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

[techboy]

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

It wasn't my question (initially at least), it was PeterMPs, and you're still not answering it (or the other) directly.

I will, however, trouble you no longer on this point.

[alexey]

It wasn't my question (initially at least), it was PeterMPs, and you're still not answering it (or the other) directly.

I will, however, trouble you no longer on this point.

There is not much I can do with a question about whether my attitude will change if somebody starts using different language. I tried to make sense of the question and answer it.

[Morneblade]

This was an interesting topic, until it got bogged down with wordsmiths.

[alexey]

All this just to establish that ken ham has faith for sure, while scientists may or may not have faith!

[Zguy28]

I'd like to point out that I think we are seening a rather extreme defintion used through out this thread for faith.  It isn't difficult to find a definitions of faith that aren't absolute in terms of belief or lack of evidence.

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

 

For example from Merriam-Webster:

 

"something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially :  a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>"

"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

 

and what comes up when I just put faith in google:

 

"strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

"complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

 

I didn't take every definition of faith, but none suggest a belief without evidence (no proof does not mean no evidence), and some of these don't suggest an absolute belief.

 

Most religious people that I know (including some Buddist) have reasons for their beliefs.  Others might not consider them good reasons/evidence, but that is not a complete lack of evidence.

 

And I know many people, including myself, that would say they have faith, but would not claim the have ZERO doubts.

 

I prefer to think of faith as a belief where the strength of belief is not supported by a "fair" juding of the evidence, and I think that well matches some of the defintions I've quoted above.

 

And generally much better with the dictionary defintions than an absolute belief with zero evidence.

The bible defines faith this way:

 

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So....this is still going, huh? Making progress, are we?

[Predicto]

I like to believe in God just for the comfort of thinking there will be a life after death. 

 

I'm jealous.  I lost the reassurance of religious faith decades ago, and I simply can't convince myself to believe in it anymore.  The most I can do is admit that I don't know for sure, but uncertainty is cold comfort when one is thinking about one's own mortality.  

[alexey]

I think death is an important reminder of life's value and urgency. Beware of losing that reminder when searching for comfort.

[Zguy28]

I think death is an important reminder of life's value and urgency. Beware of losing that reminder when searching for comfort.

Amazing. We agree on something.

[Kindred]

On a side note, a friend of mine shared this site with me. I found it's prepackaged 'confuse them with these fancy words' approach a little amusing.  Take that atheists! lol  If any of you have seen any of this verbiage used, you can call them out

 

 

 

Dealing with atheists is actually easy to do.  They don't have any evidence for their atheism, and they can't logically prove there is no God.  They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God.  But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it.  It takes practice, but you can do it.

The following statements are for copying and pasting into chat rooms.  Use them to see how atheists react.  Use them to learn how to respond better to atheists.  Please understand that these are not "stoppers."  But, they can be challenging to atheists.  Also, see how long it takes before they become condescending.  Do not return their condescension.  Instead, ask them to give rational reasons for their positions.  In the process of interacting with them, learn how to argue with them better.

 

 

Atheism|Cut and Paste Information for Atheist Discussion|Challenging Documentation for Atheists | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

http://carm.org/cut-atheism

[alexey]

s0crates,

I thought of another way to explain my view.

In programming, there is a concept of an "interface". Very Different components can implement the same interface, for example "move in space." When people engage in science, they may be using the "rational" interface with or without an assumption that the underlying implementation is actually rational.

[s0crates]

I'm afraid I don't follow the example, but perhaps that is only because I don't know enough computer science.

I know that input devices like touch screen, mouse, keyboard, microphone, etcetera interface with the the OS, so I can command it to do things like run programs. I know that output devices like printers, speakers, and monitors also interface with the system, so that I get some kind of visual/audio representation of what the system is doing.

That is my understanding of interfacing anyhow, it is how devices communicate with the system, but maybe I'm missing something important, because in that context I'm having trouble understanding your analogy.

Are you saying that rationalism is like the input device or the output device? I'm just not clear on this.

[alexey]

I'm afraid I don't follow the example, but perhaps that is only because I don't know enough computer science.

...

Let me provide the example with more background information.

Let's say I'm writing a game called "Space Creatures." I want a game where other people can contribute creatures. These creatures must have standard actions for moving in space: {changeX, changeY, changeZ}. These three actions can be called an "interface" that creatures must "implement." It is a contract between software components. My game can tell any creature in the game to do these three actions. Some creatures may have other actions as well, like {shootLazer} or {eatMoon}, but they all must have those 3.

Let's say I have no way of making sure that other people's creatures implement the interface correctly, or implement it at all.

(that was for computer science people who may point out that languages with static type-checking would catch interface violations)

I finish my "Space Creatures" game, fire it up, and start getting those creatures. I tell them to {changeX, changeY, changeZ}, and see what they do. Some may move, some may explode, etc.

With time I get bored and start telling them to do other things, like {shootLazer}. Some creatures do fun stuff as a result. I keep trying different things.

After doing this for some time, I may end up developing a whole system of stuff I can do with my creatures.

Yet I am just calling interfaces, and I have no way of getting beyond that.

I may think that true nature of those creatures is described by interfaces I discovered and behaviors that I see.

However, I am not obligated to do that. I can do all the same stuff without having to assert, believe, or even assume that my system for stuff I can do with my space creatures properly reflects their true nature.

[s0crates]

Well I know much more about interfaces now, although I might still be a bit unclear on the analogy.

If I understand you, an interface is something that allows a component to interact with a program (by implementing that interface). And a rational principle like "the universe is governed by law-like properties" is analogous to that, it's an interface you implement as a component, yes?

I guess my question is: If you are the component and the rational principle is the interface, then which part of the analogy is the universe? Is it the program itself? The system the program runs on?

Before you answer, I feel obliged to point out that computer programs are logical by definition.

[alexey]

...

I guess my question is: which part of the analogy is the universe? Is it the program itself? The system the program runs on?

Before you answer, I feel obliged to point out that computer programs are logical by definition.

I used the analogy with programs to illustrate that you can work with something without believing or assuming anything about its true nature.

Your point appears to be that, we must assume that the universe is rational in order to work with it as we would work with a rational type of thing.

My position is that we can work with things without assuming anything about them.

More over, I think we are obligated to relinquish all assumptions about the "true nature of the universe" if we acknowledge that we have no way to access the universe without going through an interface.

[s0crates]

Your point appears to be that, we must assume that the universe is rational in order to work with it as we would work with a rational type of thing.

That's right.

My position is that we can work with things without assuming anything about them.

Can we?

More over, I think we are obligated to relinquish all assumptions about the "true nature of the universe" if we acknowledge that we have no way to access the universe without going through an interface.

Me too. That would be to relinquish empiricism too though, that's my whole point. Empirical science presupposes the universe is knowable.

Either we are absolute skeptics, or we except the universe is rational. If the universe is not knowable, then empirical science fails entirely.

Induction presupposes metaphysics. Knowledge is an act of faith, faith that the universe is knowable. You see?

[alexey]

Me too. That would be to relinquish empiricism too though, that's my whole point. Empirical science presupposes the universe is knowable.

If the universe is not knowable, then empirical science fails entirely.

You keep repeating this, but can you demonstrate it to be the case?

I demonstrated how it is possible to relinquish assumptions about the thing and keep working with its interface.

We can acknowledge that information coming from the universe appears to have some properties without assuming that those properties are applicable to the universe itself.

(claims about knowledge of the true nature of the universe are indeed claims of faith, no argument there)

[s0crates]

You keep repeating this, but can you demonstrate it to be the case?

I'm not sure what kind of demonstration you want, but I'll try. Consider the following two arguments (either of which may be true):

1. Skepticism is true, we cannot know the nature of the universe.

2. Newton's laws have accurately calculated the movement of bodies through space in the past.

3. If premise 1 is true, no knowledge of the universe follows from premise 2.

4. Therefore we have no way of knowing if Newton's laws still apply.

1. The universe is rational and knowable. It is law-like in its operations.

2. Newton's laws have accurately calculated the movement of bodies through space in the past.

3. If premise 1 is true, we can derive knowledge from premise 2.

4. Therefore we can know Newton's laws still apply.

Which argument is closer to the attitude of the scientist?

[PeterMP]

If you do not assume the universe is "rational and knowable" (I actually prefer other phrasing, but will use it since it is what is being used here), is there good evidence to think that Newton's laws will be true tomorrow?

 

Can you state that there is a low probability that Newton's laws will not be true tomorrow?

 

If you cannot state there is a low probability that Newton's laws will not be true tomorrow, why would you do anything that required Newton's laws to be true tomorrow (like build or buy any building)?

[alexey]

I'm not sure what kind of demonstration you want, but I'll try. Consider the following two arguments (either of which may be true):

1. Skepticism is true, we cannot know the nature of the universe.

2. Newton's laws have accurately calculated the movement of bodies through space in the past.

3. Therefore we have no way of knowing if Newton's laws still apply.

1. The universe is rational and knowable. It is law-like in its operations.

2. Newton's laws have accurately calculated the movement of bodies through space in the past.

3. Therefore Newton's laws still apply.

Which argument is closer to the attitude of the scientist?

As far as I know, we have reasons to think that Newton's laws will apply tomorrow, as well as no way of knowing for sure that they will.

If you do not assume the universe is "rational and knowable" (I actually prefer other phrasing, but will use it since it is what is being used here), is there good evidence to think that Newton's laws will be true tomorrow?

 ...

Do plants, crocodiles, or squirrels assume that the universe is rational? They all act like Newton's laws will be true tomorrow.

[s0crates]

As far as I know, we have reasons to think that Newton's laws will apply tomorrow, as well as no way of knowing for sure that they will.

I added another premise to the skeptical argument to make it more explicit: If premise 1 is true, no knowledge can follow from premise 2 (see my edit).

Is that really the attitude of empirical science? I mean "empirical" = "through experience or observation" and "science" = "knowledge" (literally). Science is not skepticism, it is knowledge by observation.

You can be a scientist or you can be an absolute skeptic, you cannot be both.

And to anticipate a likely reply: Falsification works as a method, not as a worldview.

[alexey]

s0crates,

I understand what you are saying about the empirical science and I am not advocating absolute skepticism.

We can relinquish claims of knowledge of the true nature of the universe while keeping claims of knowledge that we obtain by studying patterns that we receive from our sense.

We cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow but we can admit that we observed that pattern so far and have no reason to think it will suddenly change.

[PeterMP]

As far as I know, we have reasons to think that Newton's laws will apply tomorrow, as well as no way of knowing for sure that they will.

Do plants, crocodiles, or squirrels assume that the universe is rational? They all act like Newton's laws will be true tomorrow.

Can you answer the questions for yourself?

[alexey]

Can you answer the questions for yourself?

I do not think crocodiles assume the universe is rational and neither must we.

[s0crates]

As far as I know, we have reasons to think that Newton's laws will apply tomorrow, as well as no way of knowing for sure that they will.

Do plants, crocodiles, or squirrels assume that the universe is rational? They all act like Newton's laws will be true tomorrow.

This is an interesting point. I would say squirrels have what we might call animal-faith in perception and the laws of nature, a faith that precedes skepticism. It never even occurs to the squirrel to doubt its perception or the universe's being consistent.

In practice we are like the squirrel, we trust our perception and that the universe will work the same way tomorrow. Where we differ from the squirrel is that we can doubt this animal-faith in theory (although I think our performances would contradict that theory).

But, and here is the key point , a squirrel could not devise Newton's laws. In order to come up with those laws, Newton had to trust Kepler's observations, he needed not animal-faith but a faith that the universe is law-like in its operations. It is science that makes the assumption, not squirrels.