Science & religion ?

[Jah]

YouTube- Evolución desacreditado por la población mundial / Evolution Debunked by world population


I hope this makes your head scream.

Apparently Religion can "prove" anything using scientific "facts" and methods such as mathematics.

Of course, this only counts if you ignore the fact that bones decompose in a matter of centuries, that any ecosystem could only support a certain limited amount of any creature, which it was unable to break until 5000 BCE, when farming and year-round agriculture popped up, and War as a primal instinct, driving the rate of multiplication up and down the scale at any time, alongside disease etc.


Now to the issue;
How can delusions such as Serious Religion (as opposed to benign, sensible and humble religion that is willing to adjust it's views as more facts enter the equation) so powerfully taint scientific understanding ?

And why are we, myself included, so set on proving our own model of the universe that we Gag at the clear misapprehension that the opposing sides accept ?


Can Science and Religion function together or are they mutually exclusive ?

 

[Cognisant]

Theists have faith in what is sacred.
But there can be no sanctity without ignorance.
Just as there cannot be ignorance where there's understanding.
And Science is the pursuit of understanding.

So can faith exist without sanctity?

 

[Jah]

There is the Deist view, which puts God outside the universe and denies that it can interact with worldly things.

 

[Anthile]

 

[Philosophyking87]

They are mutually exclusive.
Science values reason; religion does not, per se (e.g., faith).

As a result, science will always undermine religion.
This tension leads to religion struggling to justify itself lately.

 

[Cognisant]

There is the Deist view, which puts God outside the universe and denies that it can interact with worldly things.

Were I a better person I wouldn’t be laughing so hard right now.

I mean c’mon, the rational of this is that said god’s existence can’t be discredited because god doesn’t exist, how is that not funny?

Btw if something's beyond our realm of existence, it's implicitly beyond any relative frame of reference (like time), in effect meaning its existence is and can only be hypothetical, this is why Cthulhu isn’t bursting out of the sea and tentacle raping us all, despite however probable its existence may be (nay, mandatory considering we’re talking about an hypothetical infinite multiverse), anyway to summarize, the non-existential void and deep space are too very different things, so even if god’s existence is hypothetically possible in another reality, that doesn’t actually mean anything to us.

 

[Jah]

No, the reasoning behind it is that;
To take the metaphor of the Watchmaker.
God in this case will be the Watchmaker that creates the watch, winds it up, presses the button down for it to start, leans back, and then never needs interfere.
The insides of the watch will have to suppose he exists. and the mechanics of the watch will serve as our metaphorical Laws of Physics.

As a story for those unsatisfied with that we do not understand the Before. ("before" the Big Bang. I know it is meaningless, but yet, because we cannot yet comprehend the concept of Big Bang as the start, since there should be something before 0, some people seem to need there to be something before.)

Thus God always remains, as it were, in the Cracks of science. Where we have yet to explain.
Like fairies.
The hiding god, that reveals himself only to non-local events, like Though and Idea. The Mind.

It does seem to equate him with fiction, whether based upon anything real or not, but this is a view held by many, and I need not remind you that these people govern most of the world.

 

[Cognisant]

*laughs harder*

So god exists within reality but outside of known reality, perhaps playing some sort of existential peekaboo with humanity, or perhaps it's as I stated earlier, there can be no sanctity without ignorance.

So is it the purpose of science to hunt down and deconstruct god?

 

[Words]

How can one estimate the "amount of science" we understand?

 

[Jah]

It's science's purpose to gather the most attainable amount of available information, and based upon the collected data, form a most plausible correct model of the universe that we can perceive around us. By allowing a God to exist outside our realm of perception indefinitely, it automatically falls outside Science's mission/purpose, and becomes an article of faith, only determinable on a scale of possibility, in regards to it's proposed ability to interact with the perceivable universe.

This is, by the way, also the way we have to interpret the possibility of a schizophrenic's delusions, which are imperceptible by those who are not believers.
In this way, the lunatic that screams about snakes in his room is equal to the believer in God, except the snakes are more easily proven (by comparison with real snakes in the room) than the supposed God, since the only measurable facts in it's case are the supposed miracles, which can be debunked by more empirical models of what really happened.


The "amount of science we understand" is infinitely small. Feynman compared our scientific understanding to estimating the rules of chess by being restricted to observing only a 2 x 2 field of the chess-board. But we do get higher and higher understandings at every moment, which I find very encouraging.
(Of course, measuring how much we do understand, compared to the unknown amount of knowledge there exists out in the universe, is like attempting to estimate how close we are to filling a pool the size of a planet, which we are far, far, far away from being able to estimate the size of, knowing not how much our knowledge would fill, nor how much it could, or should fill.)


But yes, religion does seem to be more like a pacifier than a source of any worthwhile knowledge.
Like Marx's saying "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

It may have some purpose to retain the "knowledge" of God, for that purpose, to give people something to provide them a motherly shield against existential angst or some other fear of the unknown, the darkness and the bottomless sea that mirrors in the infinite emptiness and seeming meaninglessness of space itself.

 

[walfin]

Like Marx's saying "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

Marx would've been so much more effective had he not said this.

 

[Jah]

Perhaps, but feelings and self-pity once again trumps reason and understanding.

 

[onthewindowstand]

Marx would've been so much more effective had he not said this.

What he said about religion is in large part true though.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Read David Hume.

 

[Apotheosis]

Read David Hume.

Was it not David Hume that said something along the lines of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

If I recall correctly, some variation of that statement was originated by Hume, altered by Pierre-Simon Laplace, reworded by Marcello Truzzi, and later popularized by Carl Sagan.

 

[Ermine]

I am of the opinion that in the grand scheme of things, science and religion are parts of the same thing: truth. They're both just 2 methods of arriving at the same point. Science can only disprove things, and religion can only claim things to be true, not necessarily knowing why.

Also, I think that in the end, it's all science. There's always a method to the madness. We just don't understand it all yet.

 

[Apotheosis]

Philosophy provides questions you can't answer. Religion provides answers you can't question.

Science provides probabilities based on reason and evidence. And if you disagree with its underlying assumptions or its interpretation of the data and manage to form a theory that best fits the data, science moves even closer to the truth.

 

[Da Blob]

I really am beginning to believe that i am living in some version of Orwell's 1984. I all hear from many of you is the stock propaganda that Big Sister is putting out.
Seemingly many of you have been conditioned to worship the object and ignore the Subject. Which considering that you are all subjects just makes it a more unbelievable scenario.
Science is a never-ending quest for the truth about the Object, while religion/philosophy is a never ending quest for the truth about the Subject. These quests are not mutually exclusive, but each have a different frame of reference and are approached using different operating systems.

The only people who discount either science or religion are those who care nothing about the truth...

Crud! Cog, you know of course, that this very thing was the subject of my very first post back in the dark Ages of this Forum re: Science versus Art
Edit:http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=32607&highlight=grasshopper#post32607

 

[Apotheosis]

Sure, science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive, assuming that the subjective claims of philosophy are compatible with the objective reality of science.

Many of the metaphysical, historical, and scientific claims of religions conflict with our growing body of scientific knowledge, making parts of the two disciplines mutually exclusive.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

They are only exclusive when the believers or researchers choose to be. If you choose to believe contrary to what all evidence shows or see all the evidence and think you see the whole picture then you're the one making the exclusions. Not the methodologies.

 

[Apotheosis]

We were referring to religions, not individual believers. To the best of my knowledge, all of the major religions include doctrines that conflict with well-established scientific evidence.

There's a difference between an individual that has adopted a Christian moral philosophy and an individual that has adopted the doctrines and dogma of Christianity. Scientific inquiry and belief in the virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension are both, on a personal level, mutually exclusive.

 

[Apotheosis]

Scientific inquiry and belief in the virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension are both, on a personal level, mutually exclusive.

My wording here was too strong. Parts of the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

We were referring to religions, not individual believers. To the best of my knowledge, all of the major religions include doctrines that conflict with well-established scientific evidence.

There's a difference between an individual that has adopted a Christian moral philosophy and an individual that has adopted the doctrines and dogma of Christianity. Scientific inquiry and belief in the virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension are both, on a personal level, mutually exclusive.

There are some Christian sects that are quite quick to adjust their religious views to fit modern knowledge. They will tell much of the Bible is allegory and not meant to be taken as literal truth. They however, do not get on the TV to tell us that unlike certain others

 

[Da Blob]

They are only exclusive when the believers or researchers choose to be. If you choose to believe contrary to what all evidence shows or see all the evidence and think you see the whole picture then you're the one making the exclusions. Not the methodologies.

Hmmm! that's weird, I almost totally agree with that comment.
The only caveat i have is the faith that some put in so-called 'evidence' Any group of people can cobble together that which they claim to be 'evidence' - there is no such thing as objective evidence. Evidence is an article of faith.
However, that being said, it seems as though, the younger ones are being taught to discount the evidence of their own eyes, their own lives, their own experiences and replace them with 'evidence', (which is only abstract and theoretical in content), provided by the ruling class of academia, that is somehow superior to their own... Frankly, I see it as nothing more than 'religious' indoctrination by the monks of the Ivory Tower, as it affects the belief system of these young ones...

 

[Apotheosis]

There are some Christian sects that are quite quick to adjust their religious views to fit modern knowledge. They will tell much of the Bible is allegory and not meant to be taken as literal truth. They however, do not get on the TV to tell us that unlike certain others

Yeah, Methodists aren't very exciting. Not like those Evangelicals.

Can you name any Christian sect/denomination that does not believe in the virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension? Those beliefs, as I understand it, are fundamental to the Christian faith.

Back when I was religious, I delivered sermons in Methodist and Catholic churches, and I know that both of those sects are willing to stand up for science with regard to certain issues but clearly have fundamental beliefs that conflict with science, or are at the very least extraordinary claims.

I've also never heard a preacher tell a congregation that any given Bible story is probably inaccurate, although a preacher has told me, face to face, that belief in the rapture is crazy and Jesus is never coming back. And he comes across as a monist in conversations, but continues to preach the Bible to the church as if its nonfiction.

However, that being said, it seems as though, the younger ones are being taught to discount the evidence of their own eyes, their own lives, their own experiences and replace them with 'evidence', (which is only abstract and theoretical in content)

Can you provide some examples?

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

there is no such thing as objective evidence. Evidence is an article of faith.

this. exactly.

 

[Da Blob]

Yeah, Methodists aren't very exciting. Not like those Evangelicals.

Can you name any Christian sect/denomination that does not believe in the virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension? Those beliefs, as I understand it, are fundamental to the Christian faith.

Back when I was religious, I delivered sermons in Methodist and Catholic churches, and I know that both of those sects are willing to stand up for science with regard to certain issues but clearly have fundamental beliefs that conflict with science, or are at the very least extraordinary claims.

I've also never heard a preacher tell a congregation that any given Bible story is probably inaccurate, although a preacher has told me, face to face, that belief in the rapture is crazy and Jesus is never coming back. And he comes across as a monist in conversations, but continues to preach the Bible to the church as if its nonfiction.




Can you provide some examples?

This forum is full of examples of narrow minded thinking that exalts Objectivity and denigrates Subjectivity - just look around. Have you ever considered what the scripture of Romans 12 actually means?

Romans 12 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

God has dealt to every man (including unbelievers) The Measure of Faith. Yet an unbeliever is more likely to be conformed to this world, think more highly of his or her self than she or he ought, try to prove something in their own lives that has little or nothing to do with God's will for them. In addition, they utilize the limited capacity of a reprobate mind that decays and is not renewed. Not to mention presenting their bodies to the opportunity for bodily pleasures rather than self-discipline.

How do such apply their God-given faith? They apply it to themselves and other men.

They deny that their exercise of faith is merely a subjective exercise of faith. No rather it is Science, it is objective proof ...It is a lie... The only objective proof that any Science has, lies in the field of Applied Science. If the knowledge gained by 'pure' science can never be verified by utilization or manipulation it is nothing but a fantasy, for all of the 'proof' is only of an abstract nature and resides only in the imagination. To exalt such dreams, just because it is convenient, is an exercise of faith, in no way different from a believer's exercise of faith - except that the believer's faith can be rewarded...

Sorry, I am rambling, but my point is this, Science is a discipline that requires faith and it is wrong to state that somehow the faith that is applied to Science is somehow superior to the faith invested in God. It is all a matter of Faith. Yet the conditioning that students receive states that certain things are a matter of fact, when all they are or ever can be, are matters of faith...

 

[NoID10ts]

Who are you trying to convince, Blob? Us or yourself? You've got to know that no one here thinks you're some sort of messiah and that if you say it it must be true. Your problem is that for all your pontificating, you lack the ability to demonstrate how and why anything you say is true and accurate.

And to make matters worse, you've built this fort of subjective faith that protects you from ever having to actually engage in the debate. That would be fine, except that you'd think that by your own philosophy you should accept that everyone's subjective "faith based" viewpoints are equally valid yet you don't do that. To you, all viewpoints but your own are invalid, immature, and maybe satanic.

Your arrogance, and dare I say hatred, toward us "unbelievers" is breathtaking and always has been. I can't help but think that if you have an accurate handle on Christianity, then I want absolutely no part of it.

Even if I agreed with this faith analysis of yours, where would that leave us? We're both left trying to decide what things are most worthy of our faith and then we are back to square one, are we not?

Maybe I'm missing something, it's relatively seldom that anyone calls bullshit on you these days. Maybe I'm just stupid and one of the few that don't get it or maybe the really smart ones here just figure that arguing with you is like throwing pearls before swine.

 

[Jennywocky]

...Maybe I'm missing something, it's relatively seldom that anyone calls bullshit on you these days. Maybe I'm just stupid and one of the few that don't get it or maybe the really smart ones here just figure that arguing with you is like throwing pearls before swine.

That.

I used to bother; I assumed erroneously there was a dialog to be had.
Then I got annoyed.
Then I didn't like how I felt and behaved when I was annoyed.
Then I got smarter and realized I had better things to do than beat my head against the wall.

There are Blobs everywhere you go. I know a guy on another forum who reminds me very much of him. I eventually put him on Ignore too. Discretion is the better part of valor, so they say.

Maybe if we just remembered it's not actually a conversation, we're just listening to an unassailable broadcast tower with prepackaged programming and no phone-in lines, we'd find it easier to go do something else.

 

[NoID10ts]

You're wiser than I, Jenny. I hate that I let it bother me. I guess it's just that I'm surrounded by it in real life as well and so I lash out. I've got to find a better way to express myself.

 

[lafmeche]

I died a little inside watching that.

And why are we, myself included, so set on proving our own model of the universe that we Gag at the clear misapprehension that the opposing sides accept ?

I don't know if this applies to you, but it doesn't bother me so much because I want people to believe what I believe. It's that people believe things that are so clearly being twisted.

Math can do anything if you tweak the numbers you're putting into an equation. In school, I used backtrack from answers in math classes all the time if I couldn't remember the teacher's 'correct' method. Define the stuff you know, start the problem, then work backwards from the answer until you get something that looks close. They often didn't mark me down, either. This seems to be something similar. These anti-evolutionists are using convenient numbers and the general public is too stupid and/or apathetic to see it.

Can Science and Religion function together or are they mutually exclusive ?

I see no reason why they can't function together if people are sensible about them, but I think we'll always have people on the extremes that will refuse to acknowledge other information.

They are mutually exclusive.
Science values reason; religion does not, per se (e.g., faith).

As a result, science will always undermine religion.
This tension leads to religion struggling to justify itself lately.

I'm not sure I agree with such a blanket statement. If you mean the mainstream, organized religions, I think it's more a matter of the organizations trying to hold onto their power and influence. I've met plenty of spiritual/religious people that are much more flexible in their views.

How can one estimate the "amount of science" we understand?

I know you're not actually asking, but I'd say that our true understanding is so infinitesimally small that it can only be accurately measured/defined by a being whose understanding is large enough that he/she/it no longer has any need for such numbers, and no longer cares about such things.

I am of the opinion that in the grand scheme of things, science and religion are parts of the same thing: truth. They're both just 2 methods of arriving at the same point. Science can only disprove things, and religion can only claim things to be true, not necessarily knowing why.

Also, I think that in the end, it's all science. There's always a method to the madness. We just don't understand it all yet.

On the face of it, this makes sense to me. However, I have difficulty seeing how the religious 'extremists' (that refuse to acknowledge science) will grow their understanding when they're so rooted in [insert religious text]. It's not like they're somehow creating more of these texts. At best, they'll change their interpretations slightly. More moderate/receptive religious folks seem to adapt their views based on the scientific community. When I approach it from that angle, it's hard for me to see much value in religion from a 'progress' standpoint.

We were referring to religions, not individual believers. To the best of my knowledge, all of the major religions include doctrines that conflict with well-established scientific evidence.

There's a difference between an individual that has adopted a Christian moral philosophy and an individual that has adopted the doctrines and dogma of Christianity. Scientific inquiry and belief in the virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension are both, on a personal level, mutually exclusive.

Well stated. My impression of the Bible (don't know much about other religions, sorry) is that much of it is other stories to teach about values and morals. I take it in much the same way as fables and children’s’ stories.

(Apologies if I misread or mistyped anything important... I mostly just skimmed the second page and did not have time for my normal proofreading )

 

[Apotheosis]

Maybe I'm just stupid and one of the few that don't get it or maybe the really smart ones here just figure that arguing with you is like throwing pearls before swine.

When someone starts quoting Bible verses and suggesting that all truth claims are equally valid, I don't see the point in arguing anymore.

You can't win an argument with logic when the laws of logic are suspended.

 

[Da Blob]

Hmmm, interesting stuff. However, from my POV most of it seems to be nothing more than vague childish accusations that I am not playing the Game fairly... Might I point out that I am simply providing an opposing POV. If I am mistaken in anything, please point out the specific error and I will apologize or at least acknowledge I might be in error. It is to be noted that few actually ask me sincere questions concerning my comments, but just automatically assume they know exactly what I mean...
I would think that if there is any real desire to debate that would be a primary tactic (?).

LOL. I admit to being irritating, but growth is impossible without irritation - otherwise one is led to believe that the comfort of the status quo is all there is...

 

[Apotheosis]

Hmmm, interesting stuff. However, from my POV most of it seems to be nothing more than vague childish accusations that I am not playing the Game fairly...

If you begin with the assumption that evidence is always subjective (with the possible exception of applied science) and, as a result, all truth claims are subjective and equally likely, you are not playing the game fairly because it's impossible to use evidence or logic to argue against your position.

That sort of reasoning smells an awful lot like a non sequitur to me.

 

[Da Blob]

If you begin with the assumption that evidence is always subjective (with the possible exception of applied science) and, as a result, all truth claims are subjective and equally likely, you are not playing the game fairly because it's impossible to use evidence or logic to argue against your position.

That sort of reasoning smells an awful lot like a non sequitur to me.

This is true on a number of levels. I have no subjective faith in evidence or logic. Evidence is a man-made fabrication that requires faith in the Fabricator and logic is just a silly word game, that manipulates empty symbols.

As a counselor, I have noted that very little of human behavior is actually based upon either logic or evidence. These concepts are like delicate plants that do not survive testing outside of the sheltered environment/greenhouse of the Ivory Tower. Humanity itself, as illustrated by the Arts, does not rely on logic or evidence. Again, to me, it is not really honest to state that all human imagination/thought/behavior must fit within a certain frame of reference, logically.

 

[NoID10ts]

This is true on a number of levels. I have no subjective faith in evidence or logic. Evidence is a man-made fabrication that requires faith in the Fabricator and logic is just a silly word game, that manipulates empty symbols.

As a counselor, I have noted that very little of human behavior is actually based upon either logic or evidence. These concepts are like delicate plants that do not survive testing outside of the sheltered environment/greenhouse of the Ivory Tower. Humanity itself, as illustrated by the Arts, does not rely on logic or evidence. Again, to me, it is not really honest to state that all human imagination/thought/behavior must fit within a certain frame of reference, logically.

Seriously man, are you just fucking with us or are you mildly retarded?

 

[Apotheosis]

Seriously man, are you just fucking with us or are you mildly retarded?

I think he's a genius. Rationalization of this magnitude must require a kind of intelligence that I cannot even fathom.

 

[NoID10ts]

I think he's a genius. Rationalization of this magnitude must require a kind of intelligence that I cannot even fathom.

You might be right, geniuses are rarely understood in their own time. Blob never misses an opportunity to mention his IQ so I'm sure he's under that impression to.

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

If you begin with the assumption that evidence is always subjective (with the possible exception of applied science) and, as a result, all truth claims are subjective and equally likely, you are not playing the game fairly because it's impossible to use evidence or logic to argue against your position.

logic and evidence arent the same thing.
you can always point out self contradictions.

 

[Apotheosis]

logic and evidence arent the same thing.
you can always point out self contradictions.

Self contradictions alone aren't very useful, and evidence is not the only thing to which Da Blob's arguments are immune:

I have no subjective faith in evidence or logic. Evidence is a man-made fabrication that requires faith in the Fabricator and logic is just a silly word game, that manipulates empty symbols.

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

oh.. well then.
i mean, i must agree that "evidence" is just a different place you put faith in.. but logic is like "can this even be possible"

 

[Ermine]

On the face of it, this makes sense to me. However, I have difficulty seeing how the religious 'extremists' (that refuse to acknowledge science) will grow their understanding when they're so rooted in [insert religious text]. It's not like they're somehow creating more of these texts. At best, they'll change their interpretations slightly. More moderate/receptive religious folks seem to adapt their views based on the scientific community. When I approach it from that angle, it's hard for me to see much value in religion from a 'progress' standpoint.

Note that I said religion, not religious people. Of course there will always be remarkably ignorant people who refuse to believe in evolution, or refuse to believe that dinosaurs existed, or that the earth was definitely not created in 6 24-hour days based on religious grounds. It's all a matter of interpretation. I've yet to hear of a religious text that directly rejects any scientific theory, so this is where people come in.

Also, what do you mean by "moderate" and "receptive"? Really, religion doesn't dictate scientific truth, and vice versa. Wouldn't it make sense that religions don't have to "adapt their views"? Doctrines at their purest are universal and timeless. What does science have to do with this?

 

[Apotheosis]

i mean, i must agree that "evidence" is just a different place you put faith in..

Perhaps to an extent, but some degree of faith in the scientific method is justified because the results of science and technology are all around us. Is the same true for religious beliefs?

Keep in mind that science is the world of probabilities based on empirical data, not the world of absolute truths.

And again, the argument — that because scientific evidence may require some form of "faith" in the evidence, all truth claims are equally valid — does not follow.

 

[Da Blob]

Okay - so follow my version of 'logic' concerning this. Both believers and nonbelievers basically have the same type of brains, that function similarly, so that much of cognitive processing is the same. Now faith is... a primary element in both believers and nonbelievers. Now that terminology is misleading for there are only believers, that is to say those who have been labeled nonbelievers do believe in something, just not God or perhaps just a particular religion. This thread is supposedly about those who believe in the god of Science in comparison and contrasting with those who believe in the God of religion. However, here is the Crux, belief is belief - no matter what the focus of that belief is. For some to state that some beliefs are inherently superior to other types of belief is an egotistically derived, subjective opinion. There is only one type of belief, but a multitudes of contents that may be contained within that belief or belief system.

Now faith is not a scientific concept, nor do atheists and agnostics claim to have faith, so we resort to the religious definition of faith..

Hebrews 11, verses 1 and 6
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

Not only is faith defined as an attitude that the future exists beyond immediate perceptual input, but the concepts of evidence, hope, reward and belief can be examined in relationship to faith.

Firstly, evidence is nothing more than abstract documentation of a remote event, an event that is not currently being experienced or witnessed. If one is experiencing a thing in the "Here and Now" one needs no evidence that the event is occurring. It is only when the event does not exist that one needs to resort to the imagined evidence as the only suggestion that the event did occur or will occur. Because, evidence can only apply to the nonexistent (temporally), there is no evidence that can be evidence - without the application of faith and related beliefs - faith and belief as insubstantial as the event, itself.

Belief is the science of outcomes. One behaves in a certain manner in the hope of a certain outcome of one's actions. Again, there seems to be different definitions of the word, belief. However, a test of which beliefs are real as opposed to those which are merely claimed are those beliefs acted upon are real to the believer. So that faith is correlated to attitude, but belief is correlated to action.

In this context, one who has faith and belief in science, must believe that the events suggested by the 'scientific' evidence actually has some correlation to the event as hypothesized. This is an unverifiable assumption on their parts (in most cases) There really is very little objectivity involved. Therefore, I have little difficulty in placing subjective faith in both science and religion and their respective sets of unverifiable assumptions.

But what about the evidence that supports scientific theory? It is the same type of evidence that supports a mob's conviction and lynching of an accused criminal - it is simply a matter of superior numbers and power - that is, the subjective opinions, faith, beliefs and evidence of scientific values, are dominant in some environments over the opinions, faith, beliefs and evidence of religious values simply via the exercise of brute power. And to be fair, the converse is also true...

 

[Apotheosis]

Okay - so follow my version of 'logic' concerning this.

You already claimed that "logic is just a silly word game, that manipulates empty symbols," so I won't waste my time addressing the massive heap of illogic you just laid out for us.

And to make matters worse, you've built this fort of subjective faith that protects you from ever having to actually engage in the debate. That would be fine, except that you'd think that by your own philosophy you should accept that everyone's subjective "faith based" viewpoints are equally valid yet you don't do that.

Amen to that.

 

[Anthile]

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
~Thomas Paine


(by courtesy of DevUrandom)

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

i think you kind of hastily dismissed the point the blob was trying to make about how evidence is faith based.
i understand that why you would ignore his blanket statements, but when he is trying to back them up...

 

[Da Blob]

i think you kind of hastily dismissed the point the blob was trying to make about how evidence is faith based.
i understand that why you would ignore his blanket statements, but when he is trying to back them up...

Alas, perhaps, I am the only one that finds humor in ambiguity (re: logic). I spend a great deal of time crafting statements that are ambiguous on several levels, so that the reader can derive what she or he wishes to derive, therefore reflecting themselves by which meaning he or she wishes to 'see'.

It is rather interesting, people's comments are reflections of their own selves as often as they are reflections of the symbols i have written that allow different interpretations...

"for those who have ears - let them hear..."

EDIT: afterthought, i felt guilty about leaving the comment as is, so I will elaborate for the few that have been hearing or actively listening. 65-95% of all information available in a conversation in "real' time is of a nonverbal nature. Therefore, reading words off a screen or page involves a great deal of imagination to supply this missing nonverbal data. People do not actually hear what I write, they imagine hearing what I speak. They themselves supply 'my' tone of voice, vocalics and any emotional background.
Knowing this, I write so that a wide range of voices could be imagined by readers by deliberately being ambiguous on occasion. For example, I have written "Silent Voices Sound the Same" as a 5% verbal statement. The other 95% of the information that could be derived from that 5 symbol statement, includes at least 7 different meanings or interpretations depending on how the reader chooses to vocalize the written words.

EDIT II: now for the simple minded, I will relate this to the OP. Words and symbols (including Mathematical symbols) are 'evidence' only of the use of subjective imagination...

 

[Apotheosis]

i think you kind of hastily dismissed the point the blob was trying to make about how evidence is faith based.
i understand that why you would ignore his blanket statements, but when he is trying to back them up...

Are you serious?

I already explained why Blob's "logic" on the issue of faith and evidence is fallacious, and I didn't have to cite any Bible verses:

"i mean, i must agree that "evidence" is just a different place you put faith in.."

Perhaps to an extent, but some degree of faith in the scientific method is justified because the results of science and technology are all around us. Is the same true for religious beliefs?

Keep in mind that science is the world of probabilities based on empirical data, not the world of absolute truths.

And again, the argument — that because scientific evidence may require some form of "faith" in the evidence, all truth claims are equally valid — does not follow.

I've also made it quite clear why I'm ignoring "his blanket statements... when he is trying to back them up." If he has immunity from the widely accepted rules of logic, why should I point out the flawed reasoning in his argument when he will most likely say, in reply, that "logic is just a silly word game, that manipulates empty symbols"?

But seriously, you don't honestly believe that Blob presented a logically sound argument, do you?


"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."

- Thomas Paine

 

[TheHmmmm]

Alas, perhaps, I am the only one that finds humor in ambiguity (re: logic). I spend a great deal of time crafting statements that are ambiguous on several levels, so that the reader can derive what she or he wishes to derive, therefore reflecting themselves by which meaning he or she wishes to 'see'.

It is rather interesting, people's comments are reflections of their own selves as often as they are reflections of the symbols i have written that allow different interpretations...

"for those who have ears - let them hear..."

EDIT: afterthought, i felt guilty about leaving the comment as is, so I will elaborate for the few that have been hearing or actively listening. 65-95% of all information available in a conversation in "real' time is of a nonverbal nature. Therefore, reading words off a screen or page involves a great deal of imagination to supply this missing nonverbal data. People do not actually hear what I write, they imagine hearing what I speak. They themselves supply 'my' tone of voice, vocalics and any emotional background.
Knowing this, I write so that a wide range of voices could be imagined by readers by deliberately being ambiguous on occasion. For example, I have written "Silent Voices Sound the Same" as a 5% verbal statement. The other 95% of the information that could be derived from that 5 symbol statement, includes at least 7 different meanings or interpretations depending on how the reader chooses to vocalize the written words.

EDIT II: now for the simple minded, I will relate this to the OP. Words and symbols (including Mathematical symbols) are 'evidence' only of the use of subjective imagination...

Lol, sure. That's one creative excuse for ambiguity. You aren't doing anyone any favors.

First off, science isn't something you "believe in" or "agree with". You can choose to accept its answers or not, but the only reason to do so is by seeing the physical manifestations of its observations.

Second, even if science was a matter of belief, you can't just redefine faith to make it so that faith=belief and since belief=science, science MUST be a matter of faith. That's bullcrap. I also don't understand how because evidence documents past events, it's abstract.

Third, the fact that we have similar brains physiologically doesn't support the idea that everyone must have faith. That's like saying since we all have similar brains, we should all see the exact same color spectrum (which we don't).

"Belief is the science of outcomes."

No, it's the expectation of outcomes. Actuarial sciences, meteorology, these are sciences of outcomes. They take known information based on past observations and mold them into models to predict events. "Belief" expects outcomes regardless of past observations, as it's a manifestation of faith. No matter how many times life punches a certain belief in the mouth, it will always bounce back so long as its faith is resolute. That's not science, that's delusional obstinacy.

"But what about the evidence that supports scientific theory? It is the same type of evidence that supports a mob's conviction and lynching of an accused criminal - it is simply a matter of superior numbers and power - that is, the subjective opinions, faith, beliefs and evidence of scientific values, are dominant in some environments over the opinions, faith, beliefs and evidence of religious values simply via the exercise of brute power. And to be fair, the converse is also true..."

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, but it sounds like you're making science out to be some conspiracy dead set on brutalizing religion out of some vendetta or something. Just because the scientific community doesn't tend to agree with you, doesn't mean that EVERY single one of them is out to harangue your beliefs. It could just be that you're wrong...