ydoaPs Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 ! Moderator Note Let's keep the discussion about the topic rather than about each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy_Bee Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Already have in this forum, on numerous occasions. The historical definition of faith, which goes back at least 3500 years and is how the word and its cognates are actually used in English, is "an act of the will by which one adheres to another who is known". Phi's working from a misdefinition that arose during the so-called Enlightenment. You really think he's working from the wrong definition of faith? Definitions are constantly changing with time, and people develop a new definition for everything they come across when what was being defined is studied more, understood more and people begin to develop a better understanding, I am sure there are new definitions of faith that more people would choose, the meaning of faith will forever be the same, I think. Are you really going to say someone is wrong? Because you prefer the definition from 3500 years ago? And, I do believe if you asked any one who has faith now, about it, they'd probably not be able to quote this one you are, because all faith has a simular meaning but it is defined differently by different people. As a wise man once said to me, you ask 8 people what faith is, you'll get 10 answers. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I've mentioned several times that faith, to me, is a form of belief that requires unquestioning adherence and unshakeable commitment. People who consider themselves very devout followers of their religion often talk about the strength of their faith, and how it's like a comforting rock of solid footing in the stormy sea of Life. In marketing (stay with me), we often take the weakest flaw in a product or service and paint it as one of our strongest points. Dick's Last Resort, a restaurant chain that despaired of ever finding a non-obnoxious waitstaff, eventually embraced the weakness and started hiring purposely obnoxious people and made it a convention for their whole chain. In US politics, the major parties have learned to spin their weaknesses into apparent strengths. Republicans cry out that Democrats don't respect the sanctity of free market enterprise to cover up the fact that their biggest contributors are corporations looking for special considerations that will let them unfairly trump their competition, which is about as foul a thing to do to the free market as there is. Is faith a similar weakness spun into strength in religion? Believing so strongly in things that have the least amount of evidence to support them seems ludicrous to me. Absolute conviction about things you can't possibly know is touted as steadfast, abiding faith, and practically every follower would be congratulated and praised for this kind of devotion to their god. If you divide belief into trust, hope and faith, faith seems the weakest to me but is often seen as the strongest. Are the priests who preach faith just great spin doctors or is unassailable, resolute belief in things you can't prove really a strength? Would it be fair to say that you have great faith in science because of the reassuring results that you have gotten from your previous experiences in it's methods? Those that speak highly of their faith in their religion probably have the same reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 Would it be fair to say that you have great faith in science because of the reassuring results that you have gotten from your previous experiences in it's methods? Those that speak highly of their faith in their religion probably have the same reasons. No. As I mentioned before, I've separated my belief system into Hope, Trust and Faith. Hope is for things i want to be true but have little to support them and could have multiple outcomes. Trust is for explanations that are heavily supported by observational reality, experience and testing. Faith is for unfalsifiable explanations with little or nothing to support them but strong feelings. So I trust science because I can test it, or check the rigor others have used to test it. I can hope that I'll win the lottery, or that consciousness lives on after the body dies, but not put such strength of belief into it that I change my life to sustain that belief. Faith seems to require belief unsupported by anything but feelings and it's often characterized by strength, commitment, dedication, and lots of other qualitative criteria that seem disproportionate to the reality in which they're based. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consistency Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Maybe believing in a higher power is what some people require in order to ultimately believe in themselves after the world has crushed their self-esteem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 No. As I mentioned before, I've separated my belief system into Hope, Trust and Faith. Hope is for things i want to be true but have little to support them and could have multiple outcomes. Trust is for explanations that are heavily supported by observational reality, experience and testing. Faith is for unfalsifiable explanations with little or nothing to support them but strong feelings. So I trust science because I can test it, or check the rigor others have used to test it. I can hope that I'll win the lottery, or that consciousness lives on after the body dies, but not put such strength of belief into it that I change my life to sustain that belief. Faith seems to require belief unsupported by anything but feelings and it's often characterized by strength, commitment, dedication, and lots of other qualitative criteria that seem disproportionate to the reality in which they're based. It's worth pointing out that others probably haven't taken on your system of Hope, Trust and Faith and when they speak of faith are not referring to it in the same way you do. Considering that all three are based on unprovable assumption, you'd be hard pressed to validate any through pure reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 28, 2013 Author Share Posted February 28, 2013 It's worth pointing out that others probably haven't taken on your system of Hope, Trust and Faith and when they speak of faith are not referring to it in the same way you do. On the contrary, I felt the need for further detailing of the definition of belief because others spoke to me of faith as being different from mere belief. For most Christians I know, the concept of faith is rooted in its unwavering strength. They believe "with all their heart", or "with complete conviction", or "beyond a shadow of a doubt". So many biblical stories talk about the unquestioning faith of certain followers, holding them up as examples of faith in God's will. It doesn't matter that others don't separate their belief system the way I do. I took my definition from those who told me their faith was different, abiding, deep, loyal, allegiant, assured, convicted, and all the other words I've used. Those who talk in church about how abiding and unyielding their faith is are praised for it, while those who waver are helped towards shoring up their convictions and solidifying their faith in God. This is not a minority view, no matter how much your argument is hurt by it. There are tons of references to this kind of faith. I'd cite them but since religion is all about how the individual interprets it, I'm sure you could spin them however you wanted. It remains though that faith is often talked about in a qualitative fashion, and strong faith is praised. Considering that all three are based on unprovable assumption, you'd be hard pressed to validate any through pure reason. Since science isn't interested in "proof", but rather supportive evidence based on observable reality, trust is an adequate description for what is the best supported explanations for natural phenomena. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 On the contrary, I felt the need for further detailing of the definition of belief because others spoke to me of faith as being different from mere belief. For most Christians I know, the concept of faith is rooted in its unwavering strength. They believe "with all their heart", or "with complete conviction", or "beyond a shadow of a doubt". So many biblical stories talk about the unquestioning faith of certain followers, holding them up as examples of faith in God's will. It doesn't matter that others don't separate their belief system the way I do. I took my definition from those who told me their faith was different, abiding, deep, loyal, allegiant, assured, convicted, and all the other words I've used. Those who talk in church about how abiding and unyielding their faith is are praised for it, while those who waver are helped towards shoring up their convictions and solidifying their faith in God. This is not a minority view, no matter how much your argument is hurt by it. There are tons of references to this kind of faith. I'd cite them but since religion is all about how the individual interprets it, I'm sure you could spin them however you wanted. It remains though that faith is often talked about in a qualitative fashion, and strong faith is praised. Since science isn't interested in "proof", but rather supportive evidence based on observable reality, trust is an adequate description for what is the best supported explanations for natural phenomena. Ok, what is supportive evidence based on observable reality and why should it be considered or trusted? What use does supportive evidence have, can we use it to predict future events and how can we know things will operate in the same way as they did in the past? Are there any unsupported conditions that I would have to blindly accept? How does evidence differ from faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 ^ For someone so focused on challenging empirical evidence and the process of validating our understandings against the world before us, you sure don't seem to mind that people accept extraordinary and incredible things as true and real based on nothing other than their personal desires and wish thinking. Double standards, much? Evidence is repeatable. It is supportive of claims. It is falsifiable. It is consistent across observers regardless of worldview or ideology. Faith is claiming to know something unknowable. It is subjective. It is specific to the individual, and is rather often held and protected and propagated despite well established facts that show its tenets and claims to be misguided and rather often plainly wrong. To implicitly claim as you have above that evidence and faith are equivalent to one another does little more than to show how willing you are to abandon reason and rationality and even your own integrity all in some vain attempt to protect your preferred worldview. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 ^ For someone so focused on challenging empirical evidence and the process of validating our understandings against the world before us, you sure don't seem to mind that people accept extraordinary and incredible things as true and real based on nothing other than their personal desires and wish thinking. Double standards, much? Evidence is repeatable. It is supportive of claims. It is falsifiable. It is consistent across observers regardless of worldview or ideology. Faith is claiming to know something unknowable. It is subjective. It is specific to the individual, and is rather often held and protected and propagated despite well established facts that show its tenets and claims to be misguided and rather often plainly wrong. To implicitly claim as you have above that evidence and faith are equivalent to one another does little more than to show how willing you are to abandon reason and rationality and even your own integrity all in some vain attempt to protect your preferred worldview. Falsifiable, now that's a big claim. What reason leads you to believe that evidence is falsifiable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Falsifiable, now that's a big claim. What reason leads you to believe that evidence is falsifiable? Evidence isn't falsifiable, but hypotheses are falsifiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Evidence isn't falsifiable, but hypotheses are falsifiable. Hypothesis are only falsifiable if... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Hypothesis are only falsifiable if...A hypothesis is falsifiable iff said from said hypothesis an observation statement is derivable such that a conflicting actualized observation would show the hypothesis to be false via Modus Tollens. As I said in the above link, it's a bit more complicated than that due to things like the Duhem problem, but that's the basic idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consistency Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Evidence isn't falsifiable, but hypotheses are falsifiable. Thats assumption. We need evidence in the first place to make an hypothesis. No evidence = no hypothesis. No evidence = assumption. There is a fine line between hypothesis and assumption. Many people confuse the two. An actual hypothesis is either truth or part-truth because its based on evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 1, 2013 Author Share Posted March 1, 2013 Thats assumption. We need evidence in the first place to make an hypothesis. No evidence = no hypothesis. No evidence = assumption. There is a fine line between hypothesis and assumption. Many people confuse the two. An actual hypothesis is either truth or part-truth because its based on evidence. Wrong. There are no truths involved, and that's why the methodology is ongoing and constant. Hypotheses MUST be capable of being false if any testing is to be meaningful. An idea often starts from a bit of observed evidence, but it's not until that evidence is joined by more evidence that you can make an assumption that starts your hypothesis. If I lived on the coast (two or three hundred years ago) and determined that water boils at 100C in every experiment I devise, I can make the assumption that water boils at 100C, and I start hypothesizing. When I communicate my finding with others and find that some of my colleagues get differing readings, analysis may show me that evidence found in other coastal areas supports my hypothesis, but those at other points in the country don't. I may make plenty of assumptions about why that is, and test every one of them until I finally assume that altitude (or atmospheric pressure) may have something to do with it. I test that and find more evidence to support my new hypothesis. This may even lead me to be able to predict what the boiling point is at altitudes that haven't been tested yet, and if the evidence continues to support the hypothesis for everybody doing the tests, my hypothesis gets stronger. But at any time we might get readings that don't support it, that may contradict it wildly, and that makes it capable of being false, IOW falsifiable. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Thats assumption.No, it's not. Evidence is (most of the time) observation while hypotheses are propositions. Logic does not apply to observation, but only propositions, so they cannot be falsified. Saying that evidence can be falsified is not only wrong, but a rather large category mistake. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 What reason leads you to believe that evidence is falsifiable? I worded that poorly, but my intent remains the same. Evidence ALLOWS for falsifiability, which is critical if you don't want to be fooled or convinced by any random charlatan or crackpot or hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consistency Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Nikola Tesla was right then... Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 Nikola Tesla was right then... Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. WT?!? It's like you've been dying to use that quote somewhere but didn't bother to read the thread before deciding it was appropriate here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consistency Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 WT?!? It's like you've been dying to use that quote somewhere but didn't bother to read the thread before deciding it was appropriate here. LMAO! The quote is a reply to this... "There are no truths involved, and that's why the methodology is ongoing and constant." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 The quote is a reply to this... "There are no truths involved, and that's why the methodology is ongoing and constant." It still makes no sense. Where did I substitute all the experimentation with math? In fact, it's the ongoing and constant experimentation to add supportive evidence to each idea, hypothesis and theory that's the hallmark of the scientific method. This is one good reason why I trust scientific explanations to be the best supported, why I don't have to rely on faith in them. I don't even have to hope they're the best explanations, since the tests are reproducible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 It still makes no sense. Where did I substitute all the experimentation with math? In fact, it's the ongoing and constant experimentation to add supportive evidence to each idea, hypothesis and theory that's the hallmark of the scientific method. This is one good reason why I trust scientific explanations to be the best supported, why I don't have to rely on faith in them. I don't even have to hope they're the best explanations, since the tests are reproducible. What or who are you trusting in when it comes to the problem of induction? Trying to classify one as trust and the other as faith when reason is vacant of both premises sounds a lot like special pleading to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Trying to classify one as trust and the other as faith when reason is vacant of both premises sounds a lot like special pleading to me.Trust is based on evidence, faith is not. Induction has mathematical grounding, faith does not. It's not special pleading in any sense of the phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Trust is based on evidence, faith is not. Induction has mathematical grounding, faith does not. It's not special pleading in any sense of the phrase. In terms of absolute truth neither science nor religion can demonstrate truth through reason which is the only way of comparing the two in a neutral fashion. Saying that you can mathematically determine which hypothesis is the best doesn't solve Hume's original problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 In terms of absolute truth neither science nor religion can demonstrate truth through reason which is the only way of comparing the two in a neutral fashion.Science gives a way to reach what is most likely the truth in a reliable way. Religion doesn't. It's still comparing apples and oranges. Science is the NFL and religion is Bob Jones's fantasy league. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now