Theology and Falsifiability

[Loudmouth]

Do you understand what is meant by Fcf, counterfactual falsifiability?

Do you know what is meant by dogma?

Do you understand what faith is? Have you read the arguments in the OP contrary to your assertion?

I understand what faith is, and what you are describing is not faith. Do you have to take DNA sequences on faith? No. You can observe them yourself. Do you have to take the shape and structure of fossils on faith? No. You can observe them yourself. Do you have to take the age of the fossil on faith? No. You can measure the ratio of isotopes in the rocks surrounding the fossil find all on your own.

How is any of this faith?

 

[zippy2006]

Do you know what is meant by dogma?



I understand what faith is, and what you are describing is not faith. Do you have to take DNA sequences on faith? No. You can observe them yourself. Do you have to take the shape and structure of fossils on faith? No. You can observe them yourself. Do you have to take the age of the fossil on faith? No. You can measure the ratio of isotopes in the rocks surrounding the fossil find all on your own.

How is any of this faith?

Faith:

Faith is belief in some proposition because an authority has testified to it. So if I read a scientific journal article which makes a case for evolution and believe what is presented without seeing the evidence personally, I believe in evolution on faith, on the authority of the scientific author of the article. Similarly, when God tells/reveals something, we believe it, for God is the author of all creation and Truth itself who can never lie.

On to what I said about other disciplines. Try reading more carefully, and note the bolded:

Theological faith is unique in the sense that true articles of faith such as the Trinity cannot be verified by independent means. Yet there are a large number of disciplines that take their premises on faith, except that it is--in principle if not always in practice--possible for these disciplines to independently verify the propositions taken on faith. For example, evolutionary scientists may take archaeological findings on faith, physicists and engineers may take mathematical principles on faith, computer scientists may take machine code and and computer engineering on faith, historians may take texts and textual criticism on faith, and architects may take principles of geometry on faith. For all practical purposes, these disciplines also take their premises to be Fcf but not Fmse, although multidisciplinary individuals may possess the wherewithal to verify multiple levels of premises.

Go find ten historians and see how many of them are experts in foreign languages, translation, and textual criticism. There will be very few. They take it on faith that the documents they study are legitimate, as the relevant authority has assured them that they are. As I said, they could learn these disciplines given enough time, and thus not be forced to take their premises on faith.

Do you have to take DNA sequences on faith? No. You can observe them yourself. Do you have to take the shape and structure of fossils on faith? No. You can observe them yourself. Do you have to take the age of the fossil on faith? No. You can measure the ratio of isotopes in the rocks surrounding the fossil find all on your own.

And have you observed DNA sequences, the shape and structure of fossils, and have you measured the ratio of rock isotopes yourself? If you have not done these things and yet believe them, you have faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

On to what I said about other disciplines. Try reading more carefully, and note the bolded:

"Faith is belief in some proposition because an authority has testified to it."

I will repeat what I said.

Do you have to take DNA sequences on faith? No. You can observe them yourself. Do you have to take the shape and structure of fossils on faith? No. You can observe them yourself. Do you have to take the age of the fossil on faith? No. You can measure the ratio of isotopes in the rocks surrounding the fossil find all on your own.

They take it on faith that the documents they study are legitimate, as the relevant authority has assured them that they are.

There is evidence for the legitimacy of those documents. You don't have to take it on faith.

And have you observed DNA sequences, the shape and structure of fossils, and have you measured the ratio of rock isotopes yourself?

Yes.

The fact remains that all scientific findings are repeatable and verifiable. Nothing has to be taken on faith.

 

[zippy2006]

There is evidence for the legitimacy of those documents. You don't have to take it on faith.

Of course there is evidence, but learning foreign languages, locating the many manuscripts, and compiling and translating them would take many years. Faith allows us to bypass this long process, learn about multiple fields (which could simply not be done if one required an expertise in each), and pick up where the textual critics left off.

Yes.

Good for you, then you don't require faith in that area.

The fact remains that all scientific findings are repeatable and verifiable. Nothing has to be taken on faith.

I never said anything had to be taken on faith. Just the opposite, I noted that theological faith is unique and that it is in principle possible to independently verify natural propositions. I also noted that faith abounds in the academic world. And that's true. Heck, you don't even read a map or use your GPS without a heavy helping of faith.

 

[Michael]

Hey Zippy:

I happen to know for a fact that LM is a big "believer" in LCDM theory, *in spite* of the fact that "space expansion" is and will forever remain an "act of faith" on the part of the believer. Inflation theory is *dogma* at this point. It's existence is *dogma*. It's presumed effects are *dogma*. Nothing like "inflation" occurs on Earth, or anywhere else. It's just pure dogma. It's also "unfalsifiable dogma" because even though there are large scale hemispheric variations found in background emissions that are *not* predicted in inflation, no observation has the ability to falsify the idea. Ditto for "dark matter" and dark energy. Dark matter theories have been tested in the lab repeatedly and they consistently *fail* the "predictions" made by astronomers. No falsification potential exists for a pure 'exotic matter of the gaps' claim, and they have zero evidence that their galaxy mass estimates were even worth the paper they were printed on in 2006. The last study of SN1A events was like 10 times the sample size of the original study, and it showed only a three sigma likelihood that such a thing as "acceleration" even exists, 2 full sigma short of a real "discovery" in physics, but the *dogma* of dark energy lives on.

While *some* "scientific" claims are falsifiable, his beloved LCMD theory isn't falsifiable at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course there is evidence, but learning foreign languages, locating the many manuscripts, and compiling and translating them would take many years. Faith allows us to bypass this long process, learn about multiple fields (which could simply not be done if one required an expertise in each), and pick up where the textual critics left off.

That's not the same as believing something to be true in the absence of any evidence, or even the chance of getting evidence. You are pushing a false equivalency.

Good for you, then you don't require faith in that area.

Again, that is a false equivalency.

I also noted that faith abounds in the academic world. And that's true. Heck, you don't even read a map or use your GPS without a heavy helping of faith.

There is that false equivalency again.

 

[Michael]

Good for you, then you don't require faith in that area.

He does require *blind unconditional faith* in "space expansion" as a presumed "cause" of photon redshift however.

 

[zippy2006]

That's not the same as believing something to be true in the absence of any evidence, or even the chance of getting evidence. You are pushing a false equivalency.



Again, that is a false equivalency.



There is that false equivalency again.

Faith is believing something on the authority of another. The definition has nothing to do with the availability of evidence.

 

[Michael]

That's not the same as believing something to be true in the absence of any evidence, or even the chance of getting evidence. You are pushing a false equivalency.

Your dark matter claims have been falsified at least 10 different times now, at least five times in the lab, and your baryonic mass guestimates were shown to be ridiculously flawed at least five different ways too.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

 

[Loudmouth]

Faith is believing something on the authority of another.

There is that false equivalency, again.

Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence.

 

[Michael]

Faith is believing something on the authority of another. The definition has nothing to do with the availability of evidence.

By that definition, "space expansion" is something people believe on the authority of someone else because it never occurs in the lab. Most folks would call it an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[zippy2006]

There is that false equivalency, again.

Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence.

That's a common misunderstanding or strawman.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's a common misunderstanding or strawman.

"strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
Google

"firm belief in something for which there is no proof "
Definition of FAITH

"based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:"
faith - definition of faith in English | Oxford Dictionaries

"belief that is not based on proof"
the definition of faith

 

[zippy2006]

"strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
Google

"firm belief in something for which there is no proof "
Definition of FAITH

"based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:"
faith - definition of faith in English | Oxford Dictionaries

"belief that is not based on proof"
the definition of faith

Did you notice how, in each definition, the primary meaning gives my own notion of trust in a person, and it is only in secondary meanings that your definition holds up? And that nothing is said about evidence, but only about proof?

You are backpedaling on the definition you already agreed to here because you lost an argument, and now we're back to your strange psychological theories wherein humans do and believe things without evidence or reason.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did you notice how, in each definition, the primary meaning gives my own notion of trust in a person, and it is only in secondary meanings that your definition holds up?

And that is where the false equivalency comes in.

What the word "faith" means is determined by context. In different contexts it can have different meanings. You are taking two different uses and pretending as if they have the same meaing when in fact they don't. That is a false equivalency.

In the context of religion, faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. In the context of science, there is evidence. Obviously, that isn't the definition we are using. What you are talking about is the acceptance of data as probably being true, but with the caveat that the data can always be checked.

Those are not the same thing.

And that nothing is said about evidence, but only about proof?

Same thing within the context of the definition.

You are backpedaling on the definition you already agreed to here because you lost an argument, and now we're back to your strange psychological theories wherein humans do and believe things without evidence or reason.

If I agreed to a bad definition on accident surely I am able to fix my mistake.

 

[zippy2006]

In the context of religion, faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. In the context of science, there is evidence.

LOL! Have a good day Loudmouth.

 

[Loudmouth]

LOL! Have a good day Loudmouth.

Have a good time conflating two different meanings of the same word which is a logical fallacy.

"The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument. "
Google

 

[Michael]

And that is where the false equivalency comes in.

What the word "faith" means is determined by context. In different contexts it can have different meanings. You are taking two different uses and pretending as if they have the same meaing when in fact they don't. That is a false equivalency.

That's exactly what LM does with respect to claiming 'Doppler Shift' (moving objects) somehow justifies his "space expansion" claim. Pure equivocation error.

 

[Chriliman]

And that is where the false equivalency comes in.

What the word "faith" means is determined by context. In different contexts it can have different meanings. You are taking two different uses and pretending as if they have the same meaing when in fact they don't. That is a false equivalency.

In the context of religion, faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. In the context of science, there is evidence. Obviously, that isn't the definition we are using. What you are talking about is the acceptance of data as probably being true, but with the caveat that the data can always be checked.

Those are not the same thing.



Same thing within the context of the definition.



If I agreed to a bad definition on accident surely I am able to fix my mistake.

Faith is the acceptance or assumption of something for which there is no direct evidence of. Both scientists and laymen do this in order to explain things that they do have direct evidence of. The multiverse is a good example of this. There's no direct evidence of the multiverse, but it's existence is taken on faith in order to explain what we can observe in our universe. Same for God.

Reasonable faith is never blind, it always has a reason and that reason is almost always to search for an explanation of what we experience/observe in this reality.

Its true that faith is never based on proof. which is why it's accurately defined as: the acceptance of something for which there is no proof. Proof is different from evidence and reasons.

Edit: at least how I differentiate between proof and evidence is that proof is always undeniable, but evidence may support multiple interpretations of what's true that can lead to proof of what's true.

 

[variant]

The fact remains that all scientific findings are repeatable and verifiable. Nothing has to be taken on faith.

Not only that they start out by making falsifiable predictions that can either be shown to be correct or incorrect based upon objective testing, and then they do objective testing to see what the truth is.