Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:49:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1350 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > > If you have not actually verified for yourself that Brazil exists, you take
> > > it on faith (or don't, I suppose...). It doesn't matter how large or small
> > > the body of evidence is, you are still CHOOSING to accept or not accept it.
> > > Any and all evidence that you do not directly observe is testimonial in
> > > nature. The difference in accepting Brazil on faith and accepting God on
> > > faith is a matter of degree, not of kind. (which is, I think, where this
> > > particular branch started)
> >
> > Again, find a reproducable test - simply trying to argue semantics is a
> > confusion of faith-based religion with evidence-based science.
>
> We're fairly obviously working with different defintions of faith & evidence.
>
> What David (I think) & I are basically saying is that we take *everything*
> on faith.
Actually, you are trying to say everything is equally valid because
everything comes down to faith. I disagree.
>
> To function as individuals & as groups, we make certain assumptions, the two
> most basic of which are that the world is consistent to our perceptions of
> it (constancy of objects) and that our thought processes are valid
> (constancy of self).
Maybe. Test it against knowns and see if consistent results are obtained.
>
> We make these assumptions at all levels. You are assuming (in a broad
> sense) that there is no vast conspiracy to convince you of the existence of
> Brazil.
No, you are assuming that I am assuming such. You are welcome to show me
evidence of this conspiracy. Science is willing to modify its opinions
based on new evidence.
> You believe there is no such conspiracy - you take it on faith.
No I don't. Maybe there is one. I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence
of such, but like I said, you are quite welcome to search for one and share
your findings.
> You have no evidence one way or the other. (Occam's razor does not address
> certainty, it addresses probability)
Yes I do - you weren't paying attention when I mentioned both seismic and
satellite evidence.
>
> Do you see what I'm driving at here? I'm not trying to say your basic
> assumptions aren't valid, or that you shouldn't be making those assumptions
> - I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that they *are* assumptions, and
> differ only in degree from other assumptions you may (or may not) be making.
I've known what you are driving at a long ways back. And I keep saying that
my assumptions are based on evidence, probablity, experience, and a
willingness to modify that assumption (i.e. it is not based on faith). You
refuse to understand the difference between making an assumption based on
evidence and an assumption without evidence.
>
> A quick example is that you've (I'm assuming) taken it on faith that I'm
> someone named James. You don't have evidence either way - and regardless of
> whether or not you can get that evidence, right now, it's an assumption, and
> a matter of faith.
>
> James
I'm willing to operate under the assumption that you are James, but you are
mistaken that I have faith in it. And you seem to have faith that I haven't
ascertained the validity of your claim already, because you have no idea
what I have done in regards to that. :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) WHOA! That is completely not what I'm saying. (...) How do you test to see if your thought processes are valid? How do you test to see if the world is consistent with your perception of the world? Where are the knowns in that equation? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) We're fairly obviously working with different defintions of faith & evidence. What David (I think) & I are basically saying is that we take *everything* on faith. To function as individuals & as groups, we make certain assumptions, the two (...) (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
|
|
|
|
