Page 1 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

TheKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,100
Location: Merced, California

13 Feb 2011, 2:38 pm

i found this amazing article in http://atheism.about.com/od/godlessamer ... ellect.htm

Evidence vs. Faith:

Generally speaking, “faith” is an intellectual cop-out. There is nothing that cannot be defended by relying on faith because if that’s all one uses, it’s impossible to distinguish between true and false beliefs. Faith ends conversation and investigation because faith doesn’t allow itself to be judged. Thus arguments and claims must be based upon the best available evidence and logic for only they can be evaluated, critiqued, and judged adequate or inadequate reasons for a position.


_________________
WP Strident Atheist
If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have accepted him as your lord and savior, and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

13 Feb 2011, 2:47 pm

Well, I think that some christians agree with that. They live in the 21st century, see the near miraculous fruit of modern science with it's chains of evidence other supports, and feel that they need to speak in those terms rather then the language of faith. Faith strikes them as a medieval tradition that vaguely embarrasses them.

So you get some who want to treat the bible as a science textbook, others who want to act as if a supernatural being floating in the void is a logical and necessary position, etc. They lose respect for the mystery of faith and want to pretend that religion, and their religion in particular, requires little to no faith. That it's as straightforward as basic math.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

13 Feb 2011, 2:51 pm

People accept a great many things in faith. I am not sure when it became a dirty word. I believe that the universe was not made five minutes ago with the appearance of age. I also believe that I am not a brain sitting in some vat somewhere being fed artificial stimuli. We all have faith in something, therefor it's just a question of where you draw the line. Saying that it 'must' be drawn on the negative side of believe in God seems quite arbitrary.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


TheKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,100
Location: Merced, California

13 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm

@91
faith in my opinion became a dirty word when it became the biggest argument and evidence to support the "God Theory"

All i know is that Christianity is FAR from original and has many predecessors its a story almost as old as time itself it was already a cliche by the time Christianity got it


_________________
WP Strident Atheist
If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have accepted him as your lord and savior, and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.


richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

13 Feb 2011, 3:51 pm

I seem to have faith. i could probably be a good christian, but i never here anything when i pray Or even think i need to give 10% of my money to some preacher. (i relise they need to make a living, but please dont act like god commaned you to give) See I guess thats my major hangup right there. god commanding you to do whatever, plus he didnt write the bible so religious faith does seem a bit silly to me


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

13 Feb 2011, 3:57 pm

That's a great article, King.



PJW
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 141

13 Feb 2011, 4:14 pm

Despite Christopher Hitchens' mealey-mouthed nothingnesses about Atheism not being a belief, but rather the withholding of a belief in something in which they don't believe in - sounds like a non-belief to me - there is no hiding the fact that everyone, no matter who or what or where they are, believes in something. And often, though most people wouldn't recognise it, people believe in something beyond themselves.

If, as you say, Christian theism is nothing new, I've heard Dawkins speak too, then surely the idea of a religious certainty in the world is intrinsic not, as Hitchens says, because we were scared and had no running water or sanitation and we all died horrible deaths without dentistry, but because there has to be something out there, greater than us, something beyond our, still, limited explanations. I mean, fire was wild and destructive, but tamable and therefore a social good. I can go on, but it's early so I might not make as much sense as I might otherwise prefer.

Even now, with all that science promises in return for your patience and your unwavering belief in its design and its benificence, I ask myself, what would that be if the burden of proof were on the other foot? What if I were sceptical of science? What then? Would science immediately show itself to me, prove itself to me, make me see that everything really does have an explanation if I but have the patience and faith to follow science where it conclusively leads? No. Why demand more of God? Makes no sense.

The principle article of faith is belief, yes. However, even with science, the all-knowing incontestable being that presupposes a non-belief in God for its very tradition in the modern world - look to history, religion sponsored science throughout the Medieval and into the Rennaissance, all to further the lot of the earthly plane - there is no immediate gratification and faith in science and its design is needed to get anywhere.

Makes me wonder, really. Like with Climate Change. Seems to me, you need more faith than evidence when it comes to Climate Change, as well. Climate Change, which is, if you will only but take a moment to draw the analogy that slaps you in the face with cursory thought, the coming of science's messiah. What other issue, space travel never came close, brought science to the centre of our lives, allowing science to dictate what was moral and what was not?



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

13 Feb 2011, 4:21 pm

TheKing wrote:
@91
faith in my opinion became a dirty word when it became the biggest argument and evidence to support the "God Theory"

All i know is that Christianity is FAR from original and has many predecessors its a story almost as old as time itself it was already a cliche by the time Christianity got it


What predecessors? Christianity IS original. You have no idea what you're talking about here.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

13 Feb 2011, 4:40 pm

No, actually, he's right. There are a lot of things about Christianity that echo prior religions.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 Feb 2011, 4:44 pm

I think the article was good.

I think the reason why "faith" has gotten a bad name is for a few reasons:
1) Faith has come to mean "without justification" and that itself is a dangerous thing to have floating around.
2) Most people who use faith to establish something are using it to establish something with clear implications that not all individuals agree with, and using the idea in an ad hoc manner.

As for whether I think we ignore skeptical hypotheses on grounds of faith? I don't think that this is a proper way to look at it.
1) We start off with intuitions about reality, and without sufficient justification to ignore them, we don't tend to ignore these intuitions. Most skeptical hypotheses strongly disagree with what we understand.
2) Most skeptical hypotheses have no practical implications. If one is a brain in a vat, there is no real suggested direction for this. If the world came into existence 5 minutes ago, it changes nothing. Our best advice would be to continue our lives as they are, and that's perhaps the only thing we could do.

As for whether ignoring skeptical hypotheses justifies God? No more than dragons. The idea of this is somewhat ad hoc.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 Feb 2011, 4:47 pm

PJW wrote:
Even now, with all that science promises in return for your patience and your unwavering belief in its design and its benificence, I ask myself, what would that be if the burden of proof were on the other foot? What if I were sceptical of science? What then? Would science immediately show itself to me, prove itself to me, make me see that everything really does have an explanation if I but have the patience and faith to follow science where it conclusively leads? No. Why demand more of God? Makes no sense.

The principle article of faith is belief, yes. However, even with science, the all-knowing incontestable being that presupposes a non-belief in God for its very tradition in the modern world - look to history, religion sponsored science throughout the Medieval and into the Rennaissance, all to further the lot of the earthly plane - there is no immediate gratification and faith in science and its design is needed to get anywhere.

Makes me wonder, really. Like with Climate Change. Seems to me, you need more faith than evidence when it comes to Climate Change, as well. Climate Change, which is, if you will only but take a moment to draw the analogy that slaps you in the face with cursory thought, the coming of science's messiah. What other issue, space travel never came close, brought science to the centre of our lives, allowing science to dictate what was moral and what was not?

I don't think you know anything about what the hell you are talking about.

Science gets our respect because it works by being rigorous by standards that are already intuitive(empiricism and theorizing) and gets the results. It is ridiculous to describe science as this anthropomorphized force to be trusted or obeyed though.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Feb 2011, 5:21 pm

TheKing wrote:
i found this amazing article in http://atheism.about.com/od/godlessamer ... ellect.htm

Evidence vs. Faith:

Generally speaking, “faith” is an intellectual cop-out. There is nothing that cannot be defended by relying on faith because if that’s all one uses, it’s impossible to distinguish between true and false beliefs. Faith ends conversation and investigation because faith doesn’t allow itself to be judged. Thus arguments and claims must be based upon the best available evidence and logic for only they can be evaluated, critiqued, and judged adequate or inadequate reasons for a position.


Faith devoid of any empirical support or corroberation is utter and complete balderdash.

ruveyn



PJW
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 141

13 Feb 2011, 6:12 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
PJW wrote:
Even now, with all that science promises in return for your patience and your unwavering belief in its design and its benificence, I ask myself, what would that be if the burden of proof were on the other foot? What if I were sceptical of science? What then? Would science immediately show itself to me, prove itself to me, make me see that everything really does have an explanation if I but have the patience and faith to follow science where it conclusively leads? No. Why demand more of God? Makes no sense.

The principle article of faith is belief, yes. However, even with science, the all-knowing incontestable being that presupposes a non-belief in God for its very tradition in the modern world - look to history, religion sponsored science throughout the Medieval and into the Rennaissance, all to further the lot of the earthly plane - there is no immediate gratification and faith in science and its design is needed to get anywhere.

Makes me wonder, really. Like with Climate Change. Seems to me, you need more faith than evidence when it comes to Climate Change, as well. Climate Change, which is, if you will only but take a moment to draw the analogy that slaps you in the face with cursory thought, the coming of science's messiah. What other issue, space travel never came close, brought science to the centre of our lives, allowing science to dictate what was moral and what was not?

I don't think you know anything about what the hell you are talking about.

Science gets our respect because it works by being rigorous by standards that are already intuitive(empiricism and theorizing) and gets the results. It is ridiculous to describe science as this anthropomorphized force to be trusted or obeyed though.


SIGH!

Science asks for faith and forbearance in return for a chance that its hypotheses might be right. Sound like anything else you know?

Science can't prove that science exists, let alone the universe. And what about life itself? It had to start somewhere. Science can't prove that life began.

Everything it can't prove, you take on faith. Everything it purports to prove, you take as gospel. Everything that is true is the combination of the two. Sounds a lot like a religion to me.

Remember my point about post-natural science and its inherent nobility and morality allowing for corruption of the scientific ethos? Sounds a lot like the setting up of a church.

THINK instead of spouting.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

13 Feb 2011, 6:17 pm

Quote:
SIGH!

Science asks for faith and forbearance in return for a chance that its hypotheses might be right. Sound like anything else you know?

Science can't prove that science exists, let alone the universe. And what about life itself? It had to start somewhere. Science can't prove that life began.

Everything it can't prove, you take on faith. Everything it purports to prove, you take as gospel. Everything that is true is the combination of the two. Sounds a lot like a religion to me.

Remember my point about post-natural science and its inherent nobility and morality allowing for corruption of the scientific ethos? Sounds a lot like the setting up of a church.

THINK instead of spouting.



....he typed on the internet while enjoying all of the fruits of modern science.



PJW
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 141

13 Feb 2011, 6:37 pm

simon_says wrote:
Quote:
SIGH!

Science asks for faith and forbearance in return for a chance that its hypotheses might be right. Sound like anything else you know?

Science can't prove that science exists, let alone the universe. And what about life itself? It had to start somewhere. Science can't prove that life began.

Everything it can't prove, you take on faith. Everything it purports to prove, you take as gospel. Everything that is true is the combination of the two. Sounds a lot like a religion to me.

Remember my point about post-natural science and its inherent nobility and morality allowing for corruption of the scientific ethos? Sounds a lot like the setting up of a church.

THINK instead of spouting.



....he typed on the internet while enjoying all of the fruits of modern science.


Exactly. I'm not discrediting science, only an insipid adherence to what it promises.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 Feb 2011, 6:48 pm

PJW wrote:
Science asks for faith and forbearance in return for a chance that its hypotheses might be right. Sound like anything else you know?

You mean that people started testing reality, this became institutionalized as science, and we started moving everything to more and more rigorous testing because it both was intuitive and proved successful.

Quote:
Science can't prove that science exists, let alone the universe. And what about life itself? It had to start somewhere. Science can't prove that life began.

Actually, science can prove that science exists, all that is required is sociology. Science can prove life exists, it just defines it, and then shows that this exists. Science also shows that life began in that it shows that based upon our evidence, the universe is older than the earth.

Quote:
Everything it can't prove, you take on faith. Everything it purports to prove, you take as gospel. Everything that is true is the combination of the two. Sounds a lot like a religion to me.

I think that you are an unclear thinker, and don't actually think that anything you are saying really is in touch with reality. I don't really know where to begin with your comments, as I already rebutted the ideas underlying such notions:

"Science gets our respect because it works by being rigorous by standards that are already intuitive(empiricism and theorizing) and gets the results."

If you disagree with me, why not actually substantively address my comment instead of talking in such a bizarre way.

Quote:
Remember my point about post-natural science and its inherent nobility and morality allowing for corruption of the scientific ethos? Sounds a lot like the setting up of a church.

I don't remember your point. I probably thought that whatever you were saying was garbage and didn't give it another thought.

Churches don't follow our intuitions, nor do they get results. That's a major difference.

Quote:
THINK instead of spouting.

I do think. You don't. I've made a clear point. I've studied some actual philosophy of science. I have some notion of what I am talking about.