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

[s0crates]

It seems you are trying to do this:

premise => assumption => assertion => faith

I see meaningful differences between these, and I am not going past "premise."

Not exactly. I will diagram a simple empirical argument to demonstrate.

1. The sun has risen every day (empirical premise, which assumes perception is reliable).

2. The universe is law-like/consistent in its operations (rational premise, which must be assumed for anything to follow from premise 1).

3. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow (conclusion).

Now we typically accept this kind of reasoning, at least implicitly. Don't you think so? But let us look more closely.

I have contended that the second premise cannot be proven as a logical necessity. It seems any reason for accepting it will be circular. I know the universe is consistent because it has consistently been so far.

As to the first premise, it can only be assumed insofar as we trust our senses to give us reliable information.

Now it seems to me there is an element if faith in both. Premise one involves faith in the given, premise two involves faith that the universe is rational.

Where exactly does our disagreement occur in this line of thought?

[PeterMP]

The difference is between "not a factor in my behavior" and "a factor in my behavior that was evaluated to be at a particular probability."

For me, things need to earn their way into the latter category.

If you put a gun to my head and asked me to pick a number, I would do it.

I do not have to go from "this is how i will modulate sensory information" to "this is what I will assume about the universe."

 

Going back to the idea of making a strong positive assertion, when you or a loved one have a bacterial infection, would you make a positive assertion that the probability the antibiotics wouldn't work is extremely low?

 

Or would you say that you don't compute that probability?

 

When given an antibiotic prescription have you ever asked the doctor for a second antibiotic just in case?  Or immediately gone to another doctor for a second opinion or trying to obtain a prescription for a second one?

[alexey]

Not exactly. I will diagram a simple empirical argument to demonstrate.

1. The sun has risen every day (empirical premise, which assumes perception is reliable).

2. The universe is law-like/consistent in its operations (rational premise, which must be assumed for anything to follow from premise 1).

3. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow (conclusion).

Now we typically accept this kind of reasoning, at least implicitly. Don't you think so? But let us look more closely.

I have contended that the second premise cannot be proven as a logical necessity. It seems any reason for accepting it will be circular. I know the universe is consistent because it has consistently been so far.

As to the first premise, it can only be assumed insofar as we trust our senses to give us reliable information.

Now it seems to me there is an element if faith in both. Premise one involves faith in the given, premise two involves faith that the universe is rational.

Where exactly does our disagreement occur in this line of thought?

Can I live my life without pretending that I can prove the sun will rise tomorrow?

Going back to the idea of making a strong positive assertion, when you or a loved one have a bacterial infection, would you make a positive assertion that the probability the antibiotics wouldn't work is extremely low?

 

Or would you say that you don't compute that probability?

 

When given an antibiotic prescription have you ever asked the doctor for a second antibiotic just in case?  Or immediately gone to another doctor for a second opinion or trying to obtain a prescription for a second one?

When it comes to making decisions, I try to do the best that I can with information that is available.

[PeterMP]

Are you suggesting that a conclusion amounts to a thinking process?

It seems you are trying to do this:

premise => assumption => assertion => faith

I see meaningful differences between these, and I am not going past "premise."

 

I will submit to you that your behavior is no different than somebody that has faith and so the end result is no different.  You are just playing word games.

 

You do not act like you are in the position of ignorance that you claim to be and ends up in you dodging answers to questions like the one with respect to antibiotics to explain your behavior. 

 

The results of a person in ingnorance and a population in ignorance should have much more variation in it.

 

And we do not have to imagine a gun to your head for you to have "knowledge".

 

Let's say I gave people a multiple choice test with 10 questions where they did not know the answer.  BUT the question and answers was always the same (I repeated the same question and answers on a the test 10 times).

 

And I told people there would be some small benefit for getting over a 25%.  What would happen?

 

People would answer in a way to maximize getting over a 25%.

 

But there would be variation.  Some might answer A, B, C, A, B, C, A, B, C, A

(I would guess this would be the most common answer simply beause of the order)

 

Some might answer: A, B, C, D, A, B, C, A, B, C

Some might answer B, C, D, B, C, D, B, C, D

 

And if I looked at the acutal answer and randomized the relationship between them and the letter (so let's say an answer is 1 and on some test A was 1 and others B was 1, etc), then the real answers would probably have even more variation.

 

And in fact, mathematically this actually makes sense.

 

But that isn't what we see.  We don't see random behavior with respect to most of the issues I've raised in this thread, and you behave essentially like most other people.

 

To take a statment you said earlier in this thread (subsitituting in the idea the universe is not irrational where you originally used it for the idea):

 

'I accept as a premise that the universe is not irrational because it allows me to make sense of the world.

I do not assume that this premise is actually true. I accept it because I see no way to make sense of the world without it.'

 

Or:

 

'I accept as faith that the universe is not irrational because it allows me to make sense of the world.'

 

I'd suggest a few things:

1.  You don't behave in away that suggests that you do not assume the premise is true.  Your behavior is not at all what would be expected given a position of ignorace (i.e. the assumption that it is not true).  You act like the premise is true.

 

2.  There is no practical difference between somebody that makes the first statements and somebody that makes the second statement in terms of their behavior and so practically you are making a distinction without a difference.

 

Would your attitude towards God/religion change if people with faith started saying:

 

'I accept as a premise God exist because it allows me to make sense of the world.

I do not assume that this premise is actually true. I accept it because I see no way to make sense of the world without it.'

 

Would there be any reason for them to change any of their behaviors?

 

Your acceptance of the premise allows you to act as if the premise is true their acceptence of the premise would result in behavior that is the same as if the premise was true.

Can I live my life without pretending that I can prove the sun will rise tomorrow?

When it comes to making decisions, I try to do the best that I can with information that is available.

 

Sure.  You become a survialists and stock pile enough supplies that you can live if the sun does not rise for a few days.

 

There are people that behave as if the universe is not rational.  We generally consider them insane.

[alexey]

I will submit to you that your behavior is no different than somebody that has faith and so the end result is no different.

....

You seem to admit that I can do the same behavior but for different reasons.

Do you acknowledge that I can do everything that I do without having faith?

[PeterMP]

You seem to admit that I can do the same behavior but for different reasons.

Do you acknowledge that I can do everything that I do without having faith?

 

I think meanings of words are somewhat fluid and as I've already pointed out in this thread there are different defintions of faith.

 

Especially if you are willing to define words in a manner not consistent with most dictionaries, I think you can define the word (or find a non-normal source with that defnition) in a way that you want and then use the word to describe your behavior that you want.

 

I don't think it matters if there is no difference in your actual behavior.

 

If you behave just like people that say they have faith and you criticize those people for saying they have faith, the only thing you are really criticizing them for is a word/defintion choice.

 

I don't think that really has any value and is just a matter of playing word games.

 

If you say I presume the universe is not irrational and somebody else says I have faith that the universe is not irrational, and your behavior is not different than the person that uses the word faith, and you criticize the use of the word faith, I think you just like to play word games.

 

And I'm generally not interested in playing word games.

[alexey]

Peter, do you still want to assert that people cannot do science or use their senses without using faith? If that is your claim, then please make your case.

Your point seems to be, if Alexey behaves like people who have faith, Alexey has faith.

S0crates takes a different route - he seems to say picking up a hammer amounts to having faith that the universe is a nail.

[PeterMP]

Peter, do you still want to assert that people cannot do science or use their senses without using faith? If that is your claim, then please make your case.

Your point seems to be, if Alexey behaves like people who have faith, Alexey has faith. I am not convinced.

S0crates takes a different route - he seems to say if I pick up a hammer, I must have faith that the universe is a nail.

I've never said that people can't do science or use their senses without using faith.

 

In fact, the last time this subject came up I said:

 

If you want to refute that science doesn't require faith, then the better approach would to actually take on those arguments (and here I'll make the point that it does depend on how you use the word science- science as in the method (i.e. the scientific method) does not requrie faith.  It is just a process.

 

As a comparision, I could pray even if it had been disproven that there was no god.  Most would consider it a waste of my time, but I could go through the process.

 

But that's only one use of the word science and not what I think people are generally talking about in this conversation.

 

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

 

If it helps you sleep better at night to tell yourself that you don't have faith, I'm not going to push it.

[alexey]

I've never said that people can't do science or use their senses without using faith.

I will readily agree that people can do science, try to act rationally, and use their senses without using faith.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

If somebody shows you something that walks, looks, and quacks like a duck, and offers you a bet on whether it is actually a duck, you may want to refuse.

If it helps you sleep better at night to tell yourself that you don't have faith, I'm not going to push it.

I appreciate your concern, but please do not let it prevent you from presenting your argument.

Can you take a dictionary definition of "faith" and demonstrate that I have it?

[techboy]

Would your attitude towards God/religion change if people with faith started saying:

 

'I accept as a premise God exist because it allows me to make sense of the world.

I do not assume that this premise is actually true. I accept it because I see no way to make sense of the world without it.'

 

Would there be any reason for them to change any of their behaviors?

I generally find this conversation to be simply rehashing ground that has been covered fruitlessly time and time again, but I would love to see you answer this question, alexey, in case you missed it.

[s0crates]

Can I live my life without pretending that I can prove the sun will rise tomorrow?

If I may answer your question with a question: Can you live your life as if you doubt the sun will rise tomorrow?

[alexey]

I generally find this conversation to be simply rehashing ground that has been covered fruitlessly time and time again, but I would love to see you answer this question, alexey, in case you missed it.

I picked a way of making sense of the world for myself. Somebody else may pick a different way.

We can discuss these different ways and see whether they work equally well accounting for the evidence, being internally consistent, etc. or we can avoid that and discuss what actions we should take instead.

If I may answer your question with a question: Can you live your life as if you doubt the sun will rise tomorrow?

You seem to suggest that there is a dichotomy between absolute certainty and absolute doubt.

Can I act like the sun will come up tomorrow without proving it, without doubting it, and without having faith that it will?

[s0crates]

You seem to suggest that there is a dichotomy between absolute certainty and absolute doubt.

So you say you do not doubt the sun will rise tomorrow, but you cannot be certain of it either? That seems a reasonable enough position to hold.

But now consider the consequence of this view. Empirical science cannot then draw conclusions with certainty. We should cease speaking of scientific proof altogether, as science does not provide proof.

Is that your view?

[PeterMP]

I appreciate your concern, but please do not let it prevent you from presenting your argument.

Can you take a dictionary definition of "faith" and demonstrate that I have it?

 

I'm not particularly interested in getting into the sematics of the defintion of the word faith.

 

I think the point that needs to be made in this thread at this time has been made.

[alexey]

So you say you do not doubt the sun will rise tomorrow, but you cannot be certain of it either? That seems a reasonable enough position to hold.

But now consider the consequence of this view. Empirical science cannot then draw conclusions with certainty. We should cease speaking of scientific proof altogether, as science does not provide proof.

Is that your view?

I understand that proofs of empirical science rest on particular premises. It seems important to understand those premises when we speak about scientific proof.

However, I do not see what obligates us to believe that these premises reflect the true nature of the universe.

I'm not particularly interested in getting into the sematics of the defintion of the word faith.

I think the point that needs to be made in this thread at this time has been made.

You claim that a particular term applies, but refuse to discuss the definition of the term and whether that definition actually applies. That is strange.

[s0crates]

I understand that proofs of empirical science rest on particular premises. It seems important to understand those premises when we speak about scientific proof.

However, I do not see what obligates us to believe that these premises reflect the true nature of the universe.

That is basically my point. When we do science, we make certain assumptions about the nature of the universe, but those assumptions are unproven and perhaps unprovable.

[Ozymandias]

I like to believe in God just for the comfort of thinking there will be a life after death. At the same time tho, I believe in Evolution. I am a big science guy. Like Nye said, its hard to accept that once you die, that's it. And i feel like a lot of people turn to religion, like me, for comfort, even tho they dont necessarily believe it.

[alexey]

That is basically my point. When we do science, we make certain assumptions about the nature of the universe, but those assumptions are unproven and perhaps unprovable.

You keep making that jump from using a method to making assumptions about the nature of the universe.

If I pick a hammer, am I obligated to assume that the universe is a nail?

[techboy]

I picked a way of making sense of the world for myself. Somebody else may pick a different way.

We can discuss these different ways and see whether they work equally well accounting for the evidence, being internally consistent, etc. or we can avoid that and discuss what actions we should take instead.

You didn't answer the question.

[alexey]

You didn't answer the question.

I did try. Looks like I didn't understand the question.

[s0crates]

You keep making that jump from using a method to making assumptions about the nature of the universe.

If I pick a hammer, am I obligated to assume that the universe is a nail?

The method itself begins with assumptions.

If you assert that a hammer is the best or only tool for the job, then you imply that the job involves nails.

[alexey]

The method itself begins with assumptions.

If you assert that a hammer is the best or only tool for the job, then you imply that the job involves nails.

You seem to be making a lot of unsupported claims about the thinking process of a guy with a hammer.

[Rocket442Olds]

There are certain guesses made by scientists now, and very early theories as to what happened with the nature of the universe, but no one will say they "know" (scientifically).

 

One of the biggest differences here, and the pretend "gotcha" bit that religious folks try to pull is the "Oh yeah, well you have faith in scientists!"

 

This is using the word in an alternate meaning from the religious one. Even if we drop what the exact defintion of faith is, most of us who follow science will quickly tell you that we will move from someone who was supposed to be telling a truth if it is falsified by others. Its what drives science to continue to move forward. If you posit something, others will do their best to falsify it and this is a system of checks and balances. 

 

Not many of us have "faith" in a single scientist, but trust that the scientific method over time will weed out liars, scabs, and theories that may have once made sense that don't after new findings come out.

 

That is the big difference.

[techboy]

I did try. Looks like I didn't understand the question.

I don't see what's so difficult about the question(s).

1. If a religious person used that language, instead of using the word faith, would your attitude towards that person and/or his faith change?

2. Would a religious person who used such language need to make any meaningful change to his behavior?

I'll quote it again for maximum clarity.

Would your attitude towards God/religion change if people with faith started saying:

'I accept as a premise God exist because it allows me to make sense of the world.

I do not assume that this premise is actually true. I accept it because I see no way to make sense of the world without it.'

Would there be any reason for them to change any of their behaviors?

As I said, I'd be interested in what your direct answer to these two questions would be.

[alexey]

I don't see what's so difficult about the question(s).

1. If a religious person used that language, instead of using the word faith, would your attitude towards that person and/or his faith change?

The difference between using the premise and having faith in the nature of the universe is not just a matter of language for me.

To answer your question, I think religion would be less harmful if religious people apportioned their belief to their knowledge.

2. Would a religious person who used such language need to make any meaningful change to his behavior?

I will gladly discuss whether such a position is internally consistent, but I am reluctant to tell people what they should do.