Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
In relation to scientific discoveries, a rational consideration of the evidence may necessitate conceptual revision. Faith obstructs this process by protecting cherished beliefs from criticism.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In relation to scientific discoveries, a rational consideration of the evidence may necessitate conceptual revision. Faith obstructs this process by protecting cherished beliefs from criticism.But what you fail to acknowledge is what this experience at bottom is...
The experience of, for example, gravity is in an entirely different league then the experience of, for example, the effect or praying.
One can be independently verified. The other must be "just believed".
Religious faith precisely is synonymous with "confidence" or "trust" and faith in God is based on His track record. It does not refer to a baseless belief, which is not actually humanly possible. Beliefs don't spontaneously pop into someone's head uncaused, and even if they did, they aren't maintained uncaused.
So worshippers of Zeus and Odin have faith based on the track records of these gods? How about alien abductees and chasers of bigfoot? Is there a track record of these creatures upon which such people base their faith? How about palmists - who can determine the future by reading your palm?
If they considered contrary evidence to be overwhelming, then they would no longer believe. if they continue to believe, then it is precisely because they don't consider the contrary evidence to be overwhelming.
Having faith in someone is not the same as believing that they exist. It does not make sense to trust someone to exist, so you would first need to have reason to think that they exist and that they are trustworthy before you could trust them about something. If someone thought that aliens had a track record of keeping their promises, then they could have faith that aliens would keep their promises in the future. Or if someone thought that a palmist had a track record of accurately predicting the future, then they could have faith that something else that they predicted will come to pass by acting in a way that demonstrates their confidence in the prediction.
You were wrong. There is no difference. Religious faith is based upon the exact same sort of trust through experience as any other faith is. If you wish to discount the experiences of others and only credit the experiences of those that are like minded to yourself you can do so, but do not expect the rest of humanity to be dictated to in that way. You have no authority to insist upon that.
my highlight. when you deliberately avoid thinking about challenges to an item of faith, you're not likely to be overwhelmed. when retaining a cherished idea is more important than truth, this is easily done.
you claimed that no articles of faith are baseless. that is, without base. without foundation. without reason. of course believers in these things will convince themselves there is a base (track record), but we both know that the particular articles of faith mentioned are baseless.
I was talking about someone who considered the evidence against their position, not someone who didn't examine the evidence against their position. Someone who considers the evidence against their position to be overwhelming will no longer believe, while someone who considers the evidence against their position to be underwhelming will continue to believe. Someone who doesn't even examine the evidence against their position does not do so because they consider their cherished idea to be more important than the truth, but because they are already thoroughly convinced that their position is the truth.
Again, you're confusing thinking that someone exists with trusting them about something in the future. However, it is not possible for someone to have a baseless belief that someone exists because if they didn't have a reason to believe that they exist, then they wouldn't have had the belief formed in the first place. Someone has the belief that aliens exists only because something indicated to them that it is true, and whatever that is, it is the foundation of their belief. You're welcome to think that they have a poor foundation for their belief, but to deny that they have a foundation is to claim that their belief is uncaused.
No, YOU said no one makes faith decisions on baseless grounds. YOU know that isn't true. That's the point at issue here.
And if their confidence in the efficacy of palmistry is based on bad reasons and remains just as strong even when shown evidence to the contrary?Having faith in someone is not the same as believing that they exist. It does not make sense to trust someone to exist, so you would first need to have reason to think that they exist and that they are trustworthy before you could trust them about something. If someone thought that aliens had a track record of keeping their promises, then they could have faith that aliens would keep their promises in the future. Or if someone thought that a palmist had a track record of accurately predicting the future, then they could have faith that something else that they predicted will come to pass by acting in a way that demonstrates their confidence in the prediction.
No one is talking about beliefs being "uncaused." You're barking up the wrong tree.No one makes faith decisions on baseless grounds and I know that it is true because it is impossible for someone to have faith that is uncaused. The closest thing here to a baseless belief is your belief that people can have baseless beliefs, but I'm confident that you have at least one reason for that belief, otherwise it wouldn't have been formed.
And if their confidence in the efficacy of palmistry is based on bad reasons and remains just as strong even when shown evidence to the contrary?
No one is talking about beliefs being "uncaused." You're barking up the wrong tree.
And if they dismiss evidence to the contrary, insisting that they are right regardless?It is up to their opinion how good they think the evidence in favor and against palmistry and to act accordingly. If they thought they evidence against it was stronger than the evidence in favor of it, then they would change their belief, if they thought the evidence against it was weaker than the evidence in favor of it, then they would continue to hold their belief, and if they refused to examine evidence against it, then they would continue to hold their belief.
For the second time, we aren't talking about opinions, but evidence, which is objective.Whether anyone else has a the subjective opinion that the evidence in favor or against is good or bad is relevant.
But I never said that they lacked a reason. More specifically, they lack a good reason. Even more precisely, the reasons they are able to give are not sufficient to justify the level of confidence they have.A reason or foundation is the cause of belief, so without a reason or foundation, a belief would be uncaused.
It's not up to opinion; it's up to the evidence. On examination, is there sufficient reason to justify that level of confidence in the claim?
Not if they dismiss reasons against it out of hand.
I never implied this.
I don't think I ever implied that they were agreeing with me.
And if they dismiss evidence to the contrary, insisting that they are right regardless?
For the second time, we aren't talking about opinions, but evidence, which is objective.
But I never said that they lacked a reason. More specifically, they lack a good reason. Even more precisely, the reasons they are able to give are not sufficient to justify the level of confidence they have.
I can show you my diploma and my report cards. You can go to the university of antwerp and double check that I didn't forge it.
You can go to all the companies I worked at and ask them to show me the code as well as the software that was written by the team that I was leading. You an ask them about my performances.
You don't need to believe me. You can verify it for yourself.
In the sense of "confidence and trust" based on a verifiable track record, yes.
It's not "faith" as in religious faith. Rather, it's a reasonable expectation based on evidence that I will be trustworthy going forward with new projects.
My claims are verifiable. You don't need to "just believe" me. You can go to my school and the companies on my resumé and ask them directly as well as look at the code that I've actually written.
Thanks to things like subversion (a source control code repository), you can actually see line by line which was done by me and which wasn't.
Again, there's no need to "just believe me".
The bible? Not so much. Not even remotely.
1. you can actually talk to my former coworkers, my clients, my project managers, my teachers
2. you can actually read my code - you don't need to depend on testimony
3. as for the bible, no... you need, again, to "just believe" that it was actually written by the people that were there AND that their testimonials were accurate. Funnily enough, we actually know that this wasn't the case.
Once more, my trackrecord as a programmer is objectively verifiable. All my code is out there. You don't need to rely on people's opinions and testimonies.
Having said that... even if you could only rely on people, you can actually go and talk to these people - you don't need to rely on books that are copies of copies of translations of copies that are claimed to be originally told by so-called witnesses. None of that can be verified. My work can be verified.
Next to that, you can also actually TEST my programmer skills by giving me an assignment. So regardless of my track record and the verifiability thereof, you can directly test me as well.
To say that this is the same as the claims of the bible is beyond ridiculous.
No. It really, really hasn't.
You want me to demonstrate to you that people are perfectly able to hold baseless beliefs? Really? I hope you are joking.
I count them as such. Astrology, homeopathy, alien abductions, annunaki reptilians, scientology... all baseless beliefs.
No. For example, a gullible person might believe that some medium is talking to a loved one that died. Not because of any kind of track record, but for purely emotional reasons.
No. It's something that can be verified.
They are tied together. Something becomes trustworthy based on its verifiable trackrecord.
Absent that, the word "trustworhty" is completely meaningless.
But it's not verifiable... which means it is "just believed". And that's when we get into the realm of religious faith.
And none of what can actually be verified adds any kind of credibility to all the supernatural bits that cannot be verified.
Yes. Which makes it different from religious faith. One doesn't have to take ones "word" for it that gravity does what it does. Nore does anyone have to just "believe" whatever some book says about it.
Gravity can be independently verified.
That's why we don't rely on opinions, but on evidence, which is objective. Not all assessments are equal in this regard either, since they vary in the extent to which they are supported by the evidence.The interpretation of evidence is a subjective processes. In a court case, a everyone on the jury receives the same evidence, but they have different opinions about whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon examination of the evidence, we all have different opinions about what level of confidence is appropriate, so again, whose subjective opinion gets to decide what the objectively appropriate confidence level is?
You can't remove the cause of their belief if they dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary.Someone is free to not examine evidence if they don't want to, but I'm talking about someone who examines the evidence and concludes that they have sufficiently better reason not to maintain their belief. If you remove the cause of their belief and they continue to believe, then the belief is maintained uncaused.
You are confused. I never implied this. I never said that they could both hold belief A and yet also be convinced that belief B, which is mutually exclusive, is also true.If a person has reasons to hold belief A, but has been convinced that there are better reason to hold a mutually exclusive belief B, then in order to maintain belief A, they would need to believe that it is true and false at the same time. True because they maintain it and false because they have been convinced that it is false.
But I never said that they agreed.If they agreed with your position that the contrary evidence was overwhelming, then they would be agree with you, which is not something they can do at the same time as maintaining their belief.
We don't dismiss them out of hand. We dismiss them due to a paucity of evidence. We would be compelled to reconsider if evidence were presented.The vast majority of people have not looked at the evidence for the existence of aliens or other conspiracy theories, yet we dismiss them out of hand and insist that we are right. People are free to think that it would be a waste of time to look at contrary evidence.
No, you are confusing data with evidence. Two people can examine the data and conclude that it supports their mutually exclusive positions. But how can it be evidence for either if it points in opposite directions? In that case, the data is equivocal, not evidential.Evidence is any information that indicates to someone that something is true, so it is inherently subjectively interpreted. Two people can examine the same evidence and one conclude that there is sufficient reason to justify a very high level of confidence that a claim is true, while the other can conclude that there is sufficient reason to justify a very low level of confidence that it is true. Who is to say which one is objectively correct? All someone else can do is just add their own subjective opinion into the mix.
No, that's practically the opposite of faith."A reasonable expectation based on evidence" is a good definition of religious faith.
That's a really bizarre idea. The implication is that homeopathy has just as much an "objective" basis as modern medicine. I can see why purveyors of pseudoscience would like your thinking in this regard.Everything that is verifiable is subjectively verifiable. In order to objectively verify, you would have to demonstrate that it is impossible for it to be false, which would be impossible.
For the third time now, it's not just about having "a reason."Someone who didn't have a base for their belief would never have their belief formed in the first place. A belief that was formed without having a reason to form it would be uncaused, which is absurd, so I am not at all joking.
Their reasons for thinking that there is a consistent track record are relevant. As before, you are fixated on the fact that they are able to give some reason for their belief. But we already acknowledged that this is the case. The issue is not whether they are able to give some reason for thinking the way they do, but whether those reasons justify that thinking.In the same way that someone who thinks gravity has a consistent track record can have faith that it will continue to do so, someone who thinks that God has a consistent track record can have faith that God will continue to do so. There reasons for thinking there is a consistent track record is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they think there is a consistent track record and their faith is based off of that, so faith has the same meaning.
That's why we don't rely on opinions, but on evidence, which is objective. Not all assessments are equal in this regard either, since they vary in the extent to which they are supported by the evidence.
You can't remove the cause of their belief if they dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary.
You are confused. I never implied this. I never said that they could both hold belief A and yet also be convinced that belief B, which is mutually exclusive, is also true.
But I never said that they agreed.
We don't dismiss them out of hand. We dismiss them due to a paucity of evidence. We would be compelled to reconsider if evidence were presented.
No, you are confusing data with evidence. You need evidence for inferences made in your assessment. That's what makes an assessment objective. Two people can examine the data and conclude that it supports their mutually exclusive positions. But how can it be evidence for either if it points in opposite directions? In that case, the data is equivocal, not evidential.
No, that's practically the opposite of faith.
That's a really bizarre idea. The implication is that homeopathy has just as much an "objective" basis as modern medicine. I can see why purveyors of pseudoscience would like your thinking in this regard.
For the third time now, it's not just about having "a reason."
Their reasons for thinking that there is a consistent track record are relevant. As before, you are fixated on the fact that they are able to give some reason for their belief. But we already acknowledged that this is the case. The issue is not whether they are able to give some reason for thinking the way they do, but whether those reasons justify that thinking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?