Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:52:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1369 times
|
| |
|
|
I forgot a sentence in here...
Tom Stangl wrote:
> James Brown wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
However, I don't believe in UFOs in the classic sense. I don't think a species advanced
enough to have intersystem travel would even waste their time with us, unless it was a
paleontological study(on the level of a grade school science project). And if they were
so advanced, I seriously doubt they'd make themselves visible to us, it would ruin the
study. A species advanced enough for intersystem (or intergalactic) travel would most
likely have the technology to cloak themselves from our sight and instruments quite
easily.
> > Hundreds of thousands of people have no knowledge of Brazil outside of
> > testimonials, but they believe in the existance of Brazil.
>
> Ah, but this is NOT taken on Faith - this can be easily proved - simply buy a plane
> ticket and watch the ground go by during the flight ;-)
>
> > > 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.
>
> You can visit Brazil (I have a co-worker living there right now, so I trust it
> exists). And I've seen plenty of pictures.
>
> You can't visit God physically. And I have YET to see a picture of him.
>
> --
> | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
> | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 - (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
