naitche

Science is a field. An environment. The space occupied by a set of conditions. They aren't fixed conditions, they evolve and change according to what brings greatest value and meets the method expected,  and  accepted, at a given point in time.

Science does not support anything. 

We support science by what we apply to its practice .  Evidence is what is required for its application.  Evidence supports what we apply to science.

Without evidence, science can not be applied. Or supported.

It has no position with out evidence. It can't be applied.

Science is conditional. On evidence, yes.

Not positional. 

Identity is positional.

When science is allowed a positional perspective, its no longer an unbiased set of conditions or possibilities but has accepted an Identity. A positional perspective that limits its possibilities.And space.

 As far as I can see, you are demonstrating a faith in science as an identity. Giving it a fixed perspective on conditions  beyond its reach.

Not perceiving it as a set of conditions that can either be supported by application of another condition, or not.

Endercreeper, Do you accept science in your faith?

If so, is it conditional on your Gods position not being in conflict? 

Or are you saying that you give all that science can be applied to and more the identity of 'God' ?

And if so,  wouldn't that require a disregard what of humanity has written and believed of god in the past, because you can't presume to know gods position?

Faith to me is a  positional, rather than conditional, perspective of reality that denies any other.

I think Endercreeper was  saying much the same.

I don't see the problem being with a positional perspective,  Until it refuses to recognise  the conditions of another.

My perspective on this thread is different. Again.

 The O.P  was to explain  faith. Not justify its manifestation. Not justify a God.

I  see  Endercreepers  answers as honest and courageous in the face of opposition and dismissal.

Dismissal that does nothing to further an understanding of Faith.

On comparing faith to mental illness resulting in delusions...... Such a mental illness is not classed as 'woo', unworthy of science because its manifestation is not supported by science.

Both faith and mental illness are conditions with supportive evidence for their existence. Its unscientific to dismiss faith because you don't think its manifestation shouldn't exist just as it would be unscientific (and bigotry) to dismiss mental illness from the realm of science because its manifestations are unsupported.

There has been a statement on this thread that  ' I think all people are the same'.   I would argue that perhaps I'm more familiar and comfortable with the shifts of perspective needed to recognise and respond effectively. Understanding and recognition of Human diversity demands a shift of perspective to understand its conditions. Not dismissal of the perspective you are given because you can't accept it. You aren't asked to accept it, only recognise it as a human condition in the space of humanity.

Denial of its validity in that space is not a response to it, it does nothing to change the condition or improve it. It provokes an entirely different, opositional reaction.

17 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

 Faith can be reasonable sometimes or have a reasonable basis.

Limited agreement from me.

I think it can have a truth at its base, but thats lost over time.

Excuse the analogy, its not meant to insult, but I equate faith  to the fixed responses geneticaly inherited.

So my analogy is is pigs that instinctively root for food. Its based in an effective strategy. 

Pigs can easily be trained to do tasks for food, but once learned, the behaviour of rooting will often interrupt the trained task.

The value is in that fixed response, to the animal. It has trouble  transferring the value to the task. 

Or the Kennel clubs faith in the pedigree. It is helpful to understand the background genetics of breeding stock. But not when any value recognised is in a single tool used to do that.

The purpose and meaning is lost and corrupted.

7 hours ago, nevim said:

iNow, I think naitche was describing the same viewpoint as yours?

Thank you nevim,  I was having a hard time trying to work out how I blew that so badly.

12 hours ago, iNow said:

I understand your analogy, but am unsure of your conclusion. 

Is the idea that faith prevents one from seeing those other perspectives... prevents one from noticing abyss ends one step away?

Or, is the idea that faith allows one to see another perspective... allows one to notice the abyss is really no abyss at all?

Just want to be clear, as I’m pretty sure seeing the frayed rope and jumping to the step is not something that requires me to believe in anything in the absence of, or often in direct opposition to, the available evidence. 

One can change their perspective and find strength in unlikely things without ever accepting childish unprovable nonsense as true. 

That faith prevents one from seeing the abyss ends a step away. 

 That faith is rejection of facts or conditions. Environment maybe. 

On 14/06/2018 at 2:13 AM, Phi for All said:

What kind of belief is required for worshipping an entity that is unfalsifiable? If you choose to believe in a religion, what is there about the doctrines to trust? Wishful thinking is often used, but more often the views seem to require no hard evidence. It's not so much about what is required as what's NOT even considered (like falsifiability), and that sounds like faith to me.

I agree with this. Not so much about what is required as whats not even considered, So no,  @iNow I'm not going to say no faith is an act of faith in itself.

Thats what I'm trying to say about perspective.

That faith looks to me to like the man who clings to a rope above an abyss for dear life,  refusing to loosen his grip or look down because he believes the rope is all that he has and to do either would risk loosing that grip-  but in clinging to that perspective, he can't see the 'abyss' ends a step away and the rope is frayed.

That its a fear of loosing what you believe you  have, that blocks ability to see or recognise what you actually have.  

A refusal to relinquish the reality of your rope,  to recognise another reality.

15 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

While I would really like @naitche to answer, I concur: we shouldn't hold our beath on their answer to make sense

I  will try to  learn from your critiques.

Hope thats better, but dealing with a lot atm so can't focus on this as much as I'd like.

I  think the term 'survival of the fittest' would be better replaced with some thing that more accurately describes the process.

ie; delivery of value to the space occupied is favoured.

'Survival of the fittest' is used to support less than  ideal conditions .

On 04/06/2018 at 1:54 PM, YaDinghus said:

That does seem to be a core psychological aspect of faith and superstition. Some people seem to be more prone to it than others. I couldn't say if it was an universal trait of human psychology, but it seems common enough to be considered a special case if anyone missed it.

However, since there are certainly plenty of people who reject faith and still suffer from confirmation bias, it may be a necessary aspect but not a sufficient one. 

So you don't think think this could be an aspect of faith taken in other direction?

On 29/05/2018 at 11:17 PM, iNow said:

I'm unsure I'm interpreting this comment in the way you intended. Will you please elaborate or state this another way to ensure proper comprehension?

What cultural groups? What did they do to warrant your assertion of "dogged determination" and what do you mean by "to look no further than the single condition they identify with?"

Are examples O.K?

The person determined to see a Nationality as inherently racist and given other perspectives from the minorities they believe are oppressed , replying that

 Thats 'cherry picking'. That is not a representative perspective. Or they don't want to understand cause and effect, they want to hear peoples stories. They want  confirmation of their bias.  

The Kennel clubs belief in the closed Pedigree  as the only condition giving validity to breeders or a dog,  despite  evidence to the contrary.

There is evidence to support their claims,  If they choose to disregard information that contradicts their perspective. 

That seems very similar to religious faith to me.

Dimreeper, 

I did say It seems to me to be about perspective, where each person sees things from their own. Not so much  'wrong', as incomplete. With other  directions blocked .

I'll try another way.

So you all think I am wrong( and maybe I am) To me its about perspective- You can't see mine, partly because of my tortured language.

I don't think faith is any different from the trust and belief of a child for their parents, or that its different from other forms of  belief. Children do change to a more realistic view as do many people of religious faith. i don't see why 'faith' should be a unique mystery of religion. I don't believe in what some here call the 'supernatural' so don't see why faith should be seen as such a mystery. 

I think the distinction in the type of faith you are talking about is an equal belief that holding that position gives them their moral  integrity. That to believe anything else would cost them that. So they are afraid  to  look at another perspective in any depth. By extension, those of us who do not have their faith are lacking in moral integrity and lesser human beings because of that. Our value is discredited.

They are measuring the value of  their personal space by conditions beyond it.

On 29/05/2018 at 11:58 PM, dimreepr said:

The problem is, you assume all people are the same and to some extent that is true; we're all different but we're all human.

No. I don't.

10 hours ago, iNow said:

In which case you’re talking about trust and belief, but conflating then w faith.

I would have agreed with you a few years ago. Now, I am not convinced. Some cultural groups I've looked at display the same dogged determination to look no further than the single condition they identify with. It looks very similar to religious faith to me.

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Edit: x-posted w moonman who said the same thing 

If you’re asking me whether I think faith in humanity is required to achieve a cohesive society, I’m a pretty firm no on that. 

Fair enough.

1st, I mostly agree with you both on some of your major points.

2nd, I am not a believer in any God.

I think you mistake my definition of belief, or faith.

The O.P was was "What is Faith?" and why do you have it.

My point is that I do think it has evolutionary significance, and all of us do have Faith in one form or another, more often misplaced and not always in a positive supposition.

Do you disagree that Faith in Humanity, for example, is needed for for a cohesive society? 

12 hours ago, iNow said:

That whole thing reads as incredibly tortured, as not even coherent enough to be elevated with the label of wrong. Do you feel as tortured as you sound?

Thank you.

I agree. 

Not as tortured as I might be if I thought I had no chance of responding to that condition.  

Quote

Identity. Self. The environment and our relation to it... these are all fascinating areas for discussion and exploration. Hell, even dog breeding is an interesting topic in itself.

None of them require faith, though. Faith is unnecessary. It’s frankly unrelated and unneeded unless one forces it to be.

I disagree. Not that faith is unnecessary and unneeded in society,  but i think it often  finds  an attachment anyway. Unforced. Or do you think faith is only the preserve of religion?

Quote

Why the attempt at shoehorning these concepts together here? Why bother with faith when trust and evidence are surely enough?

I'd rather not bother with faith and just stick to evidence, but the evidence I see points to its having a place in how things work.

Because if you see identity in this way, it links the sciences. Biology, social science and  physics. doesn't that include quantum if you substitute the word faith with belief?

Isn't there a thread in computing that supports this, or least suggest it? ( 'Do you think D.N.A is a computer program')

I certainly appears to work for cultural identity/identity politics. Confusing the values  of a space (identity) with its condition(s)  seems to cancel out both  measures, with the space discrediting its environment.

1st,  the following is my own perspective. Not to taken as  statement of facts.

Apologies, I'm still trying to find the language needed to express this.

Identity is a space that is the environment for all it contains. Its unified and defined by  a common  sense of 'self. A 'belief' in a correct manifestation. What is 'Right'.  Generaly based on past experience. Expression of genetic selection seems to me to fit this description. 

We have one identity. Every thing beyond that is environment, or conditions. We are part of that, but its not part of us. Individually, we are components of a subject. From a social science perspective, of humanity.

We respond to conditions based on the limitations of our identity. The conditions of our own space.

We support  environmental conditions that are favourable to us. Family, religion, institutions etc. Race, religion, sex, colour, nationality etc are not identities, they are conditions we are part of and how we respond determines how they manifest.

It seems that we often blur the distinction of self and environment to 'identify with' conditions so we are not components of the condition, but they are part of us.

We give our conditions ( environment or space) identity and demand  qualification to be part of that identity. We lose recognition of our environment and our responsibility to it.

An example I am most familiar with are  the organisations  that started as the Kennel Clubs. Set up as a response to aid the purpose of breeding dogs. Certain conditions were recognised to increase value to the purpose. The Kennel clubs were set up to provide an environment that supports those conditions.  For breeders. Of Dogs.

Dogs were the purpose. In setting up the organisation, the purpose and intent was defined in the writing of the constitution. That defined the culture that would support its conditions, and that would be able to find value in those conditions. That document states  (in effect)  that cross breed dogs are not recognised in that environment, effectively defining it as an identity in its own right. It rules on qualification of both dogs and members to benefit from its conditions. As result, the purpose is no longer to support dog breeders to achieving  value. The value is placed in the pedigree,  limitations and conditions for Dog breeders.  

The organisation has defined its space by conditions beyond its self.

There is a belief or faith that the value is in the pedigree, not the dog in front you.

That the K.C. environment is the correct response  to dogs instead of dependent on the diversity of response to deliver that value. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Exactly my point

 I did say related.  A relationship to be avoided I agree.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Exactly my point

Elaborate

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Elaborate

Still considering  how that needs  doing.

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

Related, perhaps, but not the same. One can have purpose to survive the night, oroteft their children, or help others and all without introducing nonsensical unnecessary concepts like faith. 

I don't think it is different. You can have many types of purpose. Faith or Belief don't have to be part of it. They are unnecessary to purpose.

Some times we have them anyway, with out recognising it. 

Religious faith is just the more obvious example. 

Quote

Poor sentence structure. It’s basically word salad. With fear of... then what, exactly? Complete your thought. It’s like you’ve written an if/then comment and forgotten to add the Then. 

Then what exactly?  loosing the  reality you have invested in.  

I see Faith or Belief  to be more often related to purpose.

With a fear of losing that purpose,  in altering that concept or perspective.

To invest your identity in a perspective or concept of reality.

Science is the specific set of conditions agreed on by the scientific community to support its purpose in the environment.

Most of the arguments I've seen  to discredit Russel Targs work and paranormal research in general is not part of those conditions, But based on beliefs of what science should be or what it should do. Those beliefs have no place in science. 

Those qualifications can only limit science.

Those beliefs if accepted as part of science tie the subject, and science together  in opposition.

I would rather see people who have inexplicable experience seek their answers in science than where else  their possibilities  are accepted.

Or to 'fix' the identity, in time and place.  Or both.

(sorry, I can't find my edit)

The measures used to support identity politics are opositional.

The only way to measure the value of such an entity would be by what value can be discredited.

A space is  measured by its own definition or value, not by  value beyond its own.

A 'condition' has no value, in its own right.  Thats is in the response brought to it.

The more you define a condition, the more value (space) it looses .

It can't be both a space and a condition, with out losing  responsibility. The only response available over time becomes reduction.

(Entropy?)

Waiting on yet another visit to a specialist, But I thought it was worth posting here too for ideas.

My grand daughter has suffered from this since birth to the extent she is on laxatives every day just to keep it manageable. Forgetting even once can result in tears, pain , blood and and child who tries not to poo.

The only thing I note unusual in my experience is the  volume of a crap  Tried all the usual like fruit and fibre and continue that but results are limited because amounts needed to make a difference are hard for a 3 yo. to consume and still get other nutrients. 

Ideas?

Observation and a physics of Identity as a space, occupied by what it can accept.

For about the last 20 years.

Fractures on values.

Its less about adding value to the space of a common human identity by what and how you  can contribute personally, than it is now about discrediting value based on perceived alternate identities. 

Where its become acceptable to reject a persons value (and opinions) based on the idea they belong to an an alternate identity, and space is denied.

Rather than working with the environment  you have to improve its condition or volume, exercising responsibility,  A rejection and reduction of environment and what it will hold.

On 01/05/2018 at 10:55 PM, Strange said:

How abut concluding there is nothing because all scientific tests show there is nothing.

Phi for all,

Yep. Thats what I said.

I'm looking for a science forum.   

Not an Identity I can claim admission to because I accept the  limitations of its perspective and direction based on beliefs about what that identity can encompass.