Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:26:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1368 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
WHOA! That is completely not what I'm saying.
> > 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.
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?
> > 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.
You are assuming the evidence is valid.
> > 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.
You appear to be assuming the scientific method is a valid metric.
> > 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.
>
> 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. :-)
How is "operating under the assumption" different that "having faith in"?
This, I think, is what we're stumbling around. I see them as one and the
same. I'm picking up from context that you think the definition of faith
requires a "without evidence whatsoever" clause.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Major snippage of worthy discussion, but the really important part is here. Rummaging for a dictionary... faith 1. Complete confidence or trust. 2. Belief in God or the doctrines of religion. 3. A system of religious belief. 4. Loyality or (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Actually, you are trying to say everything is equally valid because everything comes down to faith. I disagree. (...) Maybe. Test it against knowns and see if consistent results are obtained. (...) No, you are assuming that I am assuming such. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
