Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight online at 7pm- http://www.npr.org

[Larry]

Bacon thread! 

 

[alexey]

Faith is a first step towards knowledge.

It applies to both science and religion.

Where would science be without someone saying "I'm going to try to do something without first knowing the results"? Scientists take leaps of faith all the time.

If you want a scientific experiment to help you know God, I can give you one. Are you willing to take a leap of faith and follow the path on which it takes you? I think you'll find religion is not as immoral as you and Bill Nye seem to think.

Thanks, but the faith of living without absolute certainty is as far as I can go. I do not have the power to make myself believe stuff and I don't want to pretend.

[s0crates]

Thanks, but the faith of living without absolute certainty is as far as I can go. I do not have the power to make myself believe stuff and I don't want to pretend.

Empirical science has a certain kind of faith that underlies it, a faith that our perception reflects reality, and a faith that the universe is law-like in its operations. Induction, or Baconian method, presupposes metaphysics. Science begins with the assumption that the universe is such that we can understand it.

That being said, I don't think anybody can honestly believe the earth is only 6000 years old once they understand the evidence.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Baconian Method......thread win!

[alexey]

Empirical science has a certain kind of faith that underlies it, a faith that our perception reflects reality, and a faith that the universe is law-like in its operations. Induction, or Baconian method, presupposes metaphysics. Science begins with the assumption that the universe is such that we can understand it.

...

I am not much of a handyman... but I am a relatively recent homeowner. I have several tools. Stuff comes up from time to time, and I do my best to fix it. I don't always know that i am doing the right thing or that i have the right tool, I just do the best I can with what I got.

Do you define faith as something that is required to use senses or tools?

Personally, I understand "faith" to be the opposite of "justified confidence". I verify my senses by cross-referencing them. I have a justified confidence in my visual system. I can lose the justification of my confidence if I start bumping into things I cannot see. I would lose the justified confidence but I could keep trusting my visual system on faith.

I am curious how you would go about defining faith and arguing that faith is necessary to use our senses.

[DaGoonie55]

The crux is that God has all but backed away from this existence.  Instead, the holy spirit dwells with us.  There were burning bushes, great floods, parting of seas, etc.  This will not happen now.  But I doubt that would matter.

 

If God were on the the half time show of the superbowl, asked non-believers what you wanted, gave it to them, in front of hundreds of millions of people, there are some that would still cry foul. 

 

Jesus' own people rejected him. 

 

I do appreciate these threads.  It forces me to rethink my beliefs and have come out stronger because of them.  I respect everyones opinion, and hope that the conversation continues - and noone is offended, personally, due to such a personal topic.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I am curious how you would go about defining faith and arguing that faith is necessary to use our senses.

Again you keep insisting on this either or paradigm which is itself a logical fallacy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The crux is that God has all but backed away from this existence.  Instead, the holy spirit dwells with us.  There were burning bushes, great floods, parting of seas, etc.  This will not happen now.  But I doubt that would matter.

 

If God were on the the half time show of the superbowl, asked non-believers what you wanted, gave it to them, in front of hundreds of millions of people, there are some that would still cry foul.

Jesus even said as much.

Matthew 16:4

An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

Luke 16:30-31

And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent. ’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead. ’”

[alexey]

Again you keep insisting on this either or paradigm which is itself a logical fallacy.

Quite the opposite - I think some people use faith when relying on their senses, doing science, etc, and some people do not.

If anybody wants to argue otherwise, that faith is required to use senses or to do science, hey should present more than just assertions. I would like to see their definition of "faith" and their argument.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Quite the opposite - I think some people use faith when relying on their senses, doing science, etc, and some people do not.

It's beside the point whether you think some others use faith and science because you keep insisting on either empirical evidence or faith, just the same way you insisted earlier that a text mist be either totally literal or totally allegorical.

Like I said, YOU keep insisting on either or.

If anybody wants to argue otherwise, that faith is required to use senses or to do science, hey should present more than just assertions. I would like to see their definition of "faith" and their argument.

I'm not sure that anyone did say that faith is required to do science, especially since the self imposed rules of the scientific method don't allow for it. Where we believe you go wrong is a misplaced trust in the absolute certainty of your senses.

[alexey]

It's beside the point whether you think some others use faith and science because you keep insisting on either empirical evidence or faith, just the same way you insisted earlier that a text mist be either totally literal or totally allegorical.

Like I said, YOU keep insisting on either or.

Yes I use the word "faith" to refer to unjustified belief ("things unseen"), and I contrast that with justified confidence ("empirical evidence"). These are just general distinctions and I admit plenty of gray areas between them.

I'm not sure that anyone did say that faith is required to do science, especially since the self imposed rules of the scientific method don't allow for it. Where we believe you go wrong is a misplaced trust in the absolute certainty of your senses.

Before you can argue that my absolute trust is misplaced, can you actually demonstrate that I have that absolute trust to begin with?

This is similar to the point s0crates made earlier, that "certain kind of faith" is required to do science and to use our senses.

I disagree with these assertions and I look forward to either you or s0crates presenting supporting arguments.

I suspect it will come down to how you define "faith", and you will have a hard time defining it in a way that makes it obligatory for basic function.

[DaGoonie55]

Oh, good ol' semantics.

 

Faith: "complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

 

Trust: "firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something."

 

I feel as though I have been down this road before on this very topic.

[alexey]

"Complete trust" and "firm belief" can be tricky because they can cover both justified and unjustified confidence.

[PeterMP]

Quite the opposite - I think some people use faith when relying on their senses, doing science, etc, and some people do not.

If anybody wants to argue otherwise, that faith is required to use senses or to do science, hey should present more than just assertions. I would like to see their definition of "faith" and their argument.

 

Before we go in this direction, can I get you to confirm that you agree with some basic rules of math.

 

If I have:

 

A = B + C

 

And I can say that A, B, and C can be any number between 0 and 1, and that B is pretty small with respect to 1 (e.g. somewhere less than 0.001) that I cannot conclude that A is not close to 1 without knowing what the value of C is?

 

That is if:

 

A = 0.0009 + C

 

That I do not know if A is close to 1 without some knowledge of what C is?

[alexey]

...

That is if:

 

A = 0.0009 + C

 

That I do not know if A is close to 1 without some knowledge of what C is?

As far as I can tell "A=0.00009 + C" provides no information about values A or C other than:

 

A = 0.00009 + C

C = A - 0.00009

 

We may have already discussed this.  I remember our disagreement being about what kind of evidence is needed to assign non-zero probabilities.  You argued that we must assign non-zero probabilities to everything, but I do not remember how you supported that claim.

[Larry]

Flashing back to the Great Tailgate Debate over "Does .999 (repeating) Equal 1?" 

[PeterMP]

As far as I can tell "A=0.00009 + C" provides no information about values A or C other than:

 

A = 0.00009 + C

C = A - 0.00009

 

We may have already discussed this.  I remember our disagreement being about what kind of evidence is needed to assign non-zero probabilities.

 

We have discussed this already and my recollection of the conversation was that we had the above case, you didn't/couldn't say what the value of C was (you were agnostic with respect to its value), but you did want to say that the value of A was close to 1.

 

Now, do you want to continue the conversation, and can you specifically confirm in such a situation, you do not know what the value of A is without some information on the value of C?

 

You cannot say that the value of A is close to 1, right?

[alexey]

...

You cannot say that the value of A is close to 1, right?

I am pretty sure we're on the same page about math.  I think our disagreement comes down to figuring out when we are justified in assigning non-zero probabilities.

[PeterMP]

I am pretty sure we're on the same page about math.  I think our disagreement comes down to figuring out when we are justified in assigning non-zero probabilities.

 

Do you worry about your car exploding when you start it?

 

Would you say that you have a strong belief that your car will not explode when you start it?

[alexey]

Do you worry about your car exploding when you start it?

Would you say that you have a strong belief that your car will not explode when you start it?

I do not worry about it and I do not have a strong belief about it.

You seem to suggest that if I act in accordance with absence of evidence, I must be asserting evidence of absence.

[PeterMP]

I do not worry about it and I do not have a strong belief about it.

You seem to suggest that if I act in accordance with absence of evidence, I must be asserting evidence of absence.

 

When you go out and start your car, you do not think there is a low chance that your car will blow up?

[alexey]

When you go out and start your car, you do not think there is a low chance that your car will blow up?

If there is absence of evidence that my car may blow up, then I do not think about it.

If I do think about it, for example as a result of our conversation, I still cannot think about probabilities because there is absence of evidence.

[AzSkinsFan63]

This thread is a great read just wanted to add some links to the evidence that there are a lot of creation scientists past present and probably future..

 

http://creation.com/creation-scientists

 

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/testimonies_of_scientists_who_believe.html

 

http://www.creationists.org/former-evoltionists-who-became-young-earth-creation-scientists.html

[s0crates]

Do you define faith as something that is required to use senses or tools?

Faith is believing without evidence (or without the possibility of doubt).

i verify my senses by cross-referencing them. I have a justified confidence in my visual system.

So you say that you verify your senses through your senses.

Doesn't that obviously beg the question? Doesn't that presuppose the very thing which demands justification?

Now, aside from that, there is the additional difficulty about the assumption that the universe is law-like in its operations.

[alexey]

So you say that you verify your senses through your senses.

Doesn't that obviously beg the question? Doesn't that presuppose the very thing which demands justification?

I think that depends on whether you are satisfied by verification of your senses through cross-checking them for consistency.

I think you kind of must be satisfied with that for not having other choices. I read a good analogy - think of it as a web of knowledge rather than a building.