Staredit Network

First, let's define faith. I think Dark Magneto puts it best when he says:



You can't have faith in logic, that's an oxymoron. Logic is a guideline for structured reasoning. An algorithm of critical thinking and decision making. We use logic because we are searching for the truth. If a proposition is true, logical consistency is a necessary property of that proposition. Logic is a tool, it can help us eliminate errors, logical fallacies.


Unfortunatly, the only reason why some people have even a single shread of decency in them is because the strength of their morality is only proportional to their religion.


Science is known as experimental philosophy.

Mathematics is somewhat of a science, and everything in Mathmatics is proven. Ever done proofs in geometry?

Science only explains the how, not the why. Science doesn't answer things like what is and is not aesthetic, or what is the purpose to life. The goal of science is to ascertain our reality, to figure out our enviornment.


And because ethics are subjective, not objective. After all, if you see a bear while walking in a forest, do you think he'll adhere to any social contracts or give a rat's ass about your right to live?


We believe in the scientific method because of its track record of success. That's a belief based on evidence, not on faith.


Wrong, faith is belief without material evidence or logical reasoning. You're making a false analogy. Would you not say the scientifc method is logical? Especially if compared to outdated 2000yr old scriptures?


Some scientist can be dogmatic and adhere to their own pet theories on occassion. Hence, we have creation "scientist," who have a predetermined theory before they even begin their research, that we were created by a supernatual being. No amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.

Individual scientist may be dogmatic on occassion, but dogmatism is the very antithesis of science. True scientist commit themselves to believing whatever the data says even if it contradicts their own pet theories. Scientist go where the evidence leads them, pseudoscientist go where they want the evidence lead them.


Ok, since the last time I've seen you, your balony detector hasn't gotten any stronger. You don't have faith that if you push a button on the keyboard letters will appear. That is based on a track record of repeated success. Proof denies faith, and since you have evidence that everytime you push a button on a keyboard, letters pop up. So by making an anology from the logical deduction that if you push a button on the keyboard letters pop up, a belief based on evidence and is testable, and religious faith, something that is believed without any evidence at all and isn't even testable, your analogy is flawed. After all, you have faith that if you drop a rock it'll fall, right? Why not take it further and believe in the invisible dragon in my garage? It holds equal merit, right?


You know, maybe your right. If my neighbor told me he saw the mailman, I'd pretty much trust him. It really isn't anything beyond the realm of plausibility, it's something that happens to people everyday. Now, if my neighbor said he saw the mailman - who died three years ago - that's when I begin getting skeptical and use the scientific method for claim evaluation, use diagnostic tools such as Occam's Razoe and seeking alternate explainations. Because it is something that isn't plausible, such as the dead rising from the grave, a global flood, and a man spawning from dirt, which is all just nonsense.


It's a comedy, right? You'd need more faith to believe that there isn't an invisible dragon in my garage than to believe he does exist.


=/=


Nope, not faith at all. Based on a track record of success, a belief based on evidence, not faith.

Incorrect. You need to have blind, innate faith in logic - as you have never questioned the concept of logic itself. As everybody is born with this innate faith, everybody feels compelled to use logic to interpret the world. This then leads to more logical people becoming the norm, and illogical people conforming to the norm or being kept away from society.

If you're one fairly illogical person amongst a group of logical ones, you will have trouble getting understood. Logic is the norm, therefore we do not question it. Illogical people get sent to mental hospitals and so on. They're not normal. Logic seems to work. Nobody sees this for what it is - blind, innate faith in logic by almost everybody.

I'm in that difficult position where nobody will agree with me - my argument appeals to neither extreme side. I for one believe that there is no 'God,' but that there undetectable forces at work in the Universe. If you've read Philip Pullman's (an anti-Christian) 'His Dark Materials' then you may remember 'Dust.' That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about. Logic, naturally, screams at me that it cannot be possible, and of course I have deep doubts, but I can override logic when I want to.

Logic tells me that anything is possible, but I'm not going to claim that unicorns exist just because of the possibility that they do.

I am sorry if someone already said this, but although faith is extremely difficult to explain, most of the knoledge we have is based on faith. Unless we actually went to Iraq, do we know if the war is really happening? Same as if we actually lived in the time of the middle ages, do we know that the knights even existed.

We don't know, but we can assume that those things you listed are true because of the wealth of evidence for them. But I wouldn't bet my life on it.

What if it was all a lie. What if the governments wanted the civilians to believe that all this stuff happened in our past and that something so terrible happened that they dont want to discuss it? Or mabye something so catastrophic happened that we could all die at any second because of it?

There's no evidence to suggest that.

nozomu, why do you trust in evidence so much?

Because he has an IQ over 80.

Well, seeing as how the trial system that is supposdly "perfect" relies on evidence, I think evidence is pretty important.

But hey, I've never been a strong supporter of faith so I don't know how perfect it is.

I trust evidence because it's helped me predict how things will turn out throughout my entire life. For instance, one of my friends back home is a crappy driver. He's totalled several cars throughout his life. When I went home over winter break, he said he had some car trouble. The first thing I did was make assumptions - he has a bad driving record, he drives badly (I've driven with him before), he is naturally unaware of his surroundings, and now he is driving a new car. I made those assumptions based on observation, what we call evidence. From these assumptions, I was able to conclude through inference that he had totalled his old car. I was right. Throughout my entire life that sort of logic has helped me predict the outcome of such situations, sometimes unsuccessfully. The reason some of my conclusions were wrong was because I made incorrect assumptions. The reason I have no faith in anything is because faith proclaims a conclusion with unverified assumptions, or sometimes no assumptions at all. I just don't feel comfortable stating a conclusion that I haven't arrived at through deduction, induction, or inference.

well, i think i view faith in the same way(speaking of the christian faith). Jesus preformed miracles, and fulfilled the prophocies of the old testament, and claimed to be God. he also declared that he would raise from the dead three days after his death. and i believe he did.

did you not believe that your friend totalled his old car? i believe in my faith the same way you look at logic.

Is the point not getting through?

It is NOT the same at all. Faith requires no evidence. Logic requires evidence.

Now, please, answer my question. Do you believe in god entirely on faith??

I didn't believe he did until he told me. I deduced that totalling his car was the most likely outcome of the situation using logic. Now, if I believed him when he told me he had totalled a luxury cruise ship, that would be faith. But I wouldn't believe him if he said that.

well, yes and no. i believe in God eniterly with faith, but i believe that the Bible is evidence of God's exsistance and of his love for us.

Ah, but you're making an unfounded assumption - that the Bible is evidence of God's existence. It isn't. If you can make that into a sound assumption, please do. I'd love to hear it. And don't fall prey to the logical fallacy of composition, which is when you make the assumption that if part of something is correct the whole thing must be correct. Whether or not the Bible is historically accurate in some parts doesn't mean that the whole thing is historically accurate, especially if you take into account the fact that it had many different authors.

well i guess thats why we call it faith...faith that its correct, that its true and unaltered.

I believe in god based souly on faith.

That is the difference between the religon of christianity and the faith of christianity. There are arguments for both, but I choose faith.

"well i guess thats why we call it faith...faith that its correct, that its true and unaltered."
If I had written the Bible myself, and it were completely different, it would still be believed.
All of you would go to hell, of course, because I didn't write the truth, but your faith would still be put in it.

That's the problem with faith, that I see.
And if that's not true, then tell me why. And use some logic, too.

Why the hell would I have put my faith in something you wrote?

That's what it comes down to. You think I'd put my faith in something I hardly touched? I'm not going to lie; I don't read the bible that much, but there is some good stuff in it!

Maybe people should actually READ the scriptures that exist in this world, and make their own descision. No subliminals here.

Not in a good mood to post, but bleh. If thats not good enough, there'll be a Rant #2.

Because you didn't know he wrote it and you would still believe in the lie. ;D

Oh... and please, oh please tell us 'ignorants' how do you tell the difference between'em? *Sigh*



And why you assumed we didn't? *Double sigh*
How can we debate it, if haven't seen'em in the 1st place? I know I did.

Firekame.... (>.<) God isn't about blind faith... It specificly states in the Bible (Paul stated this if my memory serves me right) that we should make sure that what we are doing is true. As Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind"

And drunken, you are using a false analogy of your own; you have a false assumption that "faith" (as in belief in things such as the supernatural) MUST mean w/o logic. Who's trying to make the foot fit the shoe now? Let's take the classic example of the remote and the TV. From what you are saying, because it has happened in the past, when you press the power button on the remote, the TV will turn on. Also, if there were a power outage, you would logically conclude that if you were to try to press the power button on the remote, the TV would not turn on. Simple logic, yes? There is no "faith" involved in button pressing, right? Sadly, it is a false assumption, for batteries in the controller do run out, and TV's do wear out over time (entropy at work).

So lets say, drunken, that the batteries went dead (or they started leaking but you were unaware) and you on instinct pick up the controller and press the power button. The TV does not turn on. What is your next instinct? You do not logically conclude "oh, since the power did not go on on the TV, there must be something wrong with the TV or controller". The human would press the button again, and again, and again, and again until you get sick of the controller and finally conclude that the batteries are dead or the TV is busted.

"But wait" you say. "What does that have to do with faith? I logically concluded that the batteries are dead after trial and error by experimenting and observation." True, BUT it took faith. You see, from the past post, I stated that its not the evidence that talks, but the scientists are the ones that do. Evidence is a guideline; it is the scientists who make the assumptions to what it means. Since valid assumptions usually match with the facts, people claim that the assumptions (that take faith) are ONLY fact. From your repeated observerations of the power button, you make an ASSUMPTION that (after verifying with your surroundings that there is no power outage) when you push that power button, it WILL turn on. Then the batteries go dead upon you. You repeatedly push the button again because you are still closed-minded upon your past assumption that you made from your repeated observations. After pressing the button for so long, you will finally consider other alternatives and come to your conclusion (which is another assumption/hypothesis, I might add)

You stated that my keyboard was from repeated observation, but you forgot your own statement about your refutation of chance. Don't you put your words to practice? I stated my keyboard because, alas, sometimes I push a letter and it does NOT make that letter. One could say faith exists when one realizes that err exists.