Proof, evidence, belief, faith

[rjd970]

So then it's considered fact until the science community changes its mind when new "facts" are found.

That's a fancy way of saying we changed our mind.

Read my post after that. Not all theories have the same strong foundation.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Maybe you're right, but what is the better alternative?

I'm not arguing that one is better than the other. I'm arguing that the two are awfully similar, but each tries to claim the right to the throne.

 

[rjd970]

I'm not arguing that one is better than the other. I'm arguing that the two are awfully similar, but each tries to claim the right to the throne.

So you are arguing that they are equal when it comes to determining truth?

 

[BigPapaVol]

So you are arguing that they are equal when it comes to determining truth?

Not at all. One has no interest in "proving" truth. One is absolutely hellbent on proving it is the only truth.

Both are essentially religious style philosophies. Any pretending that modern science isn't hardcore agnosticism isn't paying attention. Most modern science veers way off the path to refute religious tenets.

 

[volinbham]

The notions of logic, scientific method etc. are man-made constructions. I certainly agree with the principles but accept that man-made constructions are simply that. They have an inherent bias towards empirical observation which is fine if all the forces to which we are subject are observable in some way and can be conceived of rationally by man.

Put another way, a science view of "truth" is constrained by what man can conceive and apply logic to. It is certainly possible that there is more "truth" than can be observed or conceived.

 

[BigPapaVol]

and I believe the realm of what man can conceive and apply logic to will never begin to answer the questions about our origins.

 

[rjd970]

Not at all. One has no interest in "proving" truth. One is absolutely hellbent on proving it is the only truth.

Both are essentially religious style philosophies. Any pretending that modern science isn't hardcore agnosticism isn't paying attention. Most modern science veers way off the path to refute religious tenets.

I would agree that one has no interest in proving truth, but the simple fact of the matter is it makes many truth claims about the way the world is. When somebody says the universe was created by an omnipotent being they...whether they know it or not...are making a tacit claim about the science of cosmology. They further hedge their bet by saying this being is best described by Christianity, Islam....Bhuddism, etc...

Granted, science cannot answer the "ultimate" type questions that the pious eagerly insert God. But can't anything be inserted in and it make just as much sense? Why subscribe to a particular faith?

Here is the difference (and there is no hellbenting on proving anything going on): To claim an assertion is true is to simply praise how it functions in some area of discourse, nothing is claimed about how it actually relates to the universe at large. With any truth claim, utility is everything, and it is not easily overcome.

For instance, take the achievements of Newton. In just under two years time, he invented the science of integral and differential calculus, established the field of optics, and discovered the laws of motion and gravitation. No one disputes this was achieved by a mortal in a completely human endeavour and even after 300 years one still has to be exceptionally well educated to fully appreicate the beauty and depth of this achievement. Furthermore, it took 200 years before somebody could significantly improve upon it (thank you Einstein)....

...how long would it take us to improve some of the basic tenants Christianity? We could probably do it in this exchange.

We all have emotional and spiritual needs that need to be addressed, no doubt. I will even concede that science (or anything else for that matter) may never fulfill these needs, or answer certain "ultimate" questions. But it doesn't require faith in untestable propositions to fulfill these needs or answer these questions.

Sam Harris...a noted author and neuroscientist...should be to credit for this answer, and his writings dive into this deeper.

 

[kptvol]

...how long would it take us to improve some of the basic tenants Christianity? We could probably do it in this exchange.

How would we go about doing that?

 

[BigPapaVol]

I would agree that one has no interest in proving truth, but the simple fact of the matter is it makes many truth claims about the way the world is. When somebody says the universe was created by an omnipotent being they...whether they know it or not...are making a tacit claim about the science of cosmology. They further hedge their bet by saying this being is best described by Christianity, Islam....Bhuddism, etc...

Here is the difference (and there is no hellbenting on proving anything going on): To claim an assertion is true is to simply praise how it functions in some area of discourse, nothing is claimed about how it actually relates to the universe at large. With any truth claim, utility is everything, and it is not easily overcome.

there is no tacit claim of anything. There is a claim that a greater power, which we can't understand or explain, created our universe. There is nothing of the cosmos involved.

I haven't heard many claim a better explanation for our origins than another. Many explain as a creation, but don't claim a different style of creation. Myriad absurd origin explanations are certainly not exclusive to religious circles. Science is chock full of looney tunes morons trying to stamp their names on the explanation.

Your second paragraph on truth is just words. I know someone else said it, but it's just silly. Relativism and utility have nothing to do with truth.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

Granted, science cannot answer the "ultimate" type questions that the pious eagerly insert God. But can't anything be inserted in and it make just as much sense?

This is the strawman of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is a common experience across humanity of a higher power that is sentient. There are amazingly consistent views of this higher power so it is not simply insert anything.

Now, this could be a psychological phenomenon common to man and perhaps there is no higher sentient power. But there is at least some evidence that one exists - it is evidenced in the history of man.

Inserting the FSM does not make as much sense at all. If science is to debunk religion, it must successfully explain away this common link of mankind.

 

[jdsa]

This is the strawman of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is a common experience across humanity of a higher power that is sentient. There are amazingly consistent views of this higher power so it is not simply insert anything.

Now, this could be a psychological phenomenon common to man and perhaps there is no higher sentient power. But there is at least some evidence that one exists - it is evidenced in the history of man.

Inserting the FSM does not make as much sense at all. If science is to debunk religion, it must successfully explain away this common link of mankind.

But that's a bit of a strawman too, because your evidence of a higher power doesn't imply a christian higher power, which is what people usually mean when making this type of argument.

As far as it goes, I'm not sure why science and religion can't live in blissful ignorance of each other on this issue. Science isn't capable of answering this type of question yet and hasn't really attempted to. Why does religion need to constrain scientific investigation in order to justify its claims?

 

[volinbham]

But that's a bit of a strawman too, because your evidence of a higher power doesn't imply a christian higher power, which is what people usually mean when making this type of argument.

As far as it goes, I'm not sure why science and religion can't live in blissful ignorance of each other on this issue. Science isn't capable of answering this type of question yet and hasn't really attempted to. Why does religion need to constrain scientific investigation in order to justify its claims?

I've never claimed that a particular religion is the truth. Some followers of a specific religion do and some do not. I think attacking the idea of a higher power by attacking specific aspects of a specific religion misses the point.

Likewise on the second issue, I don't think that religion constrains science. I believe in some type of God and use the Christian faith as the touch stone but I certainly am pro-science, scientific exploration and explanation. As often as religion tries to constrain science; science tries to destroy religion. More accurately, it is the followers of each that try to disprove the other. I see the two areas as quite compatible.

Finally, some followers of science are trying to answer the "God" question. Look at commentary on the Large Hadron. There are many that seek the "God" particle. They advocate that empirically verifying the Big Bang will be proof that the universe self-created. In my view science "believers" are as guilty of trashing religion as religion "believers" are of trashing science.

 

[JZVOL]

I have a hard time understanding why people would believe the universe self created in some way instead of a higher being creating it.

 

[joevol320]

I've never claimed that a particular religion is the truth. Some followers of a specific religion do and some do not. I think attacking the idea of a higher power by attacking specific aspects of a specific religion misses the point.

Likewise on the second issue, I don't think that religion constrains science. I believe in some type of God and use the Christian faith as the touch stone but I certainly am pro-science, scientific exploration and explanation. As often as religion tries to constrain science; science tries to destroy religion. More accurately, it is the followers of each that try to disprove the other. I see the two areas as quite compatible.

Finally, some followers of science are trying to answer the "God" question. Look at commentary on the Large Hadron. There are many that seek the "God" particle. They advocate that empirically verifying the Big Bang will be proof that the universe self-created. In my view science "believers" are as guilty of trashing religion as religion "believers" are of trashing science.

religious believer, (as for me, Christian) don't trash science. they just don't believe that we evolved from sludge. there are hundreds of christian scientists that study to disprove evolution.

the problem with the scientific community is that they have a double standard when it comes to evolution.

they talk about the need to continue to test theories to prove. but with evolution, they take theories and treat them as fact and they reject anyone who challenges them

 

[rjd970]

How would we go about doing that?

Well, for one, we could improve upon the 10 commandments. Right out of the gate, this would seem to be setting the bar rather high, since this is supposedly the only part of the Bible physically written by God himself, but it is easy....trivially easy.

1. 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

2. 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

3. 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

4. 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

5. 'Honor your father and your mother.'

6. 'You shall not murder.'

7. 'You shall not commit adultery.'

8. 'You shall not steal.'

9. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

10. 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

As a treatise on morality, this is severely lacking. The first 4 have nothing to do with morality at all. They simply establish who's boss. There is zero moral significance underlying these.

And who says parents get respect automatically? Tell that to the kid who was raised in an abusive household, or raised by drug addicts.

The next 4 do have moral significance, but isn't this really common sense? Every successful civilization could see the moral importance of restraining from murder, theft, adultry, and perjury. Are we to really believe the Israelites made it all the way to Mt. Sinai without knowing murder was wrong?

And I'm not sure how capitalism works if everybody obeyed the last one.



We are too really believe this is the best an omnipotent creator of the universe can do? Mahivira, the Jain patriarch, surpasses this list in a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being.” There is nothing like this written in the Bible, and as a statement of morality, it is better than anything written in it, short of the Golden Rule.

 

[VOLatile]

I have a hard time understanding why people would believe the universe self created in some way instead of a higher being creating it.

And I have a hard time seeing your opinion. Where'd the higher being come from?

 

[JZVOL]

And I have a hard time seeing your opinion. Where'd the higher being come from?

A big bang.
My question isn't where did we come from or where god came from. We could spend the rest of time discussing that and never get anywhere.

My question is why would you choose believe in a bang or whatever else people choose to come up with that is not proven over a God creating us for a purpose far greater than we can understand?

IMO all it is is fear. People are afraid of the unknown so they search for answers they can put in terms they can understand.

If I could fully understand God I wouldn't want to believe in him.

Science provides proof only if it can be explained or proven in terms limited to the human mind.

I prefer a living God beyond comprehension.

That's just me, and I'm sure you can pick apart some details of what I said but no big deal.

 

[rjd970]

I've never claimed that a particular religion is the truth. Some followers of a specific religion do and some do not. I think attacking the idea of a higher power by attacking specific aspects of a specific religion misses the point.

I don't think this is as rare as you make out. A full 44% of the American electorate believe Jesus will, or probably will, return to judge us in the next 50 years. Suffice to say, the percentage is probably even higher that believe Christianity is the one true way to paradise after we die. I would guess you're pretty moderate, and that is good. I get the idea that you, and others on here have integrated a certain amount of doubt into your faith. I would say it is the other way, and that you have less faith, and for good reason. But in my respectful opinion, moderates don't tend to know what it is like to be truly convinced that death is an illusion and that an eternity of happiness awaits the faithful beyond the grave.

You're christian for a reason. You find something, at least implicitely, truthful about that faith. Comfortable spirituality, fellowship, are no doubt parts of this. But not all religions have equal roads to heaven, and not one is shy about the fact that theirs is the truth. If it is just a matter of what you were born into, then you are saying you have found this, by sheer accident of birth. You could be any religion by this standard, and it wouldn't matter. But your faith says it does matter, as do all others.

All of that aside, the vast majority of believers truly believe their faith is the one true one.

 

[VOLatile]

A big bang.
My question isn't where did we come from or where god came from. We could spend the rest of time discussing that and never get anywhere.

My question is why would you choose believe in a bang or whatever else people choose to come up with that is not proven over a God creating us for a purpose far greater than we can understand?

IMO all it is is fear. People are afraid of the unknown so they search for answers they can put in terms they can understand.

If I could fully understand God I wouldn't want to believe in him.

Science provides proof only if it can be explained or proven in terms limited to the human mind.

I prefer a living God beyond comprehension.

That's just me, and I'm sure you can pick apart some details of what I said but no big deal.

I don't intend to pick apart any details. I'm perfectly fine that you and everyone else believes in God. I made my point with my previous statement, I believe.

To further progress discussion and invoke thought: I believe that everything can be understood and explained, somehow. It's just dependent on that specific person if they truly want to understand it.

 

[JZVOL]

I don't intend to pick apart any details. I'm perfectly fine that you and everyone else believes in God. I made my point with my previous statement, I believe.

To further progress discussion and invoke thought: I believe that everything can be understood and explained, somehow. It's just dependent on that specific person if they truly want to understand it.

To a certain extent I can see that. I'm not so sure weather can be understood or fully explained.

I'll give you one I can't understand or explain for conversation's sake.

All that had to be done (by the Romans and Jews) to stop Christianity from ever starting or spreading was to produce Christ's body. It seems very simple when you break it down.

There is no way a few of the disciples could have stolen his body from Roman soldiers and rolled away the rock from his tomb.

How do you explain that the people who wanted Christ killed allowed his body to go missing?

Christianity could have been buried with his body.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I don't think this is as rare as you make out. A full 44% of the American electorate believe Jesus will, or probably will, return to judge us in the next 50 years. Suffice to say, the percentage is probably even higher that believe Christianity is the one true way to paradise after we die. I would guess you're pretty moderate, and that is good. I get the idea that you, and others on here have integrated a certain amount of doubt into your faith. I would say it is the other way, and that you have less faith, and for good reason. But in my respectful opinion, moderates don't tend to know what it is like to be truly convinced that death is an illusion and that an eternity of happiness awaits the faithful beyond the grave.

You're christian for a reason. You find something, at least implicitely, truthful about that faith. Comfortable spirituality, fellowship, are no doubt parts of this. But not all religions have equal roads to heaven, and not one is shy about the fact that theirs is the truth. If it is just a matter of what you were born into, then you are saying you have found this, by sheer accident of birth. You could be any religion by this standard, and it wouldn't matter. But your faith says it does matter, as do all others.

All of that aside, the vast majority of believers truly believe their faith is the one true one.

How in the world did you get that number?

:blink:

 

[BigPapaVol]

How in the world did you get that number?

:blink:

don't know, but I'm sure it's an unassailable source like a Nobel prize winner or something.

 

[volinbham]

I don't think this is as rare as you make out. A full 44% of the American electorate believe Jesus will, or probably will, return to judge us in the next 50 years. Suffice to say, the percentage is probably even higher that believe Christianity is the one true way to paradise after we die. I would guess you're pretty moderate, and that is good. I get the idea that you, and others on here have integrated a certain amount of doubt into your faith. I would say it is the other way, and that you have less faith, and for good reason. But in my respectful opinion, moderates don't tend to know what it is like to be truly convinced that death is an illusion and that an eternity of happiness awaits the faithful beyond the grave.

You're christian for a reason. You find something, at least implicitely, truthful about that faith. Comfortable spirituality, fellowship, are no doubt parts of this. But not all religions have equal roads to heaven, and not one is shy about the fact that theirs is the truth. If it is just a matter of what you were born into, then you are saying you have found this, by sheer accident of birth. You could be any religion by this standard, and it wouldn't matter. But your faith says it does matter, as do all others.

All of that aside, the vast majority of believers truly believe their faith is the one true one.

You've made quite a few assumptions about me. Suffice it to say I learned about spirituality through learning about Christianity. It is my spiritual home base but I don't believe every word of the new testament nor accept every tenet of Christianity. I view different religions as different interpretations of spirituality and to me they are all much more compatible than in conflict. There is always doubt in faith.

Organized religion is but one part of a discussion of a "creator". To attack some aspects of one religion misses the point of arguing science as explainer vs. including the notion of a creator in the explanation.

I find many of the arguments against a creator resort to mocking specific tenets of a specific religion rather than addressing the more fundamental issue.

Finally, when science or science advocates take on a "creator denial" view point, they are basically engaging in "faith". By dismissing a creator out of hand because they cannot prove one's existence, they adopt a belief system just as those that believe in a creator do. That is the point many are trying to make in this thread.

 

[rjd970]

don't know, but I'm sure it's an unassailable source like a Nobel prize winner or something.

A newsweek article from December 2004, citing a pew research poll, is where the number came from. I can't find the full poll online because it goes back to far, but here is how and when it was conducted:

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Dec. 2-3, 2004. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

In this same poll, 82% believe Jesus is the actual son of God, or God himself...and a full 55% subscribe to the notion that every word of the bible is literally accurate and the events described in them actually happened. If this is true, then a full 120 million of us believe man was fashioned out of dust and divine breath, by the hand of an almighty God, in a garden with a talking snake, in the year 4008 BC. A more recent poll showed 1 in 4 americans believed Jesus would return in the year 2007, and 46% of evangelicals believed it was somewhat likely.

Poll: One in Four Say Jesus' Return at Least Somewhat Likely in 2007 -- Beliefnet.com



You can draw your own conclusions as to how rare this form of believing is.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

A newsweek article from December 2004, citing a pew research poll, is where the number came from. I can't find the full poll online because it goes back to far, but here is how and when it was conducted:

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Dec. 2-3, 2004. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

In this same poll, 82% believe Jesus is the actual son of God, or God himself...and a full 55% subscribe to the notion that every word of the bible is literally accurate and the events described in them actually happened. If this is true, then a full 120 million of us believe man was fashioned out of dust and divine breath, by the hand of an almighty God, in a garden with a talking snake, in the year 4008 BC. A more recent poll showed 1 in 4 americans believed Jesus would return in the year 2007, and 46% of evangelicals believed it was somewhat likely.

Poll: One in Four Say Jesus' Return at Least Somewhat Likely in 2007 -- Beliefnet.com



You can draw your own conclusions as to how rare this form of believing is.

It would be more accurate to say it was closer to something we would call a dragon............