Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radcliffe Emerson · 06-09-2003, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana
Interesting point. If we witnessed such things first hand now, it would be far easier to look at the bible and at least consider the possiblility that it is a true account.

But then, in the name of fairness, one the door was opened, all the rest of the myths would come in from the rain, too. I guess that doesn't help us much, after all.

d

Well that's precisely because all of that stuff is myth. None of this is ever going to happen, never has, never will.
I agree also with the post concerning evil. There's no way any 'supreme being' could be any kind of god of passion and allow the crap that goes on in this world.

So, I'm comfortable in my statements because none of that stuff has ever happened on this planet and never will.

By the way, a special copy on Scientific American is currently available in the bookstores with most of their articles on evolution compiled into one collection. I'm really enjoying reading it.

malookiemaloo · 06-10-2003, 02:14 AM

Thanks for all the responses. Time prevents my commenting on them all.

However, for me, Keyser_soze sort of hit the nail on the head. The conflict between faith/belief and evidence is a catch 22 for Christianity.

Two questions then arise for me:-

1. Is faith/belief (for the moment I will not distinguish between the two despite the fact that they are different) inferior in some way to evidence that convicts or

2. are faith/belief and evidence mutually exclusive with faith/belief being another dimension that requires to be experienced experimentally and you 'don't know it works 'til you try'?

If 1. is true then no further discussion is required as I will throw my Bible away. If, however, 2. is true, or at least a possibility, then non-theists have a real problem and the conflict between faith/belief and evidence is more of a catch 22 for an atheist.

Personally, I have always regarded faith as primary with evidence purely as secondary back up.

m

Theli · 06-10-2003, 03:37 AM

Faith, beyond believing what there is no evidence for, also implies loyalty and emotional investment in the belief in question.
It is always of very personal nature, and people are generally reluctant to question it. Not because of some technicality that makes faith immune to doubt, but because people just don't want to lose it.
There's not alot of beliefs that can be classified as "faith".
Simply belief with lacking evidence won't do as definition.

malookiemaloo · 06-10-2003, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli
Faith, beyond believing what there is no evidence for, also implies loyalty and emotional investment in the belief in question.
It is always of very personal nature, and people are generally reluctant to question it. Not because of some technicality that makes faith immune to doubt, but because people just don't want to lose it.
There's not alot of beliefs that can be classified as "faith".
Simply belief with lacking evidence won't do as definition.

Yes, I totally agree. Belief minus evidence does not constitue faith but can faith come out of a conviction that the evidence is true? I think faith is more thwan being convinced by evidence (whether subjective or objective.)

m

Asha'man · 06-10-2003, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by malookiemaloo
Personally, I have always regarded faith as primary with evidence purely as secondary back up.

The whole reason behind inventing the scientific method was to separate what was real from what the observer wanted to be real. Carefully looking at the evidence, and holding the evidence to be the highest standard, is the only way to eliminate emotional bias.

If I hear that you believe something that you really really want to be true, then I don�t trust your belief. On the other hand, if I find that you believe something without emotional commitment, or something that you actually dislike, then I can be more confident that your belief is grounded in reality. This is simply human nature.

For example, I believe that eating nothing but chocolate isn�t good for your health. This is an unpleasant thought, so I probably have real reasons to believe it. On the other hand, many children believe that Santa will magically bring them gifts ever year. This is something they very much want to be true, but, sadly, is mostly wishful thinking.

So, malookiemaloo, why do you consider faith to be primary? Do you simply need that to be the case? Is it because without faith, your theism would have no support, and you don�t want that to be true? Or do you have any unbiased reasons to place faith first?

Theli · 06-10-2003, 07:06 AM

Faith may have had early social benefits by pointing everyone in the same direction (so to speak), but was also used to profit on this. What we see today is what early superstition and fear have left behind.
Noone asks you to have faith in the magic stick or the holy beanbag anymore, they have all been replaced by new and more exciting objects of worship.

The newest of those ofcourse is the television.

Radcliffe Emerson · 06-10-2003, 08:06 AM

Samuel Clemens said it best:
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true."

copernicus · 06-10-2003, 09:21 AM

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but you can't really compare belief with evidence in that way. Evidence is a recorded fact. It is data that is neutral with respect to belief or disbelief.

I do think that you can talk about a kind of faith that is supported by evidence. For example, I have faith that the continent of Africa exists. I have never been there, and, even if I were there now, I wouldn't know that I was really in Africa.

Most of our beliefs are of that sort. The only thing that I know for certain is what I perceive directly. Everything else requires a certain amount of faith. We wouldn't be able to operate without it.

Is religious faith the same sort of belief? I believe that a lot of religious folks would like to believe that it is. The problem with religious faith is that it tends to be untestable. I can go to Africa, and I can talk to people from Africa. I can watch news stories about Africa on TV. I cannot do anything of that sort to verify that deities exist. So that kind of faith is not really grounded in evidence that can be repeated or tested.

It is true that the Bible is a kind of "evidence", but there are conflicting holy books. And no objective criteria to verify what is written in them. Worse yet, we know that there is at least some religious scripture that is false. So the evidence for religious belief does not allow us to test or verify the belief. Hence, we tend to distinguish religious "faith" from belief that is supported by evidence. But the kind of evidence that supports our beliefs is crucial to what we mean when we make that distinction.

christ-on-a-stick · 06-10-2003, 09:38 AM

malookiemaloo -

To address your OP as concisely as possible, what would cause me to believe is extremely simple. Diana already said it best:

Quote:

To be convinced, deity would have to be objectively present for everyone. Everyone would know that it exists. There would be no question. To be convinced, I would not have to believe.

It's really that simple, for me anyway. Take... the sun for instance. Does anyone debate its existence? We all see it, we all feel and it and observe its effects. Even the blind can perceive it in some way. Could an omnimax God not manifest itself in such a way that it is obvious to everyone in the same way?

Radcliffe Emerson · 06-11-2003, 08:16 AM

Well, IF a god existed, it could.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-10-2003, 02:14 AM	#72
malookiemaloo Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: glasgow, scotland Posts: 356	Thanks for all the responses. Time prevents my commenting on them all. However, for me, Keyser_soze sort of hit the nail on the head. The conflict between faith/belief and evidence is a catch 22 for Christianity. Two questions then arise for me:- 1. Is faith/belief (for the moment I will not distinguish between the two despite the fact that they are different) inferior in some way to evidence that convicts or 2. are faith/belief and evidence mutually exclusive with faith/belief being another dimension that requires to be experienced experimentally and you 'don't know it works 'til you try'? If 1. is true then no further discussion is required as I will throw my Bible away. If, however, 2. is true, or at least a possibility, then non-theists have a real problem and the conflict between faith/belief and evidence is more of a catch 22 for an atheist. Personally, I have always regarded faith as primary with evidence purely as secondary back up. m

06-10-2003, 03:37 AM	#73
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	Faith, beyond believing what there is no evidence for, also implies loyalty and emotional investment in the belief in question. It is always of very personal nature, and people are generally reluctant to question it. Not because of some technicality that makes faith immune to doubt, but because people just don't want to lose it. There's not alot of beliefs that can be classified as "faith". Simply belief with lacking evidence won't do as definition.

06-10-2003, 07:06 AM	#76
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	Faith may have had early social benefits by pointing everyone in the same direction (so to speak), but was also used to profit on this. What we see today is what early superstition and fear have left behind. Noone asks you to have faith in the magic stick or the holy beanbag anymore, they have all been replaced by new and more exciting objects of worship. The newest of those ofcourse is the television.

06-10-2003, 08:06 AM	#77
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	Samuel Clemens said it best: "Faith is believing something you know ain't true."

06-10-2003, 09:21 AM	#78
copernicus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 1,531	Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but you can't really compare belief with evidence in that way. Evidence is a recorded fact. It is data that is neutral with respect to belief or disbelief. I do think that you can talk about a kind of faith that is supported by evidence. For example, I have faith that the continent of Africa exists. I have never been there, and, even if I were there now, I wouldn't know that I was really in Africa. Most of our beliefs are of that sort. The only thing that I know for certain is what I perceive directly. Everything else requires a certain amount of faith. We wouldn't be able to operate without it. Is religious faith the same sort of belief? I believe that a lot of religious folks would like to believe that it is. The problem with religious faith is that it tends to be untestable. I can go to Africa, and I can talk to people from Africa. I can watch news stories about Africa on TV. I cannot do anything of that sort to verify that deities exist. So that kind of faith is not really grounded in evidence that can be repeated or tested. It is true that the Bible is a kind of "evidence", but there are conflicting holy books. And no objective criteria to verify what is written in them. Worse yet, we know that there is at least some religious scripture that is false. So the evidence for religious belief does not allow us to test or verify the belief. Hence, we tend to distinguish religious "faith" from belief that is supported by evidence. But the kind of evidence that supports our beliefs is crucial to what we mean when we make that distinction.

06-11-2003, 08:16 AM	#80
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	Well, IF a god existed, it could.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.