sschlichter

great analogy. it is faith in those claims that makes you pick one, it is faith in the denial of those claims that makes you stay.

gregor

Or to more accurately reflect reality:

Why chose a particular bridge - it's the fact that you grew up with parents who wanted to cross the particular bridge, it's common in your community for the particular bridge to be selected, and virtually none of the people actually, critically examine in detail the bases behind their bridge selection.

And by the way - the bridges are invisible

elevator

Choosing not to cross a bridge has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with the lack of evidence. There is no reason to believe, whatsoever, that any particular bridge leads to bliss while another leads to death; unless you assert a faith in a particular bridge.

If I told you that I had an invisible dragon in my garage you wouldn’t have to assert "faith in the denial" of invisible dragons to reject my claim would you? You would instead demand evidence that there was an invisible dragon in my garage, and if I were unable to provide this evidence, you would reject my claim, correct? Such rejection has nothing to do with faith. Faith is believing in invisible dragons despite the lack of evidence to suggest the existence of invisible dragons.

(ETA: The dragon analogy is lifted from Carl Sagan's "demon haunted world" worth reading as it discusses a lot of what we are discussing here)

perfectidius

Been there. It was in a little garden I found amidst some brown grass. Fertile soil....delicious fruit.

sschlichter

ok, switching analogies; I think invisible dragons are a valid claim when the garage is also full of dragon crap. Everyone has to find a way to explain the dragon crap. An agnsotic might choose to ignore the smell of the crap or try to explain that the crap appeared magically out of nowhere.

~Steve

George S

Remember the dragon is invisible, so's the crap.

I had believed all my life that Unicorns were based solely on myth. Now it appears that a deer (not an equine) was sighted with a single horn centered high on its forehead. Oh well, one example down the drain.

So Unicorns, invisible green dragons in the garage, teapots orbiting Jupiter are all examples of disbeliefs not needing any faith.

On needs reasons to believe. What I don't understand is just how believers manage to believe in the modern age of communications and scientific analysis.

sschlichter

sticking with the 'things that smell' theme. let's take a look at the skunk. Apparently, the un-guided evolutionary process of the skunk involved the magical appearance of a gland of noxious liquid and the separate evolution of a firing mechanism. Even though, by all standards, this is unlikely, or improbable, or even fantastic - you must still beleive it. perhaps, the first adaptation was a spot of gas - and this welcomed adaptation evolved itself into a defense mechanism.

Some prominent scientists now speculate that life from other planets must have seeded this planet because there is not enough time for evolution but we know there is no God. Maybe you do not beleive this and you can let me know how life began on this planet, just do not include anything that requires me to beleive you unless you can prove it. (scientifically, of course)

Please add space aliens to the list of magic faith encounters - it can replace your defrocked unicorn.

~Steve

George S

I like extraterrestrial seeding as a likely source of the first cell on earth.

We ourselves are in the process of extraterrestrial seeding of the solar system. If just a few bacteria survive to ride out to another planet and seed it, well, that could well have happened here in the first place.

Of course that means only that the problem is pushed back to the source of the very first extraterrestrial seed.

There are plausible reasons for space-aliens. Can't replace the "defrocked unicorn" (wonderful phrase!) with them. SETI! (The Godless Ones)

JragonFli

While the seeding theory has it's merits, so does the deep ocean vent theory (which has been reproduced in a laboratory), as well as the atmospheric electricity+gasses=amino acids theory (which has been reproduced in a laboratory). The cometary seeding theory is a bit hard to prove or reproduce, so I see no reason to continue to espouse it as a life generation theory. The whole point of science is to find new ideas, and test them in the crucible of logic and experiment in order to find which ones are possible and which are not.
Incredible stories require extreme proof. The garden of eden story is so implausible, no one would believe in it unless they had some reason to.

sschlichter

Incredible stories require extreme proof.


example A) the seeding theory has it's merits.

example B) the atmospheric electricity+gasses=amino acids theory (which has been reproduced in a laboratory).

One of these statements is blind faith. The other is wishful thinking and a willing disregard for the truth.

Both require more faith than I am capable of.