.

In this context, 'token' means any evidence that does not include every possible combination of variables, including where time is in the future. And since you can't say what future results will be, your evidence will always be token.

Why does token mean this? Because if you haven't covered every possible combination of variables, then you don't know about the combinations you haven't tried, and pretending you know is called induction.

You need to explain why the unreliable senses of lots of people agree.

I'll be happy to, as soon as you can prove to me that the senses of lots of people do agree. But you can't without using testimony that you either heard or read - using your senses. So in order to prove that you would need to fallaciously assume it is first true.

If the impressions we are getting are random, then the probability of everyone agreeing that the light is red would be tiny.

I never said they were random.

(And I asked you for the exact odds - by the evidence you don't understand probability very well .)

You'd probably be surprised...

We think it will? Hardly. Engineers and doctors test things first. The FDA tests drugs, and no one builds a chip without a test chip going through first. In fact the one thing we know about a new chip is that it won't work the first time. Before it gets released, after debug, there is tons of evidence that it will work (mostly.) Only someone absolutely ignorant about science would make the statements that you do.

Inductive argument, which can't be justified.

Now, if it is all an illusion, the illusion seems to be equivalent to what we see as reality. Since you are typing your posts on something that you claim you have no evidence of working, let alone proof, that you continue to do so shows you are either lying or being a hypocrite. Are you living up to your beliefs?

Or option 3. (out of an infinite number of other possibilities), which is that I believe in induction, the external world and the accuracy of the senses through faith, which is what I have been recommending for this entire thread. (interestingly sidenote: I do reject the applicability of a couple of logical axioms, but would be satisfied with anyone holding them through faith)

Scraff
2007-07-05, 15:12
While political control may be a function of some religions, political control =/= systematic elimination of political opponents. If Stalinist anti-religion activities can be dismissed as reflecting the actions of a perversion of atheism, so can the Inquisition be dismissed as a perversion of religion.
But Stalinism is not a perversion of atheism. There is no connection between the two. OTOH, the inquisition is a direct result of Christian beliefs. So no, you cannot dismiss Inquisition as a perversion of religion.




Maybe you don't understand what a logical law is. Like perhaps the law of involution, 'not not p = p'

Your words don't appear to show the breach of any logical law I know of, only the breach of your intuition.
What are you talking about?



Actually it's because your arguments were easily demonstrated to be false.
You have demonstrated no such thing.



These things are unable to be known. That is an explanation.

Take the following thought experiment. An astronomer is sent back 5000 years in time and encounters a tribal chief who says that the north star is not a star but the spirit of some past warrior who fought the Gods for a seat in the sky. Since the astronomer is unable to use telescopes or provide any evidence that it's really a massive nuclear reaction millions of miles away, she has no evidence on hand that would justify any theories, so she must conclude that she has no scientific grounds to assert to the chief anything other than that the nature of the star is unknowable and will be until telescopes are invented. The chief laughs at that, because he has a philosophical principle he calls 'Ok H'am's shaver' that says since his story fits the observable data, and since saying you can't know something is no explanation at all, and since his story does explain a number of things, then the north star really is just a warrior spirit.

The way I see it, the chief was mistaken in that admitting you can't know something really is an explanation.
But the chieftain has no evidence to speak of, so the "Ham Shaver" cannot be used to say that the north star is really just a warrior spirit. Your grasping here. Also, it's not a mistake to say that you don't know - to say that it cannot be known may or may not be a mistake, depending on what particular knowledge we are talking about.



Just because the truth of something might be useful does not in any way require that it has any connection to truth.
Correct. What then? Anything can be true. It's quite possible that we are all being deceived. How then determine what belief to waste time on? My "booger fairy" is telling me that the world was created in a giant sneeze. Should I actually waste time on this?




Inductive argument. Self-defeating, as shown above.
Not self-defeating as you have failed to demonstrate.



It's not particularly logical to reject an argument because you don't prefer it's conclusions.
No one is rejecting the argument. It is merely an argument that really has no use.



And you can't test it without first fallaciously assuming it is true. Which I have shown. Repeatedly.
The same can be said of religion and more. At least with science, there is actually testing done.



In this context, 'token' means any evidence that does not include every possible combination of variables, including where time is in the future. And since you can't say what future results will be, your evidence will always be token.

Why does token mean this? Because if you haven't covered every possible combination of variables, then you don't know about the combinations you haven't tried, and pretending you know is called induction.
What's your point? Nobody is arguing the limitation of the inductive method.




I'll be happy to, as soon as you can prove to me that the senses of lots of people do agree. But you can't without using testimony that you either heard or read - using your senses. So in order to prove that you would need to fallaciously assume it is first true.
You actually question that the senses of people agree. Epistemological skepticism to max? Good luck to that.



Inductive argument, which can't be justified.
Justified for what?




Or option 3. (out of an infinite number of other possibilities), which is that I believe in induction, the external world and the accuracy of the senses through faith, which is what I have been recommending for this entire thread. (interestingly sidenote: I do reject the applicability of a couple of logical axioms, but would be satisfied with anyone holding them through faith)
So what? It is still far from the faith used to believe in God, the supernatural and whatnot. The faith that the external world is real and that our senses are accurate is the foundation of ALL belief, including the belief that you are alive and that you are a person and that what you are typing on is a computer. No one is arguing that. The only reason it is being dismissed is that it is a trivial argument. It adds nothing to anything.



These things are unable to be known. That is an explanation.
That is not an explanation. That is an observation.

FunkyZombie
2007-07-05, 15:25
I don't think he believes you should 'do' anything.

And really, why should you?

I would just use it to think further into things.

How does "knowing" that nothing can be known lead to thinking further into things?

FunkyZombie
2007-07-05, 15:32
If there exist things that we should do, it is impossible to know about them. So now we don't know anything, where do we go? Well, if you want to escape then I suspect there are an infinite number of ways out of this hopeless situation, but the only one I perceive is faith. Unfortunately, it seems many of those among humanity who reject religion and spirituality have some kind of vendetta against the notion of faith, and so remain trapped in the dark, high-fiving one another on their wonderful stories of the light.

That's very poetic but what does it mean?
You say faith is the way out.
Faith in what though?
Not all faiths are the same.

Martini
2007-07-05, 16:57
Even if we accept fallinghouse's statement that scientific principles were formed using the senses, which requires faith in their accuracy and that the external world can only be taken to exist using faith, then science still trumps religion.

If this whole thing called reality is just some dream with our senses governing how everything works, then at least science attempts to explain how things work using the tools that created this dream: the senses. It adheres to and explains the rules that make up the reality we are all experiencing. Whereas religion just creates another dream.

BUT science does NOT require faith in the accuracy of the senses. Science says "based on what me and other people have repeatedly observed, this is the way things are. At any time this could be proven wrong and that's fine." Science allows people to be wrong if proven so. There's been a lot of definitions of "faith" thrown around but I think we can all agree that one thing that faith is not is flexible.

Science attempts to explain how things work and if that explanation is proven wrong, then so be it. Religion is just a game of Calvinball.

Martini
2007-07-05, 18:39
I didn't want to go in this direction because few people are capable of accepting this idea; but even the axioms of logic are reliant on faith. Meaning that if any religions actually are internally contradictory, their proponents are still only having faith in something that contradicts what you have faith in.
I'd say that the rules of logic are presupposed and they are presupposed because they are axiomatic; self evident and you cannot deny them without direct contradiction. In fact, you can't even question them without them. It's important to note that not all presuppositions are equal though.

I think there is some smudging going on in terms of what you mean by 'faith'. Faith is belief without evidence/reason. To say that science requires faith is therefore not entirely true. If you want to assert certainty in scientific principles then I suppose it would be true - but nothing in science is certain and certainty isn't required to hold a belief to be true.

Although, on another note, your posts beg the question. In short your argument is self defeating.

Further, as I'm sure you realize, 'faith' in the axioms of logic, in induction, in science, etc is not the equivalent to faith in religion - since religion CAN be denied without direct contradiction.



I honestly don't care what the consequences of my thought processes are. Once one has dismissed logic, one can easily hold positions that they believe are logically unsound.
You are incorrect here - once you dismiss logic you dismiss any semblance of coherency. That means that you are, in essence, holding a position without meaning. In fact, I don't think you could honestly say that you are holding a position.

xray
2007-07-05, 20:20
While political control may be a function of some religions, political control =/= systematic elimination of political opponents. If Stalinist anti-religion activities can be dismissed as reflecting the actions of a perversion of atheism, so can the Inquisition be dismissed as a perversion of religion.
It's not a "perversion of atheism", it's a belief system that happens to have atheism as a minor part of it. Atheism is too simple to pervert, really, given that it's simply the disbelief in gods. Killing/oppressing everyone who disagrees with you on the other hand is a basic function of most of the major religions; they were made in large part for that purpose. The people who do good deeds in the name of religion are the ones who are perverting it; they are trying to twist something fundamentally evil into doing good, which is why it usually doesn't work.




Take the following thought experiment. An astronomer is sent back 5000 years in time and encounters a tribal chief who says that the north star is not a star but the spirit of some past warrior who fought the Gods for a seat in the sky. Since the astronomer is unable to use telescopes or provide any evidence that it's really a massive nuclear reaction millions of miles away, she has no evidence on hand that would justify any theories, so she must conclude that she has no scientific grounds to assert to the chief anything other than that the nature of the star is unknowable and will be until telescopes are invented. The chief laughs at that, because he has a philosophical principle he calls 'Ok H'am's shaver' that says since his story fits the observable data, and since saying you can't know something is no explanation at all, and since his story does explain a number of things, then the north star really is just a warrior spirit.

The way I see it, the chief was mistaken in that admitting you can't know something really is an explanation.
No, she has scientific grounds, she's just cut off from the physical evidence. The chief on the other hand has no evidence whatsoever and never did, and his belief is nothing but an assertion that doesn't make any sense.

The chief is mistaken in that he's making things up out of nothing, or listening to those who did.



Just because the truth of something might be useful does not in any way require that it has any connection to truth.
:rolleyes: Ohhhhh-kay. That makes no sense at all.



And you can't test it without first fallaciously assuming it is true. Which I have shown. Repeatedly.
You've shown nothing of the sort. We test it every time we treat the world as real, and it acts real.



In this context, 'token' means any evidence that does not include every possible combination of variables, including where time is in the future. And since you can't say what future results will be, your evidence will always be token.

Why does token mean this? Because if you haven't covered every possible combination of variables, then you don't know about the combinations you haven't tried, and pretending you know is called induction.
:rolleyes:No, it's called practicality and experience.

yango wango
2007-07-05, 20:41
It's not a "perversion of atheism", it's a belief system that happens to have atheism as a minor part of it. Atheism is too simple to pervert, really, given that it's simply the disbelief in gods. Killing/oppressing everyone who disagrees with you on the other hand is a basic function of most of the major religions; they were made in large part for that purpose. The people who do good deeds in the name of religion are the ones who are perverting it; they are trying to twist something fundamentally evil into doing good, which is why it usually doesn't work.




It happened during the french revolution as well. Atheism can't really pervert. But people can still use atheism as a point of view to rid people from a system. How is that ANY different then one religious group persecuting another? You know the answer is that it isn't. People are naturally violent. People will naturally get together and kill other people they don't agree with if they get together with enough people who agree with them. Why would you say religions were created largley for the purpous of genocide? That is simply untrue. Most of the people who do good deeds in the name of religion are actually feeding the poor, helping the needy, and generally being helpfull to humanity. Most religions don't endorse violence. Most religions encourage morality and positivity. If you focus on whats going on in Iraq it doesn't seem that way but those people are a major exception not the rule. Almost all religious people are extremely peacefull people who wouldn't hurt a fly and fundementaly disagree with extremists. It's unfair to clump moderates in with extremists. They arn't even similar in the least.

yango wango
2007-07-05, 20:42
It's not a "perversion of atheism", it's a belief system that happens to have atheism as a minor part of it. Atheism is too simple to pervert, really, given that it's simply the disbelief in gods. Killing/oppressing everyone who disagrees with you on the other hand is a basic function of most of the major religions; they were made in large part for that purpose. The people who do good deeds in the name of religion are the ones who are perverting it; they are trying to twist something fundamentally evil into doing good, which is why it usually doesn't work.




It happened during the french revolution as well. Atheism can't really pervert. But people can still use atheism as a point of view to rid people from a system. How is that ANY different then one religious group persecuting another? You know the answer is that it isn't. People are naturally violent. People will naturally get together and kill other people they don't agree with if they get together with enough people who agree with them. Why would you say religions were created largley for the purpous of genocide? That is simply untrue. Most of the people who do good deeds in the name of religion are actually feeding the poor, helping the needy, and generally being helpfull to humanity. Most religions don't endorse violence. Most religions encourage morality and positivity. If you focus on whats going on in Iraq it doesn't seem that way but those people are a major exception not the rule. Almost all religious people are extremely peacefull people who wouldn't hurt a fly and fundementaly disagree with extremists. It's unfair to clump moderates in with extremists. They arn't even similar species.

Lion eats man
2007-07-05, 20:51
Woah! I just got my internet connection back up so I'll try to respond to posts asap, give me a few days. :)

xray
2007-07-05, 21:21
But people can still use atheism as a point of view to rid people from a system. How is that ANY different then one religious group persecuting another?
No, they can't. Atheism makes no such demands, nor does it provide justifications ( for that or anything ); religion does. It doesn't even say that believing in a God is good or bad, just that there isn't one. Atheism isn't a belief system, whereas religion is.



Why would you say religions were created largley for the purpous of genocide?
I didn't. They exist to cement the control of the powerful, and to spread and maintain themselves. Genocide is simply one of religion's tools for this.



Most of the people who do good deeds in the name of religion are actually feeding the poor, helping the needy, and generally being helpfull to humanity.
And lying about condoms, killing doctors who provide abortions, oppressing women, opposing research and medications against AIDS, voting against gay marriage, murdering gays, suppressing stem cell research, promoting creationism in schools, and on and on. A few soup kitchens can't outweigh the massive amounts of evil committed in the name of religion.



Most religions don't endorse violence. Most religions encourage morality and positivity.
Many of them don't in the West, NOW, because they can't get away with it any more ( as much ). In places and times when they can get away with it, religions tend to wade to the metaphorical hips in blood. The "morality" they promote is the morality of a tyrant or lunatic, and they promote hatred of oneself and others, not positivity.


If you focus on whats going on in Iraq it doesn't seem that way but those people are a major exception not the rule. Almost all religious people are extremely peacefull people who wouldn't hurt a fly and fundementaly disagree with extremists.
Garbage. Prove it.

Lion eats man
2007-07-05, 22:29
quick question: How can Atheism say that God (or gods whatevs) does not exist if the existence of God is not falsifiable?

Lion eats man
2007-07-05, 23:15
You may have heard people make remarks as you say you did in the OP, but my point was that most atheist don't talk about having "conclusive" proof in anything. Many atheist may become theists if even "some" reliable evidence was brought forth for God/gods.

Ok I see, my mistake, I should have just said proof/evidence in general. But you mentioned “extraordinary evidence” before and that differs from “'some' reliable evidence”.


"Faith is required to believe in God. Hebrews 11:6 clearly states that without faith it is impossible to please God."

So, what was your point in mentioning Hebrews 11:6?

Well if I would have just said that “Faith is required to believe in God” it would look like I was just making it up.

xray
2007-07-06, 00:23
Maybe you don't understand what a logical law is. Like perhaps the law of involution, 'not not p = p'

You do realize that "not not p = p" is defined to be true, by the definition of 'not', right? There is no faith in accepting the law of involution; it's either true or the sentence is meaningless, on account of you having undefined or rejected the definition and meaning of the term 'not'.

Logic requires no faith in the axioms, any more than you have to have 'faith' in the rules of chess. If you play the game, you accept the rules. Otherwise you're not playing the game (or at least, not playing it right).

fallinghouse
2007-07-06, 00:24
But Stalinism is not a perversion of atheism. There is no connection between the two. OTOH, the inquisition is a direct result of Christian beliefs. So no, you cannot dismiss Inquisition as a perversion of religion.

A Stalinist persecution of clergymen is a direct result of atheism, for without atheism there would be no persecution.


It's not a "perversion of atheism", it's a belief system that happens to have atheism as a minor part of it. Atheism is too simple to pervert, really, given that it's simply the disbelief in gods.

^see answer to scraff

Killing/oppressing everyone who disagrees with you on the other hand is a basic function of most of the major religions; they were made in large part for that purpose.

Can you prove this? Hell, I'll even concede if you can provide empirical evidence for this.

Also, how did you come to know that killing people who disagree with you is wrong?

What are you talking about?

To say that the mind existing without substrate is illogical means that it is in breach of a logical law...

You have demonstrated no such thing.

Or perhaps I have and you just can't see it? Want to list the assumptions again so that I can refute them again?

But the chieftain has no evidence to speak of, so the "Ham Shaver" cannot be used to say that the north star is really just a warrior spirit.

My point exactly. There is no evidence to suggest that the external world is as we perceive it, so Occam's razor cannot be used to say that it is.

Correct. What then? Anything can be true. It's quite possible that we are all being deceived. How then determine what belief to waste time on? My "booger fairy" is telling me that the world was created in a giant sneeze. Should I actually waste time on this?

I can't tell you what you should do.

Not self-defeating as you have failed to demonstrate.

Actually I have. Since it uses logic to prove logic, it is internally circular, which is fatal to a logic argument.

No one is rejecting the argument. It is merely an argument that really has no use.

I'm pretty sure xray is rejecting it.

The same can be said of religion and more. At least with science, there is actually testing done.

Testing that can't actually prove or provide evidence for anything. I do agree though, that attempting to prove religion runs into the same problems, but then most religions I know of are not adverse to falling back to faith.

What's your point? Nobody is arguing the limitation of the inductive method.

Actually, I am.

Justified for what?

Use.

So what? It is still far from the faith used to believe in God, the supernatural and whatnot. The faith that the external world is real and that our senses are accurate is the foundation of ALL belief, including the belief that you are alive and that you are a person and that what you are typing on is a computer. No one is arguing that. The only reason it is being dismissed is that it is a trivial argument. It adds nothing to anything.

If all beliefs are based on faith, then the condemnation of one belief from the perspective of another is just personal preference.

That is not an explanation. That is an observation.

Ok, I'll concede this. Luckily for me (I guess your 'Good luck' helped), the chieftain has no evidence to speak of, so the "Ham Shaver" cannot be used to say that the north star is really just a warrior spirit. So we should stick to admitting we don't have scientific grounds to assert anything about the north star.

^That is a metaphor.


That's very poetic but what does it mean?
You say faith is the way out.
Faith in what though?
Not all faiths are the same.

Faith in something that let's you build up beliefs.


Even if we accept fallinghouse's statement that scientific principles were formed using the senses, which requires faith in their accuracy and that the external world can only be taken to exist using faith, then science still trumps religion.

If this whole thing called reality is just some dream with our senses governing how everything works, then at least science attempts to explain how things work using the tools that created this dream: the senses. It adheres to and explains the rules that make up the reality we are all experiencing. Whereas religion just creates another dream.

If the external world doesn't exist, then the scientific description is just an interpretation of what could possibly be a dream, meaning that if it contradicts say, one of the Australian Aborigine stories that says the earth was created by the killing of a giant snake, then there is no rational reason to take the scientific view over the tribal story, just personal preference.

If the assumption that the external world exists is not made, then science is too powerless to assert anything.

BUT science does NOT require faith in the accuracy of the senses. Science says "based on what me and other people have repeatedly observed, this is the way things are. At any time this could be proven wrong and that's fine." Science allows people to be wrong if proven so.

And how do you find out what other people have observed? The senses. So without faith in the accuracy of the senses, the testimony of other people is useless, as is our own.

There's been a lot of definitions of "faith" thrown around but I think we can all agree that one thing that faith is not is flexible.

Perhaps, but the faith can be directed at a premise not a conclusion, meaning that it can give different results. For example, say I have faith in whatever Jane has said most recently. On day 1, Jane says the sky is purple. I then believe the sky is purple. On day 2, Jane says the sky is orange. I then believe the sky is orange. See, even though I still had faith in the same thing, it lead to me believing different conclusions.


I'd say that the rules of logic are presupposed and they are presupposed because they are axiomatic; self evident and you cannot deny them without direct contradiction. In fact, you can't even question them without them. It's important to note that not all presuppositions are equal though.

If that were correct, then there would be only one system of logic, and any others would be instantly dismissed. But we have Classical Logic, Paraconsistent Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Linear Logic and various Non-Monotonic Logics. Clearly, the axioms are not so self evident.

I think there is some smudging going on in terms of what you mean by 'faith'. Faith is belief without evidence/reason. To say that science requires faith is therefore not entirely true. If you want to assert certainty in scientific principles then I suppose it would be true - but nothing in science is certain and certainty isn't required to hold a belief to be true.

Or if you want to assert the usefulness or applicability of scientific principles then you need faith.

Although, on another note, your posts beg the question. In short your argument is self defeating.

Where have I assumed that logic is of unknown relevance to the truth in order to prove that logic is of unknown relevance to the truth? (or if it was another conclusion, please show it)

Further, as I'm sure you realize, 'faith' in the axioms of logic, in induction, in science, etc is not the equivalent to faith in religion - since religion CAN be denied without direct contradiction.

Even supposing this is true, then the denial of religion is just a matter of holding a higher faith in logic than religion, which is just personal preference.


You are incorrect here - once you dismiss logic you dismiss any semblance of coherency. That means that you are, in essence, holding a position without meaning. In fact, I don't think you could honestly say that you are holding a position.

Whatever, define me away, I don't care how my thoughts are classified into your hierarchy of ideas.


No, she has scientific grounds, she's just cut off from the physical evidence.

Yes, but she realizes that if she were the chief, this gives no reason other than faith to accept what she says.

The chief on the other hand has no evidence whatsoever and never did, and his belief is nothing but an assertion that doesn't make any sense.

Correct, and you are the chief.

Ohhhhh-kay. That makes no sense at all.

Sure it does, just because Occam's razor might be useful doesn't mean it is true.

You've shown nothing of the sort. We test it every time we treat the world as real, and it acts real.

You're mixing up the arguments. This line of reasoning is about logic, not the existence of the real world.

No, it's called practicality and experience.

I don't care what you call it, it still requires the use of an untestable assumption.

fallinghouse
2007-07-06, 00:27
You do realize that "not not p = p" is defined to be true, by the definition of 'not', right? There is no faith in accepting the law of involution; it's either true or the sentence is meaningless, on account of you having undefined or rejected the definition and meaning of the term 'not'.

Logic requires no faith in the axioms, any more than you have to have 'faith' in the rules of chess. If you play the game, you accept the rules. Otherwise you're not playing the game (or at least, not playing it right).

Quite, it is definitionally true within it's own abstract universe. What I am saying requires faith is believing that logic works in describing anything outside this abstract universe, like reality for example.

I believe that in logic, the relevant terms are 'valid' and 'sound'.

Scraff
2007-07-06, 01:15
quick question: How can Atheism say that God (or gods whatevs) does not exist if the existence of God is not falsifiable?


Atheists are not asserting that a god does not exist - simply that there is no evidence that suggests the existence of one.

Your statement is just an attempt to re-frame the debate on your own terms.

Scraff
2007-07-06, 01:43
A Stalinist persecution of clergymen is a direct result of atheism, for without atheism there would be no persecution.
Nonsense. Communism can accept religions, (both the U.S.S.R. (Russian Orthodox) and China (Roman Catholic) have or had state sponsored versions of the various Christian faiths). It does not require atheism, simply a recognition that religion, (particularly religion backed by a hierarchical structure), is inimical to the philosophy behind the Marxist movement, regardless of a belief in a god.

Nazi Germany, a state that gave some lip service to religion, also persecuted those religious institutions that had the strongest hierarchical structure or the strongest antipathy to the Nazi message.

It does not require atheism and you will need to provide evidence of your position if you choose to repeat it.





If all beliefs are based on faith, then the condemnation of one belief from the perspective of another is just personal preference.
Perhaps, but you are equivocating on your use of faith. You initially attacked science on the grounds that it requires "faith" to accept that there is an actual physical world that we all tend to experience in the same way. While that may be true in some solipsistic mind game, solipsism simply leads to omphaloskepsis in which one does nothing but consider the self. Someone who is deluded into "believing" in a physical world has the opportunity to interact with his or her phantoms and experience the life that passes through those perceptions. The latter is a much more interesting manner of living. Meanwhile, the person who is deluded into believing that they eat and sleep and make love and raise children, while interacting with the phantoms of his or her imagination regarding the physical world, can use the imaginary science to expand the perceived reality in which we operate. The solipsist has no such luxury. And, as long as we appear to be operat8ing in the midst of all these phantoms, it seem much more fruitful to engage them (on the off chance that they are real) than it does to sit in the corner playing camel and growing a hump while disdaining the apparent world.

If the world is real, then we can accept what our senses convey to us and if it is not, we had fun contemplating it.

I actually believe in the spiritual. However, I have never had any trouble interacting with those who have had no recognized spiritual experiences and I have never found a need to attack their perceptions based on the confusion of ontology with epistemology.

Lion eats man
2007-07-06, 01:50
Atheists are not asserting that a god does not exist - simply that there is no evidence that suggests the existence of one.


Well definition says otherwise, but that's fine.

And it seems that you wouldn't agree with this xray:


It doesn't even say that believing in a God is good or bad, just that there isn't one.




Your statement is just an attempt to re-frame the debate on your own terms.

Nope.

Scraff
2007-07-06, 02:10
Well definition says otherwise, but that's fine.
No, it doesn't. Dictionaries have muti definitions and all dictionaries I've read include a definition similar to this:

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

The definition of "disbelieve" being:


to have no belief in




And it seems that you wouldn't agree with this xray:
Yes, I would. Why don't you read xray's first post in this thread and his responses in the thread titled "why athiesm is wrong".

He wasn't attempting to define atheism in the sentence you quoted him on and wasn't being so careful of his words thinking that someone would attempt to make a claim on what he believes atheism to be, when he's clarified his position on the definition many times on this board. Nice try though.



Nope.
No? Then you should have done some research on the atheistic position before you ask:

quick question: How can Atheism say that God (or gods whatevs) does not exist if the existence of God is not falsifiable?


Read the thread I mentioned above. There's no need to hash out the same old debate over again. It's been done ad infinitum on this board.

Obbe
2007-07-06, 04:40
How does "knowing" that nothing can be known lead to thinking further into things?

Does that matter?

Atheists are not asserting that a god does not exist

Apparently, Strong Atheists are asserting that.

Martini
2007-07-06, 16:17
If that were correct, then there would be only one system of logic, and any others would be instantly dismissed. But we have Classical Logic, Paraconsistent Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Linear Logic and various Non-Monotonic Logics. Clearly, the axioms are not so self evident.
I don't follow you here - then again, I'm only familiar with a few different systems of logic (modal, aristetilian, predicate). So I can't comment on the one's I'm not familiar with, however the ones I am familiar with what I said holds.

I don't see how the law of identity, the law of non contradiction, and the law of excluded middle would be excluded from any logical system though.

So you will have to explain further, as what I said is not suggestive of only one system of logic.



Or if you want to assert the usefulness or applicability of scientific principles then you need faith.
This is incorrect - how could something's usefulness be appraised if there was no evidence in favor of its usefulness? To just assert something is useful would be a faith proposition, but if you have evidence of its usefulness you leave the realm of faith.

You seem to be equivocating on the term faith. Please define what you mean by it.


Where have I assumed that logic is of unknown relevance to the truth in order to prove that logic is of unknown relevance to the truth? (or if it was another conclusion, please show it)
I'm saying that you both assume logic and induction in order to cast skepticism upon both of them.

First you assume logic all throughout your post (to show a basic example, A=A, what you are talking about is what you are talking about) and you also assume induction (again, a basic example is that the words you have used in the past will be the same as they are now, that the logic you have used in the past is the same logic that it is now, I could go on and provide more detailed points, but I think you get it).




Even supposing this is true, then the denial of religion is just a matter of holding a higher faith in logic than religion, which is just personal preference.
This is contradictory. If you suppose what I said was true then you are supposing that there is an objective difference between the two, and if that's the case, then it's not a difference in personal preference.

As for not supposing it's true, if you can show me how to deny religion is self contradictory then I'd consider your position.

I don't know what you mean by 'higher faith'. I'm talking about the difference between circular and viciously circular worldviews here. Right now yours appears viciously circular. I'd say that all worldviews are circular to some degree and that what matters is whether they are consistent and coherent. Yours does not appear to be either.



Whatever, define me away, I don't care how my thoughts are classified into your hierarchy of ideas.
Handwaving away an argument doesn't dismiss it's impact. The fact of the matter is if you ignore logic your viewpoint is automatically incoherent - which means you technically *can't* believe in it since you couldn't articulate a coherent formulation of what you believe in.

But go ahead and give up if you like - it doesn't matter to me.



What I am saying requires faith is believing that logic works in describing anything outside this abstract universe, like reality for example.
Your argument here is self refuting since it presupposes that logic works. In other words, if we take your argument at face value, then it's impossible to show whether or not it's actually true. I mean, you are trying to say that, in reality, it requires faith to believe that logic works in describing anything outside this abstract universe - right? And since you define faith as personal preference, then what you are saying here cannot be objectively true.

xray
2007-07-06, 17:17
Quite, it is definitionally true within it's own abstract universe. What I am saying requires faith is believing that logic works in describing anything outside this abstract universe, like reality for example.

I believe that in logic, the relevant terms are 'valid' and 'sound'.

There *might* be some subtleties that I'm missing, but I think that if you accept the concepts of True and False as opposite entities, literally all of first-order symbolic logic follows from there. (You have to add the concept of set theory (ie: things have properties) to get predicate logic, and if you fuzz the distinction of true and false you get other logics, but for basic logic, all you need is True/False.)

If you reject the concepts of true and false as applying to the actual universe/perceived reality/whichever, then you have pretty much literally rejected the ability to even think about things that may or may not be real in a coherent manner. Thence lies madness, literally. So, I don't think that any person can reasonably reject the applicability of basic logic* to the real or perceived worlds. Not if they have any notion of what they're talking about, anyway.

* Basic logic being And, Or, Not, implication, modus ponens, etc.: anything that can be demonstrated with a truth table.

FunkyZombie
2007-07-06, 17:54
Faith in something that let's you build up beliefs.



So anything in other words?
Damn the consequences as consequences are an illusion?

fallinghouse
2007-07-07, 00:41
Nonsense. Communism can accept religions, (both the U.S.S.R. (Russian Orthodox) and China (Roman Catholic) have or had state sponsored versions of the various Christian faiths).

And Religions are capable of being tolerant.

It does not require atheism, simply a recognition that religion, (particularly religion backed by a hierarchical structure), is inimical to the philosophy behind the Marxist movement, regardless of a belief in a god.

Ah, but would anyone accept a Marxist philosophy if they were a strong believer in such a hierarchical religion? I say no.

Perhaps, but you are equivocating on your use of faith

How so?

You initially attacked science on the grounds that it requires "faith" to accept that there is an actual physical world that we all tend to experience in the same way. While that may be true in some solipsistic mind game, solipsism simply leads to omphaloskepsis in which one does nothing but consider the self. Someone who is deluded into "believing" in a physical world has the opportunity to interact with his or her phantoms and experience the life that passes through those perceptions. The latter is a much more interesting manner of living. Meanwhile, the person who is deluded into believing that they eat and sleep and make love and raise children, while interacting with the phantoms of his or her imagination regarding the physical world, can use the imaginary science to expand the perceived reality in which we operate. The solipsist has no such luxury. And, as long as we appear to be operat8ing in the midst of all these phantoms, it seem much more fruitful to engage them (on the off chance that they are real) than it does to sit in the corner playing camel and growing a hump while disdaining the apparent world.

If the world is real, then we can accept what our senses convey to us and if it is not, we had fun contemplating it.

I agree, belief in the external world, induction, accurate senses appears to lead to a number of things that I (and everyone else) perceive as beneficial. Of course, if you allow yourself to have faith when you perceive tremendous advantages to this, surely you understand when religious people do the same thing, just taking it a bit further?

I don't follow you here - then again, I'm only familiar with a few different systems of logic (modal, aristetilian, predicate). So I can't comment on the one's I'm not familiar with, however the ones I am familiar with what I said holds.

I don't see how the law of identity, the law of non contradiction, and the law of excluded middle would be excluded from any logical system though.

So you will have to explain further, as what I said is not suggestive of only one system of logic.

Fuzzy logic and Intuitionist logic deny the law of excluded middle. Paraconsistant logic denies the law of non-contradiction. The law of identity could easily be rejected, but as scientists are interested in sense data and trust inductive reasoning, a logic denying the law of identity would be seen as useless and counter-intuitive so no one would bother to develop it.

This is incorrect - how could something's usefulness be appraised if there was no evidence in favor of its usefulness? To just assert something is useful would be a faith proposition, but if you have evidence of its usefulness you leave the realm of faith.

And as I have shown, you can't gather evidence of it's usefulness.

You seem to be equivocating on the term faith. Please define what you mean by it.

I have defined it above as belief in an idea or concept that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

I'm saying that you both assume logic and induction in order to cast skepticism upon both of them.

First you assume logic all throughout your post (to show a basic example, A=A, what you are talking about is what you are talking about) and you also assume induction (again, a basic example is that the words you have used in the past will be the same as they are now, that the logic you have used in the past is the same logic that it is now, I could go on and provide more detailed points, but I think you get it).

That's not begging the question. Assuming something is true in order to prove it is false or unknown is not logically fallacious, as it cannot logically lead to condemning the true as false. Begging the question is when you assume something is true in order to prove it is true. (or assuming false to prove false)

Check it out: http://skepdic.com/begging.html

This is contradictory. If you suppose what I said was true then you are supposing that there is an objective difference between the two, and if that's the case, then it's not a difference in personal preference.

Actually no, that so called objective difference only exists if one considers faith in logic as having precedence over faith in a religion, since a contradiction in denying logic is only a problem if you accept logic (one that denies contradiction anyway).

As for not supposing it's true, if you can show me how to deny religion is self contradictory then I'd consider your position.

Actually, I agree with that part. The part I was supposing was that faith in the axioms of induction and in science can't be denied without contradiction.

I don't know what you mean by 'higher faith'. I'm talking about the difference between circular and viciously circular worldviews here. Right now yours appears viciously circular. I'd say that all worldviews are circular to some degree and that what matters is whether they are consistent and coherent. Yours does not appear to be either.

If faith in X and faith in Y disagree on some points, but faith in X is a higher faith, then the person will go with X wherever they disagree.

If one's faith in religion is more important than faith in logic, then the importance of consistency and coherency will be denied in any arguments where they are used to deny religion.

You can't use consistency and coherency to objectively judge between world views as the relevance of consistency and coherency is only subjective.

Handwaving away an argument doesn't dismiss it's impact. The fact of the matter is if you ignore logic your viewpoint is automatically incoherent - which means you technically *can't* believe in it since you couldn't articulate a coherent formulation of what you believe in.

Uh huh. Whatever you say.

But go ahead and give up if you like - it doesn't matter to me.

I'll give up on this point, because how you view my ideas is of no importance to me.

Your argument here is self refuting since it presupposes that logic works.

See response above about begging the question.

if we take your argument at face value, then it's impossible to show whether or not it's actually true.

Which is exactly my conclusion.

I mean, you are trying to say that, in reality, it requires faith to believe that logic works in describing anything outside this abstract universe - right? And since you define faith as personal preference, then what you are saying here cannot be objectively true.

Cannot be known to be objectively true. And I don't define faith as personal preference (although holding a faith is).

What I am showing here is that from within a worldview where faith is denied, it is inconsistent to believe in the applicability of logic. As I said above, inconsistency is only a subjective criticism, but since the value system of this worldview places high value on consistency, then I would expect it to take a direct hit with this criticism.

There *might* be some subtleties that I'm missing, but I think that if you accept the concepts of True and False as opposite entities, literally all of first-order symbolic logic follows from there. (You have to add the concept of set theory (ie: things have properties) to get predicate logic, and if you fuzz the distinction of true and false you get other logics, but for basic logic, all you need is True/False.)

Can you work through this?

If you reject the concepts of true and false as applying to the actual universe/perceived reality/whichever,

Well, I don't see any reason to accept them, and even if I did, I could still conceivably deny acceptance.

then you have pretty much literally rejected the ability to even think about things that may or may not be real in a coherent manner. Thence lies madness, literally. So, I don't think that any person can reasonably reject the applicability of basic logic* to the real or perceived worlds. Not if they have any notion of what they're talking about, anyway.

Which is why it might be a good idea to take logic without justification, evidence or demonstration.

So anything in other words?
Damn the consequences as consequences are an illusion?

Pretty much, though it might be easiest to go along with your societal norms.

Scraff
2007-07-07, 03:57
And Religions are capable of being tolerant.
So? I have never asserted otherwise.



Ah, but would anyone except a Marxist philosophy if they were a strong believer in such a hierarchical religion? I say no.
Thereby ignoring the very real case I already presented of the Nazis who did the same thing without being Marxist or even really atheist.

(Or did you mean to type "accept" instead of "except"? If so, I do not understand your point. You claimed that it was only the atheism of Marxism that caused Stalin to persecute the clergy. I have noted that a society that did not embrace atheism was capable of identical evils. Therefore, regardless who does or does not accept Marxism, (which would include a lot of Russian Orthodox who "re-evaluated" their religious beliefs between 1917 and 1920), atheism cannot be the direct or indirect cause of that particular oppression.

For that matter, both France and Mexico had engaged in "persecution of clergymen" without either of them really attempting to become an atheist state. (There were atheists among the deists who sparked the Enlightenment and some of those beliefs were incorporated into the French Revolution, but atheism, per se, was never a driving force. Similarly in Mexico, there was warfare with the power of the church without any strong atheism behind it.)

fallinghouse
2007-07-07, 05:01
(Or did you mean to type "accept" instead of "except"?

Woops. Yes I did mean 'accept'.

If so, I do not understand your point. You claimed that it was only the atheism of Marxism that caused Stalin to persecute the clergy.

Saying 'Y is a direct result of X' is not the same as saying 'X alone caused Y'. And if it really is the same, well I apologize but that's not what I meant. What I meant was that if religion is the reason people are persecuting a social group, the religion of that group will not be the religion of the persecutors. Hence there would have been no persecution of the church if the state had been aligned with the church, so the persecution is a direct result of what brought them out of alignment with the church, atheism.

I have noted that a society that did not embrace atheism was capable of identical evils. Therefore, regardless who does or does not accept Marxism, (which would include a lot of Russian Orthodox who "re-evaluated" their religious beliefs between 1917 and 1920), atheism cannot be the direct or indirect cause of that particular oppression.

And I have noted that a society that did not embrace religion was capable of identical evils. Therefore, religion cannot be the direct or indirect cause of that particular oppression.

Since genocide has been initiated by societies claiming to uphold religious values, genocide has been initiated by societies claiming to deny religion, genocide has happened for eugenics reasons and genocide has happened for political reasons, I think it makes sense to say that it is not religion or atheism that are to blame for genocide, it is murderers. Surely you would agree?

Obbe
2007-07-07, 05:11
...it is not religion or atheism that are to blame for genocide, it is murderers.

QFT..

Scraff
2007-07-07, 16:00
And I have noted that a society that did not embrace religion was capable of identical evils. Therefore, religion cannot be the direct or indirect cause of that particular oppression.
Sure, but you, not I, laid "persecution of clergy" at the foot of Stalin with a claim that atheism was the cause.

What you and I have both described in subsequent posts has been a demonstration that the issues were those of power, not belief. I suspect that every system of politics or power can be corrupted by humans to inflict evil. Laying such evil at the foot of either a system of belief or a lack of any particular belief misses the point that it is an unfortunate human condition. The most damning indictment of religion is not that it has actually caused harm to lots of people, but that it generally has failed to prevent harm to people.