Fairytale?

[Wiccan_Child]

But science does not seek the "Truth." It provides the best answers based on the available information.

Which is the best possible way to find out the truth of reality.

 

[The Bellman]

Either something is true or it isn't.

Obviously.

To state that something is true whilst at the same time allowing for the possibility that it may not be makes it a statement of faith.

That's just insane. If you hold the opinion that something is true while at the same time allowing for the possibilty it may not be, then you are being rational and reasonable - it's got nothing to do with faith. In fact, it's the opposite. If you hold something to be true and do not allow for any possibility that you are wrong, then you are guilty of faith. Rational belief based on evidence always accepts the possibility of further contrary evidence.

 

[FoeHammer]

Obviously.

You would think so wouldn't you?

That's just insane. If you hold the opinion that something is true while at the same time allowing for the possibilty it may not be, then you are being rational and reasonable - it's got nothing to do with faith. In fact, it's the opposite. If you hold something to be true and do not allow for any possibility that you are wrong, then you are guilty of faith. Rational belief based on evidence always accepts the possibility of further contrary evidence.

If you are going to state that something is true but allow for the possibility that it is not true then you cannot at the time of stating that it is true be certain that it is, in fact, true, which would make the original statement that it is true a statement of faith... And that's the truth.

FoeHammer

 

[The Bellman]

You would think so wouldn't you?If you are going to state that something is true but allow for the possibility that it is not true then you cannot at the time of stating that it is true be certain that it is, in fact, true, which would make the original statement that it is true a statement of faith... And that's the truth.

FoeHammer

No, it's not the truth. It's nonsense. Rational people allow for the possibility that they are in error or that additional evidence will come to light.

 

[FoeHammer]

No, it's not the truth. It's nonsense. Rational people allow for the possibility that they are in error or that additional evidence will come to light.

Truth is absolute, If it's true today it can't be any more or less true tomorrow.

FoeHammer.

 

[TheOutsider]

Truth is absolute, If it's true today it can't be any more or less true tomorrow.

FoeHammer.

True, but no one knows the absolute truth. It would take someone being omniscient (knows the future as well as the past) to know the absolute truth. There is no human that knows the absolute truth. If they say that they do they are probably trying to sell you something.

It is not faith to say that we don't not know the absolute truth. It is an admission that we might be wrong and/or we don't know all of the facts.

 

[The Bellman]

Truth is absolute, If it's true today it can't be any more or less true tomorrow.

FoeHammer.

What people believe to be true can and does change from today to tomorrow.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You would think so wouldn't you?If you are going to state that something is true but allow for the possibility that it is not true then you cannot at the time of stating that it is true be certain that it is, in fact, true, which would make the original statement that it is true a statement of faith... And that's the truth.

FoeHammer

And why should we accept your statement of faith?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Truth is absolute, If it's true today it can't be any more or less true tomorrow.

FoeHammer.

Humans are fallible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Truth is absolute, If it's true today it can't be any more or less true tomorrow.

FoeHammer.

Agreed. But what people believe to be true is irrelevant to what actually is true. I could believe myself to be a fish, for all the good it would do.

 

[FoeHammer]

True, but no one knows the absolute truth. It would take someone being omniscient (knows the future as well as the past) to know the absolute truth. There is no human that knows the absolute truth. If they say that they do they are probably trying to sell you something.

It is not faith to say that we don't not know the absolute truth. It is an admission that we might be wrong and/or we don't know all of the facts.

I agree with regards to the absolute truth if by that you mean the truth about everything, what I would call ultimate absolute truth. But the absolute truth of a statement such as mine that Truth is absolute, If it's true today it can't be any more or less true tomorrow, requires no faith, it is obvious to us all and without question absolutely true. That evolution is true is not obvious to us all nor is it without question. The truth of evolution is, as yet, unsubstantiated and therefore to state that evolution is true whilst at the same time accepting that it may not be makes it a statement of faith. The only way to remove the need for faith is by not believing it to be true when you can't be certain that it is.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

What people believe to be true can and does change from today to tomorrow.

Their beliefs may change but the truth doesn't.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

And why should we accept your statement of faith?

I'm not saying that you should.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Humans are fallible.

I agree.

FoeHammer

 

[TheOutsider]

I agree with regards to the absolute truth if by that you mean the truth about everything, what I would call ultimate absolute truth. But the absolute truth of a statement such as mine that Truth is absolute, If it's true today it can't be any more or less true tomorrow, requires no faith, it is obvious to us all and without question absolutely true. That evolution is true is not obvious to us all nor is it without question. The truth of evolution is, as yet, unsubstantiated and therefore to state that evolution is true whilst at the same time accepting that it may not be makes it a statement of faith. The only way to remove the need for faith is by not believing it to be true when you can't be certain that it is.

FoeHammer.

I suppose that you are correct, but it is not a blind faith. There is much evidence that points to evolution being correct. It is the best model that we have right now because it works. We will do more research to refine the theory as we go along. That is how all science is done.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I suppose that you are correct, but it is not a blind faith. There is much evidence that points to evolution being correct.

You're contradicting yourself. It it is dependant on evidence, then it is not faith of any kind. Scientists speak tentatively in terms of probabilities, saying that various aspects of evolution are evidently true and that others are demonstrably so or factual. The faith-based perspective asserts their position is absolutely true, without any evidentiary support, but with an assumption of authority, and they state in advance that they will never change their minds even if proven wrong. That's the difference between rationalism and faith.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Their beliefs may change but the truth doesn't.

FoeHammer.

Foe this is a good point, interestingly enough. Let's expand on it using a concept from Statistics.

In statistics we are faced with trying to figure out what the mean of a population is. We assume from the central limit theorem that the distribution of values we are measuring is Normally Distributed

But in reality we almost never measure every single member of any given population. Most times we could never do that. There's simply too many things to measure.

In statistics we differentiate between

The POPULATION mean (m)
and
The SAMPLE mean (x) (I can't put the little bar over the x, sorry).

The sample mean is usually an approximation of the population mean. We don't really know the variance of the total population so we have to make some assumptions that our sample acts as a good sample of the whole population.

Why this Matters To Your Statement:

Think of "TRUTH" as the unknown population mean. We scientists are in the process of trying to find TRUTH but we are, as are you and all other human beings limited in how much we can find, see, feel experience, measure, explore. So in the end the best any scientist can ever claim is that we are reasonably sure we know approximately what the "real truth" is. But we also realize we might find some data that shows our estimates of the VARIANCE (variability) of the data mean we are off a bit. Or a lot!

The key is that we are TRYING to find TRUTH and that is the best we can do. The value of science is that it is transparent and can leverage the work of millions of people all around the earth regardless of their religious affiliation, club membership, hair color, sexual orientation, etc.

The really important key is that YOU do not have any more of a fast track into what TRUTH is than the sum total of human endeavors to find that truth.

If you do, it is not because you are tapped into something GREATER but because you were lucky enough to stumble onto the exact Population Mean of "TRUTH". And even then you could never prove you were there to any one else until all of the population of information bits had been gathered and it was therefore proven you were on the mean.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Humanity doesn't know absolute "TRUTH". YOU are human. Ergo you don't know absolute "TRUTH" any more than we do.

I hope I didn't ramble too far off the path. And if there's any better statisticians on the board, please correct any of my errors! (I'm working hard over the past few years to get a better grounding in statistics--but I'm still learning).

 

[Split Rock]

If you are going to state that something is true but allow for the possibility that it is not true then you cannot at the time of stating that it is true be certain that it is, in fact, true, which would make the original statement that it is true a statement of faith... And that's the truth.

Hardly. We are as certain of evolution as we can be based on the evidence. Calling that "faith" is disingenuous.

Truth is absolute, If it's true today it can't be any more or less true tomorrow.

Since none of us knows "absolute" truth, then this point is irrelevant.

I agree with regards to the absolute truth if by that you mean the truth about everything, what I would call ultimate absolute truth. But the absolute truth of a statement such as mine that Truth is absolute, If it's true today it can't be any more or less true tomorrow, requires no faith, it is obvious to us all and without question absolutely true. That evolution is true is not obvious to us all nor is it without question. The truth of evolution is, as yet, unsubstantiated and therefore to state that evolution is true whilst at the same time accepting that it may not be makes it a statement of faith. The only way to remove the need for faith is by not believing it to be true when you can't be certain that it is.

You continue to talk in circles. First, what is obvious to me is not obvious to you and visa versa. Second, your last sentence is another misuse of the word "faith." Being absolutely certain of something requires faith, not the other way around!

Their beliefs may change but the truth doesn't.

But people can only have belief in what is the Truth, since they cannot know the Truth. Therefore, if their beliefs change, then their perception of the Truth changes. The problem with people like you, FoeHammer, is that you think you know the Truth, but you cannot, since you are a fallible human. Yet you use your perception of the truth as a guide to rejecting whatever conflicts with that perception. Then you claim to not be guided by "faith," but by "The Truth."

 

[FoeHammer]

"Good" meaning something more than the ravings of mad men, charlatans and shysters; something that actually makes sense, is verifiably accurate, and posatively indicative of such a thing.

Well that rules evolution out then.

Because it didn't give me any comfort to believe in a god. In fact, when I believed, it was always uncomfortable and confusing trying to figure out how the supernatural realm was integrated with the real one. Once I hit on the explanation that the "supernatural" wasn't really there, then everything finally made sense. So a "good reason" for God has to make sense or it can't be compelling.

I’d like to see that ‘’explanation’’.

Thus far, you have only been offensive, and ineffective in all your arguments because they're all entirely emotional, and you've been unable to demonstrate any academic accuracy or accountability on anything. Each of your attempted points have been disproved, and all you have done was to try and fail to project your own faults and fallacies onto others.

Blah, blah, blah, yeah, yeah, yeah so you keep saying.

I've already explained to you what a rationalist is from the atheist perspective, the Christian evolutionist perspective, or from any perspective.

You are a meaningless consequence of a meaningless process in a meaningless universe. Your search for meaning is itself a meaningless exercise… where’s the logic in that? Where is the rationale?
The third time of posting… Third time lucky perhaps?

"For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.g. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. Many religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticise implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence."
--Wikipedia

So now you’re posting someone else’s opinion.

I don't know why you're obsessed with associating atheism and evolution, but that mindset is proving to be the most divisive in the history of Christianity.

I am not obsessed with associating atheism and evolution I made it clear from the outset that I was referring specifically to atheists who accept evolution as the explanation for our existence.

Your earlier of explanation pales compared to that of our emergence as a societal animal, a condition which evokes natural compassion for our brethren and fellows. And I still don't know why you think nothing matters if you're wrong. But I've already explained why nothing would matter if you were right.

I can’t find it, link please.

I've also already shown from every authorative source what faith is, proving that it is not simply synonemous with trust, because faith is the condition of either trust, confidence, or belief that it be unreasonably stoic, and that it be assumed and maintained regardless of evidence.

Expand on it all you like but the bottom line is that faith = trust. You’re the only person I’ve come across that has a problem with this.

I would love to quote your sqirming on these in the past, but I can't because threads like

Can we get an honest admission and A dozen lies behind creationism's "absolute truth were deleted by the mods. But I suppose it would be just as well to ask you to explain that again

Again? I don't even remember seeing those threads let alone posting in them.

what could I possibly do to further minimize or remove faith from my perspective more than I already have?

Become omniscient.

Throughout the New Testament Jesus and his followers claim their judgment is based on whether they have faith, and 2 Thessalonians 3:2 states plainly that not everyone does.

’’Not everyone does’’ have faith in what?

In Matthew 21:21, Jesus gives the condition under which any of his followers might cause living things to wither and die simply by wishing it so, but only "if" they have faith.

Faith in what?

In Mark

4:40, Jesus asked the fishermen why they had no faith.

Faith in what?

Of course he said something different at the same moment in Luke 8:25, which is strange because you don't accept that there could be any internal inconsistencies, conflicts or contradictions in the Bible. Never the less, they are there.

Mark 4:40
And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

Luke 8:25
And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.

I see no inconsistency.

SNIPPED

Ooh copy and paste….No problem.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
C&P is easy isn’t it?

Insisting that everything in the Bible actually happened as stated, all conversations verbatim and absolutely true without error of any kind, and refusing to accept that some of the stories may be parables rather than historic chronicles.

Well thanks for clarifying your position now I can begin to understand why you have problems with it.

FoeHammer.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I’d like to see that ‘’explanation’’.
FoeHammer.

An explanation for "the supernatural isn't there" really is just the simple realization that:

Pretty much everything in anyone's daily life can be explained without the use of the supernatural.

Good things happen to bad people about as often as bad things happen to good people.

Prayer doesn't appear to statistically alter the outcome of any process it is applied to. (numerous scientific studies have found no correlation).

"God" has too many disparate meanings to be a UNIVERSAL of any sort, and He appears to want dramatically opposing things depending on who is speaking for him. The ancient israelites thought he wanted the murder of numerous innocent people, some modern muslims think he wants the murder of numerous innocent jews, some christians think he doesn't want the murder of anyone anywhere, some christians think he is pretty OK with the justified killing of bad people, etc.

So in order for the Supernatural to have any sort of compelling reason to be assumed 'present' I should think there would be some coherence in its presentation.

I keep hammering on this but the religious on the board simply ignore it:

THIS is why religion cannot work in science. It proposes a factor which is not the same for all observers and cannot be measured or quantified.

Indeed the null hypothesis must be that the supernatural plays no role in a given process.

It is up to religion to provide sufficient data to reject the null hypothesis.

And, again, despite the entirety of human existence, it has failed to do so.

YOU feel you have reason to reject the null, so you are religious. But I've also seen plenty of people reject null hypotheses without either having good proof or doing it despite the lack of proof simply because they had "gut" feeling.