What do you believe and why?

theperfectfix said:

If science is not studying facts: what is it studying and why even bother? You may say it is not studying facts, but the truth is that it is the study of what is perceived to be true and real. It is the facts as they are believed to be. Call it what you will, but it is the study of perceived factual truths. It is, for all intensive purposes, the study of perceived "facts", of how things interrelate with one another.

Call it the study of rules that govern relationships; call it what you will, but it is the study of facts as they are observed and/or perceived to be.

Click to expand...

Um, no.

Science is the systematic and formal investigation of reality and the organization of that information into testable explanations of its findings, in order understand the world around us. Virtually no findings of Science are unquestionable and proven.

Deidre32 said:

I was raised a Catholic, then departed from Christianity about 4 years ago. A path at that time, led to atheism, and over the past year or so, I've been struggling with making sense of my grandmother's illness and recently, her death. I explored Buddhism and Islam...and even parts of Christianity, again. But, now...I've concluded that what resonates with me in a very natural way is Deism. I don't really like labels per se, but I'd say Deism resonates better with me these days than Theism. No one knows with certainty if a god exists or not...but, I'd like to believe one does. And I still find much beauty in the Abrahamic faiths, but I'm not convinced any one religion is the only enlightening way to 'know' God.

Click to expand...

I don't like labels either. I don't like others trying to define me.

I can say that I know God exist's, but I wouldn't expect you to believe me. You are a beautiful creation and have so much going for you. You, as well as me, are free to explore and test anything we want to test, at any time. We are free to do all things all the time. Even now, I'm free to pick all beliefs or reject them all, who is here to judge me whether I am right or wrong.

How come we are forced to believe that school is important? Isn't school a "good babysitter" while the parents work hard, to put it mildly).

Who, in their right mind, thinks paying $100,000 for college is normal?

Money is the god of the world. I hope I did not offend.

Archaeopteryx said:

No, no one has claimed that faith means accepting "things as true without absolute scientific proof." You've redefined "without evidence" to mean "without absolute scientific proof."

Some reason, any reason, does not equate to a good reason. Peter Popoff claims to be a genuine faith healer. Why would he claim to possess healing powers if that were not true? That there might be a reason to believe it. But is it a good reason? Is it evidence for his claim? Is it enough to justify a high degree of confidence in this man's reported healing powers?

I don't think so, or put otherwise, I'm not convinced by what you've argued so far. In your previous post you seemed to have the issue backward: it's not whether the claim happens to be true or not, but whether there is good reason to believe that it is true.

Click to expand...

Again, sorry for the long delay: Inet provider problems persist.

So, if the skeptic claims that faith is believing without evidence; and if by that he means that we accept things as true without absolute scientific proof (or even overwhelming scientific confirmation),... No one here has claimed that Christian Faith is believing without evidence?

No, no one has claimed that faith means accepting "things as true without absolute scientific proof." You've redefined "without evidence" to mean "without absolute scientific proof."

Click to expand...

Or, "without overwhelming confirmation". And it wasn't MY redefinition: that is exactly the argument frequently set forth; I'm merely acknowledging it and responding. Now if you did not make the argument, then of course the response doesn't apply to you, just as is the case with the earlier 'definition'.

the assertion of belief without good reason is demonstrably incorrect. Practically, epistemically, it is virtually impossible to believe something without having some reason to do so. Try it: you cannot.

Some reason, any reason, does not equate to a good reason.

Click to expand...

While that is true, it has nothing to do with our conversation. The point was (to refresh your memory) that biblically, and in Christian doctrine, as well as in common use, "faith" is trusting or believing on the basis of some good reason (either experience, or reputation).

But is it a good reason? Is it evidence for his claim?

Click to expand...

But are you asking two different questions there, or are you doing exactly what I described earlier, and conflating two entirely different things (good reason, and sense evidence).

Is it enough to justify a high degree of confidence in this man's reported healing powers?

Click to expand...

Apparently, he thought so. And that is neither unreasonable nor intellectually weak: we routinely have faith in people with nothing more than their reputation, sufficient to at least try their claims. But the point here is that he did not choose to have faith in Jesus "for no good reason". You may not like his decision, but it meets the criteria.


Example: your assertion that "'faith' in the religious sense, which is a strong belief in something without evidence*, ...I would amend that to belief regardless of the evidence." When I challenged this notion, you claimed that you believe that on the basis of "My conversations with the religious." Now, the belief is wrong; it is incorrect; it is not true. But you had a reason for believing it: not a very good reason, but a reason nonetheless. I suspect that no matter how many people you spoke to actually said that, it still consists of a number of Christians who do not comprise any statistically significant number; and I suspect it does not include any significant number of people with formal education in the field. So the problem is not that you had no reason; the problem is it is simply not true.

So my point stands: as with so many other unbelievers, you're arguing the wrong point.

I don't think so, or put otherwise, I'm not convinced by what you've argued so far.

Click to expand...

Well of course you are free to reject any idea you please, but you haven't offered any argument against it.

Archaeopteryx said:

Now would be a good time to look it up.

I already responded to this.

Alright, granting your definition, I think it's worthwhile asking: trust on the basis of what experience and reputation for what?

No, I told you I wasn't going to respond to a gish gallop.

Of course it sounds like it; it's the same word being used as a synonym for trust.

Experience of what and reputation for what?

Click to expand...

Now would be a good time to look it up.

Click to expand...

except I have no interest in looking it up: you used the term, you explain it.

The idea is trust in someone or something on the basis of their trustworthiness or reliability, their steadfast character.

I already responded to this.

Click to expand...

Well, you technically made a response; you simply avoided the point.

biblical faith is just this: confident trust in someone or something on the basis of experience or reputation.

Alright, granting your definition, I think it's worthwhile asking: trust on the basis of what experience and reputation for what?

Click to expand...

You do remember that our discussion is about the general subject of Faith in the Christian/biblical context, right? As already stated, "Faith" is confident trust in someone or something on the basis of our experience or their reputation. The 'reputation' applies to the point on which we are trusting them, regardless of the subject. This is exactly the same thing as the faith I place in my mechanic, my doctor, my accountant, etc. There is absolutely no difference epistemically.

Did you not read what I posted?

No, I told you I wasn't going to respond to a gish gallop.

Click to expand...

Whatever that is. But I posted what amounts to about three pages of material on the subject, as you requested. Now if you're not going to actually read the material, then we're both wasting our time. You decide.

hankroberts said:

...

a gish gallop.

Click to expand...

Whatever that is. But I posted what amounts to about three pages of material on the subject, as you requested. Now if you're not going to actually read the material, then we're both wasting our time. You decide.

Click to expand...

Is the google broken on your internet?

"The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.

Examples are commonly found in "list" articles that may claim to show "100 reasons for" something, or "50 reasons against" something. At this sort of level, with dozens upon dozens of minor arguments, each individual point on the list may only be a single sentence or two, and many may be a repeat or vague re-wording of a previous one. This is the intention: although it is trivial amount of effort on the part of the galloper to make a point, particularly if they just need to re-iterate an existing one a different way, a refutation may take much longer and someone addressing will be unable to refute all points in a similarly short order. If even one argument in a Gish Gallop is left standing at the end, or addressed insufficiently, the galloper will attempt to claim victory."

Gish Gallop - RationalWiki

ChristCameBackFromTheDead said:

What do you believe to be the source of the universe and why? If you respond that you do not know, please provide an intelligent reason as to why you do not know.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Matter can neither be created or destroyed, so it's likely it's always existed.

hankroberts said:

Again, sorry for the long delay: Inet provider problems persist.

Click to expand...

That's alright.

Or, "without overwhelming confirmation". And it wasn't MY redefinition: that is exactly the argument frequently set forth; I'm merely acknowledging it and responding. Now if you did not make the argument, then of course the response doesn't apply to you, just as is the case with the earlier 'definition'.

Click to expand...

Not only does it not apply to me, I question whether it applies to anyone. I don't know of anyone who equates "without evidence" to "without absolute scientific proof."

While that is true, it has nothing to do with our conversation. The point was (to refresh your memory) that biblically, and in Christian doctrine, as well as in common use, "faith" is trusting or believing on the basis of some good reason (either experience, or reputation).

Click to expand...

To refresh your memory, we were discussing the religious sense of the word 'faith', not the other senses in which the word is used (e.g., trust, hope, confidence, etc).

But are you asking two different questions there, or are you doing exactly what I described earlier, and conflating two entirely different things (good reason, and sense evidence).

Apparently, he thought so. And that is neither unreasonable nor intellectually weak: we routinely have faith in people with nothing more than their reputation, sufficient to at least try their claims. But the point here is that he did not choose to have faith in Jesus "for no good reason". You may not like his decision, but it meets the criteria.

Click to expand...

But we aren't talking about Jesus. We are talking about belief in Peter Popoff's purported healing powers, for which I asked the following questions:

Why would he claim to possess healing powers if that were not true? That there might be a reason to believe it. But is it a good reason? Is it evidence for his claim? Is it enough to justify a high degree of confidence in this man's reported healing powers?

Well of course you are free to reject any idea you please, but you haven't offered any argument against it.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced by your argument for it. To me, it seems that you are conflating several meanings of 'faith'.

hankroberts said:

Well, you technically made a response; you simply avoided the point.

biblical faith is just this: confident trust in someone or something on the basis of experience or reputation.

Click to expand...

Again, on the basis of what experience in particular, and reputation for what exactly? I'm interested in you elaborating on this further because I think it would help in teasing apart the relevant aspects of 'faith' that we're interested in.

You do remember that our discussion is about the general subject of Faith in the Christian/biblical context, right? As already stated, "Faith" is confident trust in someone or something on the basis of our experience or their reputation. The 'reputation' applies to the point on which we are trusting them, regardless of the subject.

Click to expand...

Yes, you want to focus on the Bible in particular. So let's do that. What is the Bible reputable for, and on what experience is this confident trust based?

This is exactly the same thing as the faith I place in my mechanic, my doctor, my accountant, etc. There is absolutely no difference epistemically.

Click to expand...

I think there is quite a difference between having 'faith' that a credentialed doctor will offer sound medical advice and having 'faith' that a supernatural entity created the first woman from the rib of a man. Your confidence in your doctor is based on merit and their track record, among other things. You also recognise that, being human, your doctor is fallible, and so your confidence in them isn't absolute. If your doctor told you that jumping off a cliff would cure your cold, your confidence in them might be lessened. Are the claims of the Bible believed on their merit and track record for accuracy? Is the confidence placed in those claims subject to change given new information, or is the confidence absolute, such that those claims could never be considered wrong?

Whatever that is. But I posted what amounts to about three pages of material on the subject, as you requested.

Click to expand...

No, that's contrary to what I requested. I pleaded for brevity. I understand that it's difficult to condense a large body of work into easily digestible summary points, but it's essential for a productive conversation to take place here.

Now if you're not going to actually read the material, then we're both wasting our time. You decide.

Click to expand...

As I said earlier, I'm not your thesis examiner. I'm not here to evaluate your scholarship, but to discuss the ideas that may have emerged from it.

Archaeopteryx said:

That's alright.

Not only does it not apply to me, I question whether it applies to anyone. I don't know of anyone who equates "without evidence" to "without absolute scientific proof."

To refresh your memory, we were discussing the religious sense of the word 'faith', not the other senses in which the word is used (e.g., trust, hope, confidence, etc).

But we aren't talking about Jesus. We are talking about belief in Peter Popoff's purported healing powers, for which I asked the following questions:

Why would he claim to possess healing powers if that were not true? That there might be a reason to believe it. But is it a good reason? Is it evidence for his claim? Is it enough to justify a high degree of confidence in this man's reported healing powers?

I'm not convinced by your argument for it. To me, it seems that you are conflating several meanings of 'faith'.

Again, on the basis of what experience in particular, and reputation for what exactly? I'm interested in you elaborating on this further because I think it would help in teasing apart the relevant aspects of 'faith' that we're interested in.

Yes, you want to focus on the Bible in particular. So let's do that. What is the Bible reputable for, and on what experience is this confident trust based?

I think there is quite a difference between having 'faith' that a credentialed doctor will offer sound medical advice and having 'faith' that a supernatural entity created the first woman from the rib of a man. Your confidence in your doctor is based on merit and their track record, among other things. You also recognise that, being human, your doctor is fallible, and so your confidence in them isn't absolute. If your doctor told you that jumping off a cliff would cure your cold, your confidence in them might be lessened. Are the claims of the Bible believed on their merit and track record for accuracy? Is the confidence placed in those claims subject to change given new information, or is the confidence absolute, such that those claims could never be considered wrong?

No, that's contrary to what I requested. I pleaded for brevity. I understand that it's difficult to condense a large body of work into easily digestible summary points, but it's essential for a productive conversation to take place here.

As I said earlier, I'm not your thesis examiner. I'm not here to evaluate your scholarship, but to discuss the ideas that may have emerged from it.

Click to expand...

No, that's contrary to what I requested. I pleaded for brevity.

Click to expand...

And I provided roughly one tenth of the material I had available; about three pages.

Now if you're not going to actually read the material, then we're both wasting our time. You decide.

As I said earlier, I'm not your thesis examiner. I'm not here to evaluate your scholarship, but to discuss the ideas that may have emerged from it.

Click to expand...

And I'm not the least bit interested in your evaluation of my thesis or my scholarship: already done that. But if you're not going to read what is posted on the subject, then we're done here. You decide.

hankroberts said:

And I provided roughly one tenth of the material I had available; about three pages.

Now if you're not going to actually read the material, then we're both wasting our time. You decide.


And I'm not the least bit interested in your evaluation of my thesis or my scholarship: already done that. But if you're not going to read what is posted on the subject, then we're done here. You decide.

Click to expand...

I've already made clear earlier in the conversation that I'm not here to be your thesis examiner. Someone else will have to play that role. If you aren't interested in responding to my questions and comments from the previous post, then we're done here. It's up to you.

Archaeopteryx said:

I've already made clear earlier in the conversation that I'm not here to be your thesis examiner. Someone else will have to play that role. If you aren't interested in responding to my questions and comments from the previous post, then we're done here. It's up to you.

Click to expand...

Heh. As a retired Marine, I recognize an ambush when I see one. Having been in a few, I'm not interested. If you decide you're interested in discussion of the material presented or the ideas and facts therein, I'll be around.

hankroberts said:

Heh. As a retired Marine, I recognize an ambush when I see one. Having been in a few, I'm not interested. If you decide you're interested in discussion of the material presented or the ideas and facts therein, I'll be around.

Click to expand...

I am interested in a discussion of the ideas you've presented, which is why I posed those questions to you in my previous post. You apparently are no longer interested, which must be why you've declined to respond to them. I don't know what "ambush" you're referring to.

Archaeopteryx said:

I am interested in a discussion of the ideas you've presented, which is why I posed those questions to you in my previous post. You apparently are no longer interested, which must be why you've declined to respond to them. I don't know what "ambush" you're referring to.

Click to expand...

I guess to some, questions = ambush

Archaeopteryx said:

I am interested in a discussion of the ideas you've presented, which is why I posed those questions to you in my previous post. You apparently are no longer interested, which must be why you've declined to respond to them. I don't know what "ambush" you're referring to.

Click to expand...

am interested in a discussion of the ideas you've presented

Click to expand...

but not interested enough to actually read what was presented? How exactly does that work?

I don't know what "ambush" you're referring to.

Click to expand...

Of course you don't...

bhsmte said:

I guess to some, questions = ambush

Click to expand...

The problem with guessing is that you're wrong as often as you're right.

hankroberts said:

but not interested enough to actually read what was presented? How exactly does that work?


Of course you don't...

Click to expand...

Will you be responding to my questions and comments or not?

Archaeopteryx said:

Will you be responding to my questions and comments or not?

Click to expand...

That depends: will you be reading what I've already said regarding the subject. If you have no intention of reading what is posted, then there is no point in responding.

hankroberts said:

That depends: will you be reading what I've already said regarding the subject. If you have no intention of reading what is posted, then there is no point in responding.

Click to expand...

I already made clear from the very outset that I would not read through and respond, point by point, to a copious body of text. You ignored my request for brevity, so I responded to a select subset of the material you provided. You can either ignore my questions/comments on that material, or you can respond to them. That's up to you.

Archaeopteryx said:

I already made clear from the very outset that I would not read through and respond, point by point, to a copious body of text. You ignored my request for brevity, so I responded to a select subset of the material you provided. You can either ignore my questions/comments on that material, or you can respond to them. That's up to you.

Click to expand...

I responded to your request with essentially three pages of material, including a list of resources. If you think three pages of material is too much, then go read a comic book.