From faith to fact.

[Veera Chase]

Has anyone else notice how creationism has somehow gone from being a faith to being a fact?
We have threads about how,
Science proves the Bible is true.
DNA proves the Bible is true.
Science and scientists prove fine tuning is true.

I wonder what will be next to go from faith to fact? for 1000 years people have been happy to call their beliefs a faith, not today.
It won't take long for all of these assertions and lies to become the absolute truth for creationists, which will mean the end of faith for a lot of people, while religion was a faith it could say anything was true and no one could say different, the problem with proclaiming beliefs to be a fact is evidence is needed to support those facts, evidence that doesn't exist.

 

[Veera Chase]

Now for some secular preaching..........

Not speaking out or acting against something is akin to supporting it, keeping silent is a vote for not against.

Ignorance and injustice should be held up to the light for everyone to see.

Creationism is a blight on all lives not just the afflicted because ignorance drags everyone down just by it's presence.

When ignorance threatens a society it should not be tolerated it should be crushed.
Vera Chase.

 

[Gene2memE]

Not speaking out or acting against something is akin to supporting it, keeping silent is a vote for not against.

Nope. That's way too simplistic. Inaction can be positive, negative or neutral.

Failure to act does not imply support for beliefs, speech or actions.

Ignorance and injustice should be held up to the light for everyone to see.

Perhaps. Fatigue is a thing though. Even in the sphere of discussion and debate. Bombard people with too much and the repetition will inure them to a subject.

I'd rather pick and choose my battles.

I'm here specifically to counter misinformation and falsehood in my particular areas of interest (mostly history and anthropology, and a little bit of legal stuff). I'll generally withhold comment though until I feel that I can make I significant contribution, or until a falsehood is so egregious that I thing it cannot go uncorrected.

 

[Soyeong]

Has anyone else notice how creationism has somehow gone from being a faith to being a fact?
We have threads about how,
Science proves the Bible is true.
DNA proves the Bible is true.
Science and scientists prove fine tuning is true.

I wonder what will be next to go from faith to fact? for 1000 years people have been happy to call their beliefs a faith, not today.
It won't take long for all of these assertions and lies to become the absolute truth for creationists, which will mean the end of faith for a lot of people, while religion was a faith it could say anything was true and no one could say different, the problem with proclaiming beliefs to be a fact is evidence is needed to support those facts, evidence that doesn't exist.

"Faith" is synonymous with "trust" and it can't be proven in the sense that we can't prove that someone will turn out to be trustworthy in the future, but that is not to say it is not based on good evidence that someone has been reliable in the past. "Faith" does not refer to believing something blindly or when there is little or no evidence, and in fact if there was no evidence that a belief were true, then there wouldn't be anyone who believed that it was true. Our beliefs are formed only because we think that is what the evidence most strongly supports, and if we thought the evidence supported something else more strongly, then we would believe that instead.

 

[Veera Chase]

I'm here specifically to counter misinformation and falsehood in my particular areas of interest (mostly history and anthropology, and a little bit of legal stuff). I'll generally withhold comment though until I feel that I can make I significant contribution, or until a falsehood is so egregious that I thing it cannot go uncorrected.

Creationists will believe whatever they want to believe regardless, when someone believes in magic there is nothing more to say.

 

[Soyeong]

Creationists will believe whatever they want to believe regardless, when someone believes in magic there is nothing more to say.

But there is no problem with waving the magic wand of billions of years.

 

[ScottA]

Has anyone else notice how creationism has somehow gone from being a faith to being a fact?
We have threads about how,
Science proves the Bible is true.
DNA proves the Bible is true.
Science and scientists prove fine tuning is true.

I wonder what will be next to go from faith to fact? for 1000 years people have been happy to call their beliefs a faith, not today.
It won't take long for all of these assertions and lies to become the absolute truth for creationists, which will mean the end of faith for a lot of people, while religion was a faith it could say anything was true and no one could say different, the problem with proclaiming beliefs to be a fact is evidence is needed to support those facts, evidence that doesn't exist.

The reason, is that people of faith are coming to terms with the facts. In times past people of faith would compare worldly facts with people without faith, but now we have our own facts, which are not of this world. The playing field of facts is no longer level: We now have higher knowledge, and are leaving the elementary and worldly knowledge to science, and pressing on - with or without science.

 

[Astrophile]

"Faith" is synonymous with "trust" and it can't be proven in the sense that we can't prove that someone will turn out to be trustworthy in the future, but that is not to say it is not based on good evidence that someone has been reliable in the past. "Faith" does not refer to believing something blindly or when there is little or no evidence, and in fact if there was no evidence that a belief were true, then there wouldn't be anyone who believed that it was true. Our beliefs are formed only because we think that is what the evidence most strongly supports, and if we thought the evidence supported something else more strongly, then we would believe that instead.

It's more likely that people believe a particular religion because they were taught it when they were children, not because of the evidence that the religion is true.

 

[Soyeong]

It's more likely that people believe a particular religion because they were taught it when they were children, not because of the evidence that the religion is true.

That's a false dichotomy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"Faith" is synonymous with "trust" and it can't be proven in the sense that we can't prove that someone will turn out to be trustworthy in the future, but that is not to say it is not based on good evidence that someone has been reliable in the past. "Faith" does not refer to believing something blindly or when there is little or no evidence, and in fact if there was no evidence that a belief were true, then there wouldn't be anyone who believed that it was true. Our beliefs are formed only because we think that is what the evidence most strongly supports, and if we thought the evidence supported something else more strongly, then we would believe that instead.

I think the OP is referring to faith in the religious sense, which means believing irrespective of how well grounded the belief is, and maintaining belief even if the preponderance of evidence stands opposed to that belief. It's not merely about whether the religionist is able to produce a reason for their belief, but whether those reasons adequately justify the belief. We know that the religious are able to give many reasons for their supernatural claims. The question is whether those reasons are strong enough to warrant the confidence they have in those claims.

 

[Soyeong]

I think the OP is referring to faith in the religious sense, which means believing irrespective of how well grounded the belief is, and maintaining belief even if the preponderance of evidence stands opposed to that belief. It's not merely about whether the religionist is able to produce a reason for their belief, but whether those reasons adequately justify the belief. We know that the religious are able to give many reasons for their supernatural claims. The question is whether those reasons are strong enough to warrant the confidence they have in those claims.

Who gets to deterimine whether those reasons adequately justify the belief and what the preponderance of evidence supports? The people who hold any particular belief do so only because they think their reasons adequately justify that belief and it is supported by the preponderance of evidence, while the people who don't hold that belief don't do so only because they think the reasons they have perceived don't adequately justify that belief and that it is unsupported by the preponderance of evidence. No one holds beliefs that they think aren't adequately justified or that the preponderance of evidence is opposed to, and if someone who holds a belief were convinced of that, then they would no longer hold that belief.

The religious sense is based on the way the Bible uses the term, which is synonymous with trust, so you are using it in the non-religious and non-sensical sense because that sense is mostly spread by non-religious people like you who have been told otherwise, who ought to know better, yet persist in spreading misinformation anyway.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Who gets to deterimine whether those reasons adequately justify the belief and what the preponderance of evidence supports?

Not who, but what. The evidence.

The people who hold any particular belief do so only because they think their reasons adequately justify that belief and it is supported by the preponderance of evidence, while the people who don't hold that belief don't do so only because they think the reasons they have perceived don't adequately justify that belief and that it is unsupported by the preponderance of evidence. No one holds beliefs that they think aren't adequately justified or that the preponderance of evidence is opposed to, and if someone who holds a belief were convinced of that, then they would no longer hold that belief.

People can be mistaken in thinking that their position is well supported when, on closer examination, it is not. As I recall, we discussed this previously:

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.

The religious sense is based on the way the Bible uses the term, which is synonymous with trust, so you are using it in the non-religious and non-sensical sense because that sense is mostly spread by non-religious people like you who have been told otherwise, who ought to know better, yet persist in spreading misinformation anyway.

What misinformation? There are several examples of faith being exercised on this very forum -- faith as I have described it above.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The religious sense is based on the way the Bible uses the term, which is synonymous with trust, so you are using it in the non-religious and non-sensical sense because that sense is mostly spread by non-religious people like you who have been told otherwise, who ought to know better, yet persist in spreading misinformation anyway.

Trust based on what?

 

[Veera Chase]

The reason, is that people of faith are coming to terms with the facts. In times past people of faith would compare worldly facts with people without faith, but now we have our own facts, which are not of this world.

This is the part that made me laugh, 'we have our own facts' that's priceless.

The playing field of facts is no longer level: We now have higher knowledge, and are leaving the elementary and worldly knowledge to science, and pressing on - with or without science.

That's the way..... Thinking like that is a sure fire way of keeping smarter people away from the cause.
The lengths some people will go to in order to fool themselves into believing the unbelievable, saying that I've been told they are not trying to fool themselves because they do actually believe it's all true.

 

[Soyeong]

Not who, but what. The evidence.

If evidence could interpret itself, then there would be no need for us to interpret it and it would not be the case that a group of people could all examine the same evidence and come to a wide variety of conclusions and confidence levels in regard to what they think it indicates to be true, with each one claiming that the evidence justifies their position. It does no good to say that the evidence itself justifies a particular position if we have no way of knowing what position it justifies apart from our own subjective interpretation.

People can be mistaken in thinking that their position is well supported when, on closer examination, it is not. As I recall, we discussed this previously:

A closer examination can lead someone to accept a true belief or reject a false relief, but it can also lead someone to wrongly accept a false belief or reject a true belief. For instance, there are atheists who on closer examination became Christians and vice versa, so one of the two has accepted a false belief and wrongly rejected a true belief. If your closer examination of the same evidence can itself be mistaken, then how can you eliminate the possibility that you are mistaken about whether someone's reason justify their thinking? If a group of people hold mutually exclusive beliefs and upon closer examination of the evidence they all think the are justified in their beliefs, some of them are mistaken, but how do you determine who is mistaken apart from who happens to agree with your own subjective examination of the evidence?

What misinformation? There are several examples of faith being exercised on this very forum -- faith as I have described it above.

Misinformation that is spread around is still misinformation. Our beliefs are dependant on what we think the preponderance of evidence supports, so there are no examples of what you described above because it is humanly impossible. There are perhaps many examples of people believing something that you think the preponderance of evidence is opposed to, but there are no examples of them believing something that they think the preponderance of evidence is opposed to, and vice versa. Anyone who thought the preponderance of evidence was against their position would change their position accordingly.

Trust based on what?

Trust is based on past experience or past performance.

 

[ScottA]

This is the part that made me laugh, 'we have our own facts' that's priceless.That's the way..... Thinking like that is a sure fire way of keeping smarter people away from the cause.
The lengths some people will go to in order to fool themselves into believing the unbelievable, saying that I've been told they are not trying to fool themselves because they do actually believe it's all true.

Most people in your position believe in evolution...except when it comes to exceeding the organic matter. That's impressive!

But we have surpassed the days of "believing", and now "know" all things. I guess you missed it.

 

[Veera Chase]

But we have surpassed the days of "believing", and now "know" all things. I guess you missed it.

Yes thank goodness I did, you sadly did not.

 

[ScottA]

Yes thank goodness I did, you sadly did not.

Some like it hot.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If evidence could interpret itself, then there would be no need for us to interpret it and it would not be the case that a group of people could all examine the same evidence and come to a wide variety of conclusions and confidence levels in regard to what they think it indicates to be true, with each one claiming that the evidence justifies their position. It does no good to say that the evidence itself justifies a particular position if we have no way of knowing what position it justifies apart from our own subjective interpretation.

Are you saying that all interpretations are equal? As I noted in our previous discussion on the matter, not all assessments are equally objective. If you assume that they are, then how are we to adjudicate between competing explanatory models?

A closer examination can lead someone to accept a true belief or reject a false relief, but it can also lead someone to wrongly accept a false belief or reject a true belief. For instance, there are atheists who on closer examination became Christians and vice versa, so one of the two has accepted a false belief and wrongly rejected a true belief. If your closer examination of the same evidence can itself be mistaken, then how can you eliminate the possibility that you are mistaken about whether someone's reason justify their thinking?

Are you asking whether one can completely eliminate the possibility of error in one's thinking? If that is your question, then I don't think one can do that, which is why I acknowledge that I could be mistaken; there might be some flaw in my reasoning that I haven't recognised yet. In discussing this with people who strongly champion faith as a virtue, however, I've often found that they are reluctant to admit that they could be wrong about their theological commitments. By way of illustration:

I value truth. My worldview was turned upside down when God caused me to born again from above. In light of this, my worldview is the one true worldview and therefore there is nothing that could show it to be false.

If a group of people hold mutually exclusive beliefs and upon closer examination of the evidence they all think the are justified in their beliefs, some of them are mistaken, but how do you determine who is mistaken apart from who happens to agree with your own subjective examination of the evidence?

If you assume that all assessments have equal merit, then you cannot determine which of them is mistaken. But why would you assume that to begin with?

Trust is based on past experience or past performance.

I was asking specifically about the Bible. On what past performance is that trust based?

 

[Veera Chase]

Some like it hot.

I guess there must be a place in the Muslim hell just for you then? or don't you believe in a Muslim hell? have you noticed how insignificant things become if you don't believe them? not bothered by the Muslim hell but scared stiff of the Christian hell, I wonder why that is?