Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:00:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1516 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: • <snip a lot>
> > > Dictionary.com:
> > >
> > > 1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an
> > > idea, or a thing.
> > > 2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See
> >
> > #2 applies to yourself, and you are stretching #1 to apply to me and then
> > are making the erroneus conclusion that they are equivalent. You further
> > listing below does not support your assertation, and the further one I
> > provided also doesn't.
>
> Whoa... where do you draw the conclusion that #2 applies to me? I *really*
> think you're coming at this with a fairly large prejudice against "faith" in
> any form.
Wrong. This makes the presumption that I don't have religious faith (note I
have not lined up with the atheists).
As to the other point, it may not apply to you personally, just the approach
you are arguing.
> Words can have different meanings in different contexts, and I am in
> no way trying to equate two different meanings of a word. "room & board" and
> "wooden board" imply different meanings of board, yes?
Yes, that's my point. Faith in God/creationism (religious belief, belief
especially without logical proof, etc.) and as you would put it, "faith" in
science (finding a system of observation and experimentation to achieve
logical results that produces an explanation consistent with those results
seems to work but will be chucked in favor of something else once it proves
to work better but I believe works as I understand it at the moment) are not
the same thing. Again, this is just a semantic game you are playing.
>
> I would, in fact, hold that the #2 is extraneous in the face of #1. The first
> definition doesn't differentiate between confident belief with proof or
> confident belief without proof.
If you don't understand that different applications of a word are not
equivalents, then you are doomed to a lot of misinterpretations. And one
specific definition found in only one of four sources, at that.
>
> > > The definition that runs closest to my own understanding of the word is
> > > dictionary.com's #1.
>
> <snip>
> > End paste. Note 1, 2 and 3. So no, I don't agree with you definition at
> > all unless you want to qualify that yours is a faith system without logical
> > proof and mine is a faith system with logical proof. This is the same as
> > saying NO, they are NOT equivalent. The whole thing you are trying to imply
> > is that ultimately evolution is based on faith and not logical proof and
> > therefore no different than faith in God, or creationism. To clear things
> > up in the future, lets refer to that which doesn't depend on logical proof
> > and that which does and avoid the word faith instead of playing this
> > semantic game.
>
> OK. Again, you're assuming things that I haven't said, done, or even implied.
> Find where I've argued against evolution.
No, I didn't say that. Read the text you are refering to directly above.
> PLEASE find it, because I'll start
> believing in miracles. I feel that evolution is currently the most feasable
> explanation for life happening, and certainly is much more sensible inherently
> than creation arguments. But that has diddly squat to do with what we've been
> talking about. (Ok, the thread's been erroniously named for a while)
Okay. Then why are you bothering to argue? We have nothing further to discuss.
>
> What I am trying to state (no implications at all, thanks) is that at some
> level, everything that we "know" as true is in fact believed as true, because
> it may be overturned or changed.
Ummmmm, yes, I have mentioned that more than once. Science is a no-faith
proposition.
> Anyone who is not constantly challanging
> every aspect of the world around them (99.999% of people, including me) is
> operating under assumptions, choosing to accept what they sense, and what they
> think.
No, they accept it because it produces results consistent with other's
observations. And as to the 99.999%, they aren't trying to make a
scientific pronouncement. If you want to judge science, judge its
parameters not your parameters.
Given the sheer volume of information available today, the vast
> majority of what we do not directly experience goes unchallanged because it's
> not worth our time to challange. We either don't believe it, or we trust (that
> might be a less hot-button word) that constancy of environment applies, and
> things are as they seem. Most people, when not faced with extraordinary
> claims, are credulous.
>
> James
As noted, this doesn't apply.
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) <snip a lot> (...) Whoa... where do you draw the conclusion that #2 applies to me? I *really* think you're coming at this with a fairly large prejudice against "faith" in any form. Words can have different meanings in different contexts, and I (...) (23 years ago, 21-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
|
|
|
|
