Humanism

[Archaeopteryx]

Leap, you still haven't answered my question:

So because we are not able to account for every possible variable, we should regard all science as "a leap of faith" belonging to the same category as religion? A religious myth for some phenomenon is just as good as a scientific theory? Is that your take on it?

 

[Danyc]

I already have.

Would you put faith in Ranunculus' claim and take all the action it implied if he were a christian and also accepted faith as valid?

Those two conditions were the ones you put forward in your response as reasons that you would say 'no' to that question.

I have removed them. Would you say 'yes'?

 

[Paradoxum]

Swapping something that occasionally gets things wrong (ie: faith in authority) for something that is inherently anti-social self-contadictory insanity-provoking nonsense (ie: requiring evidence before you trust) is a truly foolish move.

You should be able to justify why you accept what the authority has told you. Authorities in the past have said blatantly false things and done much evil, should you shouldn't just accept what they say. It isn't a minor thing.

Doubt (ie: distrusting until given reason to trust) self-evidently distrusts until given reason to trust. Therefore it must also distrust “distrusting until given reason to distrust” until it is given reason to trust it.

If it trusts “distrusting until given reason to trust”, without reason, it is an act of faith that contradicts itself.

If however it does not trust “distrusting until given reason to trust” for lack of reason to trust, it jumps the gun, pre-supposing itself (once more as an act of faith that contradicts itself by assuming, without evidence, the need for evidence before trust is forthcoming).

I don't think it is that I have a principle that says I must distrust something until given reason to trust. It is just that if I have no reason to believe something then I am incapable of believing it. Belief requires some reason that that belief is held. Authority is a reason, but a bad one. Hearing something on the TV is a reason, just not a good one.

Finally, in all of this, its very nature calls it, once accepted (in whichever manner), to doubt its own acceptance because:
* in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of variables impacting on each and every thing, and you can never know more than a infinitesimal fraction of them, thus always leaving doubt un-sated through an absence of evidence,

I have already said in a previous post that I don't know that the universe is infinite. Also in a infinite universe it doesn't mean there are infinite variables on every event.

Whichever way you look at it, faith in authority, even when authority is fallible, is the only sane option.

That is still a reason. Why can't you make yourself the authority?

Doubt is a path of self-contradiction leading to an endless spiral of doubt, despair and insanity.

Well it doesn't lead to despair and insanity so.....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Swapping something that occasionally gets things wrong (ie: faith in authority) for something that is inherently anti-social self-contadictory insanity-provoking nonsense (ie: requiring evidence before you trust) is a truly foolish move.

Occasionally gets something wrong?

Ok, let's for a moment pretend that you are right: Faith in authority is a good thing and doubt is inherently foolish. There are many candidates that might claim authority. How are you going to determine which authority you ought to have faith in? More to the point, are you going to make this determination by listening to another authority?

Whichever way you look at it, faith in authority, even when authority is fallible, is the only sane option. Doubt is a path of self-contradiction leading to an endless spiral of doubt, despair and insanity.

I'm an authority. Have faith in me. If you don't, then you're being self-contradicting.

 

[Leap]

You should be able to justify why you accept what the authority has told you. Authorities in the past have said blatantly false things and done much evil, should you shouldn't just accept what they say. It isn't a minor thing.

You have it the wrong way around. You do not need to justify why you accept what the authority has said; if you needed to do that, it would not be an authority. Instead you trust it until and unless they deny faith and/or the fruits of faith in what they do (and in so doing require nonsense of you).

]I have already said in a previous post that I don't know that the universe is infinite. Also in a infinite universe it doesn't mean there are infinite variables on every event.

Even a finite universe of the size currently known means that you cannot know but a minute fraction of the variables involved.

That is still a reason. Why can't you make yourself the authority?

Authority is something that you follow, not which you make.

Well it doesn't lead to despair and insanity so.....

You are mistaken.

I'm an authority. Have faith in me. If you don't, then you're being self-contradicting.

The same point applies to you (and to all and any who deny faith and its fruits).

 

[Leap]

Its quite interesting watching you all wriggle and deny when shown the blatant error at the heart of Humanism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Its quite interesting watching you all wriggle and deny when shown the blatant error at the heart of Humanism.

There is no wriggling going on. All of the wriggling is happening in your own mind because you are trying to tell humanists what humanism is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

You have it the wrong way around. You do not need to justify why you accept what the authority has said; if you needed to do that, it would not be an authority. Instead you trust it until and unless they deny faith and/or the fruits of faith in what they do (and in so doing require nonsense of you).

Sounds much like an argument a slave or peasant might make to justify their authority telling them what to do or think. Just accept the authority you have always known and don't question it.

Even a finite universe of the size currently known means that you cannot know but a minute fraction of the variables involved.

But nevertheless science finds out new things and then technologies are made from such discoveries. It works.

Authority is something that you follow, not which you make.

Ok.

You are mistaken.

Ok.

Well I hope you free yourself at some point, but I don't think there is much I can do. Good luck.

There is no wriggling going on. All of the wriggling is happening in your own mind because you are trying to tell humanists what humanism is.

Is there any point talking to him? Can we be of any help?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Even a finite universe of the size currently known means that you cannot know but a minute fraction of the variables involved.

My question...?

The same point applies to you (and to all and any who deny faith and its fruits).

You do realize that makes absolutely no sense in the context of your argument? I claim to be an authority. Others may rival me by claiming to be authority as well. Now you are given the option of having faith in one of us. How do you decide? If two authorities declare something conflicting, how are to decide between them?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Doubt (ie: distrusting until given reason to trust) self-evidently distrusts until given reason to trust. Therefore it must also distrust “distrusting until given reason to distrust” until it is given reason to trust it.

If it trusts “distrusting until given reason to trust”, without reason, it is an act of faith that contradicts itself.

Humanist doubt is more like scientific doubt than epistemological doubt. It isn't about doubting everything, including the value of doubt.

There definitely are reasons to find value in doubt. This isn't a matter of "trusting doubt", but rather finding doubt useful and appropriate as an epistemological tool.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Humanist doubt is more like scientific doubt than epistemological doubt. It isn't about doubting everything, including the value of doubt.

There definitely are reasons to find value in doubt. This isn't a matter of "trusting doubt", but rather finding doubt useful and appropriate as an epistemological tool.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It IS. Because doubt itself is valuable.
What a pity humanism. Whatever you said, I like to doubt it. Conceivably, I do can find reason for my doubt.

 

[Leap]

You do realize that makes absolutely no sense in the context of your argument? I claim to be an authority. Others may rival me by claiming to be authority as well. Now you are given the option of having faith in one of us. How do you decide? If two authorities declare something conflicting, how are to decide between them?

Which part of "if you deny faith and its fruits" do you not get? If you deny faith and its fruits, having faith in you is contradictory and thus you cannot be given it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Which part of "if you deny faith and its fruits" do you not get? If you deny faith and its fruits, having faith in you is contradictory and thus you cannot be given it.

I understand the words; it's the argument that makes no sense. Why would it be contradictory? As an authority, I am telling you that it isn't contradictory. So you should have faith in my claim.

 

[KCfromNC]

The alternative to doubt (ie: refusing to believe until evidence is forthcoming)? Simple. Faith (ie: believing until given cause not to). It is the only sane and non-self-contradicting (and thus reasonable) option.

Faith may or may not be an internally consistent approach, but it doesn't lead to consistent answers among people using it so can be rejected as useless for gaining knowledge.

 

[Leap]

I understand the words; it's the argument that makes no sense. Why would it be contradictory? As an authority, I am telling you that it isn't contradictory. So you should have faith in my claim.

I do not need to have faith in your claims because you have denied faith yourself (and so it would be contradictory to have faith in you and what you say). Honestly, if you dont get that I cannot see the point of continuing this conversation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It IS. Because doubt itself is valuable.

You are misrepresenting humanism. It isn't some form of epistemological skepticism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do not need to have faith in your claims because you have denied faith yourself (and so it would be contradictory to have faith in you and what you say). Honestly, if you dont get that I cannot see the point of continuing this conversation.

So you can only have faith in an authority that also has faith in something else? Ok, well I do have faith... I have faith in my own authority. Now that I have satisfied your criterion, are you prepared to take whatever I say on faith?

Also, you seem to have missed my other question (or is it that you don't wish to address it)?

 

[Skavau]

No I have not.

Perhaps I was wrong then. You reject evidence when it is convenient for you to do so and embrace it when it does not contradict your faith.

I reject scientific doubt and embrace faith.

Why do you reject "scientific doubt" and why is faith in this context a viable alternative to it? Both according to you are faith.

Faith means trusting/believing until you have cause not to. Doubt is refusing to trust/believe until you have evidence. I still accept evidence, I just do not require evidence before I believe something.

Do you take this attitude on everything in your life?

By that I mean if someone claims that they have been abducted by aliens you just assume that it actually happened?

That is how I can believe, for example, in innocent until proven guilty. I do not require evidence that someone is innocent before I believe that they are. I require evidence in order to stop believing in their innocence.

That is a poor comparison. Innocent before guilty is asserted because of the lack of evidence in favour of guilt and the societal ramifications if we assume people are guilty before evidence of their guilt actually comes to surface.

If one is to argue or claim that someone has committed a crime we do not (or ought not) assume that the accused is guilty until the accuser has produced evidence. The idea of "innocent before guilty" is an example of where society demands evidence and not an example of society assuming faith and the only reason you accept people's innocence over their guilt is some faith then you are doing it wrong.

In fact by your 'reasoning' you would take anyone at their word on anything. Anyone could accuse anyone of anything and you'd have no reason to not have faith in their accusation. Right?

It is an act of faith.

No, it is an assertion.

You repeat yourself I'll repeat myself.

I am not berating empiricism for relying on faith. I am berating empiricism for contradicting itself (claiming that evidence is required before belief is forthcoming and then coming into being as an act of faith) and empiricists for not having the honesty to admit this and realise its implications.

Evidence before belief is a good way to conduct one's way of understanding truth. Care to explain why observing reality before drawing conclusions on it is a bad thing?

 

[Skavau]

You have it the wrong way around. You do not need to justify why you accept what the authority has said; if you needed to do that, it would not be an authority. Instead you trust it until and unless they deny faith and/or the fruits of faith in what they do (and in so doing require nonsense of you).

How did you determine for yourself what is the most accurate authority?

Why did you choose the authority of Christianity over say Islam or any other religion?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How did you determine for yourself what is the most accurate authority?

Why did you choose the authority of Christianity over say Islam or any other religion?

Well, obviously he chose which authority was authoritative by taking the word of another authority. Reason is for chumps. Trust me, I'm an authority on the topic.