Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:14:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1204 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> > Exactly. Scientists have faith in THEIR senses. BUT, the odd thing is that
> > although we know it's a no-no, we still DO have faith in other people's
> > senses. Have you done ALL the research necessary for modern science, because
> > you didn't believe it when it was presented to you? No, but you take it on
> > faith, with the exception, however, that you are not as adamant about that
> > which you take on faith as that which you do not. If you were a
> > paleontologist (sp?) you'd be a lot more certain of evolution than you would
> > be of, say, nuclear fission. This is also based off of other things that
> > have been touched on in the other sub-thread as well, like society defining
> > the strengths of your particular faiths via confirmation...
>
> But do you really experience life in this fashion? Either doubting
> everything that you haven't perceived personally, or equating the acceptance
> of another's testimony with the kind of Faith necessary to believe in a
> supreme being?
I think they're more-or-less the same. It doesn't matter if you can verify
something through the scientific method if you don't actually verify it.
You are assuming that it is so - in other words, taking it on faith.
Hundreds of thousands of people have no knowledge of UFO's outside of
testimonials, but they believe in the existance of UFO's.
Hundreds of thousands of people have no knowledge of Brazil outside of
testimonials, but they believe in the existance of Brazil.
> The flaw in your chain of reasoning is that, since there is
> no way for me to verify your (or Bruce's, or Steve's) metaphysical
> experiment--no way, in short, to reproduce it to the satisfaction of my own
> senses--I would have to accept your testimony, if I choose to accept it, on
> Faith alone. If Bruce claims that he's come up with revolutionary way of
> transmuting ice to water (to pose a hypothetical scientific "breakthrough"
> into uncharted teritory), I don't have to accept it on faith alone, since I
> can reproduce his hi-tech experiment given the proper tools. This is true
> whether the experiment is in quantum mechanics or auto mechanics. The event
> itself doesn't preclude my understanding and reproduction of it. If it
> cannot be reproduced, then science cannot accept it; there is no faith
> involved whatsoever, especially, as Bruce pointed out, since one
> individual's perceptions are not the sole proving/disproving factor in such
> an experiment. A metaphysical experience such as you've elsewhere described
> is an inherently personal and non-reproducible (by others) event, so I can
> only accept it if:
That is an assumption. It may merely be that you are lacking the tools to
reproduce it. A blind person is unable to experience emperical evidence of
the visible spectrum of light. You can't catagorically say "your experiment
is unreproducable"; the most you can say is "I can't reproduce your experiment."
I will grant, before it comes back to haunt me, that vast bodies of
consistent testimony are arguably more valid than individual varying
testimonial, making it less of a leap of faith to assume that Brazil exists,
but it is still an act of faith, and an assumption.
> a) I have Faith that such a thing is possible
> b) I have Faith in your testimony of your own experience
Why, out of curiosity, does Brazil pass this test, and God fail it? At a
fundamental, and conceptual level, there is no difference, unless you go and
perform the experiment (visit Brazil) yourself.
> I'm intrigued and a little distressed that you seem to feel a need to force
> science into the role of a faith-driven religion, whereas science is in many
> ways the cure for faith. Acceptance of sensory data, while not ironclad, is
> based on associative experience--sensory datum A coincides with situation A,
> and so on.
I don't think he's trying to do this. I think he's trying to get you to
acknowledge that we accept the vast majority of what we "know" on faith. I
think you're stumbling over different definitions of faith.
You (Dave!) are operating with the view that faith in the unverifiable and
faith in the unverified are significantly different, while you (David) are
arguing that they are fundamentally the same.
At least, that's how it looks over here on the sidelines. :)
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) This is taken on Faith. I believe in extra-terrestrial life. Believing that we are on the only life-bearing planet in the entire universe is pretty arrogant, I think. (...) Ah, but this is NOT taken on Faith - this can be easily proved - (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) But do you really experience life in this fashion? Either doubting everything that you haven't perceived personally, or equating the acceptance of another's testimony with the kind of Faith necessary to believe in a supreme being? The flaw in (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
