The couple at the door
-
"Faith" is a word with several shades of meaning, and I think we are arguing semantics. (Or we would be if we were arguing :).)
ahz wrote:
Some people's definition of faith is: "to believe in something for which there is no evidence." That's not faith, that's stupidity. Faith requires evidence, often of an intangible sort.
Okay, let's say then that faith is based on internal evidence, not external, observable (by others), rational evidence. This explains how people of different religions can consider their evidence strongest and their conclusions correct. People can share a common faith, but the evidence is always personal, internal.
ahz wrote:
So for espeir to say that atheists have faith is a complete oxymoron.
Allow me to correct that for you: So for espeir to say that atheists have faith is a complete oxymoron. :)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Faith" is a word with several shades of meaning, and I think we are arguing semantics.
By faith in science I am referring to the fact that many atheists with less than total knowledge of a subject accept it as true having never seen it themselves (or read any details). For example...explain to me in detail the theory of relativity and present supporting evidence that leads you to believe that it is an accurate model of the universe. You can't, and yet I'd bet that you probably accept general relativity. Why? Because you have heard from others that it is accurate. That is a leap of faith as significant as religion's. Now if you actually came to know general relativity in great deal and you could make educated decisions as to whether you accept this or that aspect of it, then it would no longer be based on faith. Your opinion on it would have a true scientific basis. The same goes for all aspects of science. We are not omniscient and can never be certain that our perception of the universe or our beliefs that we hold are true without making leaps of faith of what we hear.
-
Nahh. Denying 150 years of evidence, extensively peer-reviewed hypotheses, and the resulting theories doesn't make you "the vilest creature on Earth". Given both that "vile" is a subjective quality, and the tremendous and varied number of creatures on the Earth, this would be impossible to support as a scientific hypothesis. It does, however, make you an idiot. I would further assert that there now exists a sufficient body of evidence, in this forum alone -- and exhaustively peer-reviewed, as well -- to support that conclusion to a near certainty. I'll also point out that, unlike ID, this conclusion is falsifiable. But, frankly, I don't see that happening.
I never denied evolution, and in fact accept it as true. What I abhor is when people defend it as irrefuatble. It's science and meant to be refutable. To treat it the way you do is a disservice to science. It is my intention to keep religion out of science...That means to discourage people from treating it like a religion.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It does, however, make you an idiot.
It makes me more enlightened than you. You might understand that someday. You keep claiming peer-reviewed, but you have very little personal knowledge of what was peer reviewed. You simply accept what is told to you in a book with out thinking critically about it. You're too scared to ask questions and advance our knowledge about the subject. Sounds a lot like religion.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Faith" is a word with several shades of meaning, and I think we are arguing semantics.
By faith in science I am referring to the fact that many atheists with less than total knowledge of a subject accept it as true having never seen it themselves (or read any details). For example...explain to me in detail the theory of relativity and present supporting evidence that leads you to believe that it is an accurate model of the universe. You can't, and yet I'd bet that you probably accept general relativity. Why? Because you have heard from others that it is accurate. That is a leap of faith as significant as religion's. Now if you actually came to know general relativity in great deal and you could make educated decisions as to whether you accept this or that aspect of it, then it would no longer be based on faith. Your opinion on it would have a true scientific basis. The same goes for all aspects of science. We are not omniscient and can never be certain that our perception of the universe or our beliefs that we hold are true without making leaps of faith of what we hear.
espeir wrote:
That is a leap of faith as significant as religion's.
No, it isn't. Thanks to the scientific method, I can feel relatively secure that the hypothesize-experiment-review-publish process that has led to advance after advance, applied example upon applied example, is sound. Trust in the process leads to at least a level of trust in the results. I don't have to know jack about quantum theory to feel confident that, if it has been subjected to the scientific method and has been accepted by the whole of the scientific community, it is most likely valid. Faith, but not blind faith. Perhaps another way to state it would be that a number of people have a deep knowledge of quantum theory. An even greater number sussed the inner workings of a toaster oven. No one credible even claims to understand the mind of God. One is knowable, and known -- maybe not by me or you, but by someone trusted. The other is not, never has been, and never will be in this life (according to many religions). One is faith, the other is blind faith. If you'd like to see this stated many other ways, I'll refer you to all our previous "conversations" on the matter. If you respond to this message like you have the last...oh, ten or twelve times I've made this argument, please feel free to imagine me sitting at my desk and yawning in lieu of a response.
-
espeir wrote:
Sort of...
Explain, please. The very real name of the collquially-named "Mormon Church" is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Jesus is the Head of the Church.
Because I'm Catholic and any other Christian religions are only "sort of" Christian. :-D
-
espeir wrote:
That is a leap of faith as significant as religion's.
No, it isn't. Thanks to the scientific method, I can feel relatively secure that the hypothesize-experiment-review-publish process that has led to advance after advance, applied example upon applied example, is sound. Trust in the process leads to at least a level of trust in the results. I don't have to know jack about quantum theory to feel confident that, if it has been subjected to the scientific method and has been accepted by the whole of the scientific community, it is most likely valid. Faith, but not blind faith. Perhaps another way to state it would be that a number of people have a deep knowledge of quantum theory. An even greater number sussed the inner workings of a toaster oven. No one credible even claims to understand the mind of God. One is knowable, and known -- maybe not by me or you, but by someone trusted. The other is not, never has been, and never will be in this life (according to many religions). One is faith, the other is blind faith. If you'd like to see this stated many other ways, I'll refer you to all our previous "conversations" on the matter. If you respond to this message like you have the last...oh, ten or twelve times I've made this argument, please feel free to imagine me sitting at my desk and yawning in lieu of a response.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No, it isn't. Thanks to the scientific method, I can feel relatively secure that the hypothesize-experiment-review-publish process that has led to advance after advance, applied example upon applied example, is sound. Trust in the process leads to at least a level of trust in the results. I don't have to know jack about quantum theory to feel confident that, if it has been subjected to the scientific method and has been accepted by the whole of the scientific community, it is most likely valid. Faith, but not blind faith.
Yes it is. As an example...Quantum theory is definately not universally accepted. It is expected to eventually be replaced by a grand unification theory that explains the differences between it and general relativity. So, in fact, you've just placed faith in a theory that is not even entirely accepted. Further, you are placing faith in the method and the people who perform it, without having any first hand knowledge of experiments in quantum mechanics and what their outcomes actually mean. Same thing as religion. Ask any TRUE scientist what they think about quantum mechanics and, unless they specialize in the field, they will approach it questionably.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Perhaps another way to state it would be that a number of people have a deep knowledge of quantum theory. An even greater number sussed the inner workings of a toaster oven. No one credible even claims to understand the mind of God. One is knowable, and known -- maybe not by me or you, but by someone trusted. The other is not, never has been, and never will be in this life (according to many religions). One is faith, the other is blind faith.
You have first hand experience with a toaster oven. You do not have first hand experience with a partical accelerator. you may not know how a toaster works, but with first hand knowledge, you can state that it will toast bread. That is the limitation of your knowledge and any further assumptions are based on the faith of others' words. You have no such knowledge of partical accelerators and you therefore have to rely on the experiments of others.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If you respond to this message like you have the last...oh, ten or twelve times I've made this argument, please feel free to imagine me sitting at my desk and yawning in lieu of a response.
I keep demonstating how yo
-
I never denied evolution, and in fact accept it as true. What I abhor is when people defend it as irrefuatble. It's science and meant to be refutable. To treat it the way you do is a disservice to science. It is my intention to keep religion out of science...That means to discourage people from treating it like a religion.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It does, however, make you an idiot.
It makes me more enlightened than you. You might understand that someday. You keep claiming peer-reviewed, but you have very little personal knowledge of what was peer reviewed. You simply accept what is told to you in a book with out thinking critically about it. You're too scared to ask questions and advance our knowledge about the subject. Sounds a lot like religion.
espeir wrote:
I never denied evolution, and in fact accept it as true. What I abhor is when people defend it as irrefuatble. It's science and meant to be refutable. To treat it the way you do is a disservice to science. It is my intention to keep religion out of science...That means to discourage people from treating it like a religion.
Of course it's refutable, you idiot. No one has argued that is isn't refutable. Everyone beating their heads against that brick wall you have in place of a mind has asserted that everything in science is refutable, and nothing in religion is, while you've been saying that evolution is no less refutable than ID. That's insane, and that's been the argument. I suggest you revisit your past yammerings and verify this.
espeir wrote:
It makes me more enlightened than you. You might understand that someday. You keep claiming peer-reviewed, but you have very little personal knowledge of what was peer reviewed. You simply accept what is told to you in a book with out thinking critically about it. You're too scared to ask questions and advance our knowledge about the subject. Sounds a lot like religion.
You're right, those scientific journals can't be trusted. You've stumbled upon the secret conspiracy of peers, from all over the world, in all different disciplines, on all different subjects, purely for the purpose of advancing the religion of science and misleading the unwashed masses into sending them on research trips to the Carribean. Gee, now I'm not sure what to think of the latest cosmological hypothesis -- does espeir's head contain a black hole as was previously conjectured, or could it instead contain a dark energy star? One would definitely explain the density and the inability of light to escape, but the argument for it containing nothing but an energetic vacuum is equally compelling. I guess we wait for further evidence...
-
Because I'm Catholic and any other Christian religions are only "sort of" Christian. :-D
espeir wrote:
Because I'm Catholic
Fair enough.
-
Nahh. Denying 150 years of evidence, extensively peer-reviewed hypotheses, and the resulting theories doesn't make you "the vilest creature on Earth". Given both that "vile" is a subjective quality, and the tremendous and varied number of creatures on the Earth, this would be impossible to support as a scientific hypothesis. It does, however, make you an idiot. I would further assert that there now exists a sufficient body of evidence, in this forum alone -- and exhaustively peer-reviewed, as well -- to support that conclusion to a near certainty. I'll also point out that, unlike ID, this conclusion is falsifiable. But, frankly, I don't see that happening.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
conclusion is falsifiable
What does it mean to have a "falsifiable" conclusion, theory, etc? I don't understand.
-
espeir wrote:
I never denied evolution, and in fact accept it as true. What I abhor is when people defend it as irrefuatble. It's science and meant to be refutable. To treat it the way you do is a disservice to science. It is my intention to keep religion out of science...That means to discourage people from treating it like a religion.
Of course it's refutable, you idiot. No one has argued that is isn't refutable. Everyone beating their heads against that brick wall you have in place of a mind has asserted that everything in science is refutable, and nothing in religion is, while you've been saying that evolution is no less refutable than ID. That's insane, and that's been the argument. I suggest you revisit your past yammerings and verify this.
espeir wrote:
It makes me more enlightened than you. You might understand that someday. You keep claiming peer-reviewed, but you have very little personal knowledge of what was peer reviewed. You simply accept what is told to you in a book with out thinking critically about it. You're too scared to ask questions and advance our knowledge about the subject. Sounds a lot like religion.
You're right, those scientific journals can't be trusted. You've stumbled upon the secret conspiracy of peers, from all over the world, in all different disciplines, on all different subjects, purely for the purpose of advancing the religion of science and misleading the unwashed masses into sending them on research trips to the Carribean. Gee, now I'm not sure what to think of the latest cosmological hypothesis -- does espeir's head contain a black hole as was previously conjectured, or could it instead contain a dark energy star? One would definitely explain the density and the inability of light to escape, but the argument for it containing nothing but an energetic vacuum is equally compelling. I guess we wait for further evidence...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Of course it's refutable, you idiot. No one has argued that is isn't refutable.
Because that issue has never been discussed.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Everyone beating their heads against that brick wall you have in place of a mind has asserted that everything in science is refutable, and nothing in religion is, while you've been saying that evolution is no less refutable than ID.
Wrong. Everyone gas defended evolution and refused to allow it to be challenged. You have, as a leap of faith, accepted evolution as irrefutable.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
That's insane, and that's been the argument. I suggest you revisit your past yammerings and verify this.
I suggest the same to you. Every argument thus far (especially your own) is that evolution is irrefutable. Whenever I say that it is a theory and subject to change, your reponse (see above) is always "150 years of evidence...". There was more evidence than that of Newtownian physics and look how that turned out. You, like all the others who treat science as a religion, stonewall advancement by preventing any challenge to a theory via political means.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You're right, those scientific journals can't be trusted. You've stumbled upon the secret conspiracy of peers, from all over the world, in all different disciplines, on all different subjects, purely for the purpose of advancing the religion of science and misleading the unwashed masses into sending them on research trips to the Carribean.
Actually, if you've ever been involved in science (and go ahead and ask any professor) you'll be shocked to learn that their whole goal is to publish interesting science so that they can receive more grants. That's basically how science as a profession works. That said, journals can be trusted for what they are...individual experiments. But pick up a 10 year old medical journal and see how much of that is "true" today. Broad theory (those things you place your faith in) have nothing to do with quarterly journals.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Gee, now I'm not sure what to think of the latest cosmological hypothesis -- does espeir's head contain a black hole as was previously conjectured, or could it instead contain a dark energy star? One would d
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
conclusion is falsifiable
What does it mean to have a "falsifiable" conclusion, theory, etc? I don't understand.
A theory is just a model that fits the current body of empirical data. If new data comes along that contradicts the model, then the model is discarded, and a new one is constructed that better fits the new data. Any scientific theory is subject to being refuted by new evidence. A theory is not considered scientific unless it (among other criteria) could be shown to be false by new evidence. Intelligent Design, for example, cannot be falsified. It asserts a designer, the existence of which must be taken on faith.
-
A theory is just a model that fits the current body of empirical data. If new data comes along that contradicts the model, then the model is discarded, and a new one is constructed that better fits the new data. Any scientific theory is subject to being refuted by new evidence. A theory is not considered scientific unless it (among other criteria) could be shown to be false by new evidence. Intelligent Design, for example, cannot be falsified. It asserts a designer, the existence of which must be taken on faith.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A theory is just a model that fits the current body of empirical data.
I'm proud of you! You're making progress! Slowly...but surely.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Intelligent Design, for example, cannot be falsified. It asserts a designer, the existence of which must be taken on faith.
Actually, while not science per se, I think your statement is false (at least based on what I know about what ID is). I think it asserts that the creation of life is too complex a process to be created naturally, which therefore means that there was external assistance for formation. That appears to me to be a challenge to evolutionists to demonstrate that life is not too complicated to have formed naturally, rather than a non-falsifiable theory. The appropriate response to such a theory would be to either demonstrate that life did indeed evolve per the theory of evolution or accept that ID is a possible opposing theory that needs evidence to back it up.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Mormons
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
not the Christians
Mormons are Christians
ahz wrote:
Mormons are Christians
Not exactly the same. If anything they are more like a subset of Christains, but the two believe in totally different things. Jeremy Falcon
-
A theory is just a model that fits the current body of empirical data. If new data comes along that contradicts the model, then the model is discarded, and a new one is constructed that better fits the new data. Any scientific theory is subject to being refuted by new evidence. A theory is not considered scientific unless it (among other criteria) could be shown to be false by new evidence. Intelligent Design, for example, cannot be falsified. It asserts a designer, the existence of which must be taken on faith.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A theory is not considered scientific unless it (among other criteria) could be shown to be false by new evidence.
I'm not sure that's quite correct. Perhaps semantic problem. According to wikipedia "Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false." (emphasis mine) Does that mean the theory itself must state it explicitly, or does that mean the theory must be formulated in such a manner or be of such a nature so that others can submit tests against the theory to "verify" it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Intelligent Design, for example, cannot be falsified
That would make it "unscientific", but not necessarily untrue. (Again according to wikipedia)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It asserts a designer, the existence of which must be taken on faith.
Does it really require faith? It seems ID is saying that some things are too complex to be explained by evolution so someone must've designed it. All one must do then is to explain one of the too-complex-things to show that ID is false according to "Naive Falsification". If that is the case, then ID is falsifiable and is a "scientific" theory. --- Anyway, the whole idea of falsifiability seems a bit strange to me -- seems you would rather want to prove what is true. I understand what is trying to be accomplished with falsifiability, though. If you can prove a theory false, then you move on to something better, hopefully. Eventually though, I think it might be possible to find or observe things that are impossible to explain. One could then postulate that humans simply aren't evolved or advanced enough. Which would lead one to wonder if there is something more advanced than humans who could understand the "impossible to explain" thing. Which would make you wonder if there were things that would be impossible for these extra-human brainiacs to explain. Eventually you continue on with this and begin to wonder if there isn't some "super-intelligent super-being" called "God".
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A theory is just a model that fits the current body of empirical data.
I'm proud of you! You're making progress! Slowly...but surely.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Intelligent Design, for example, cannot be falsified. It asserts a designer, the existence of which must be taken on faith.
Actually, while not science per se, I think your statement is false (at least based on what I know about what ID is). I think it asserts that the creation of life is too complex a process to be created naturally, which therefore means that there was external assistance for formation. That appears to me to be a challenge to evolutionists to demonstrate that life is not too complicated to have formed naturally, rather than a non-falsifiable theory. The appropriate response to such a theory would be to either demonstrate that life did indeed evolve per the theory of evolution or accept that ID is a possible opposing theory that needs evidence to back it up.
espeir wrote:
Vincent Reynolds wrote: A theory is just a model that fits the current body of empirical data. I'm proud of you! You're making progress! Slowly...but surely.
espeir wrote:
ID is a possible opposing theory that needs evidence to back it up
These two statements contradict each other. A theory is based on evidence, yet you're saying ID is a theory that needs evidence.
-
ahz wrote:
Mormons are Christians
Not exactly the same. If anything they are more like a subset of Christains, but the two believe in totally different things. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
two believe in totally different things
Can you give me an example?
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
two believe in totally different things
Can you give me an example?
Well, they believe in modifying/adding to the Bible (check out the Book of Mormon). Calthilics have done this too in the past though, but most other Christians find that completely wrong. Also, there's the door-to-door thing, which this joke was kinda poking fun of. I don't know how that got started, but it sure is annoying to have someone knock on your door when you're relaxing. Jeremy Falcon
-
Well, they believe in modifying/adding to the Bible (check out the Book of Mormon). Calthilics have done this too in the past though, but most other Christians find that completely wrong. Also, there's the door-to-door thing, which this joke was kinda poking fun of. I don't know how that got started, but it sure is annoying to have someone knock on your door when you're relaxing. Jeremy Falcon
Hmm. According to them, the Book of Mormon is just another book of scripture, not an addition to the Bible. Just like the New Testament is an addition to the Old Testament. In fact, it wasn't until faily recent times that the New Testament letters were gathered together and put in book form. And then joined (or added) to the Old Testament to form the Bible or "the Book".
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
door-to-door thing
Yeah, I can see how that would be annoying.
-
it's diatribe against cristians, muslims, jews and other God believing people.
Seeing that Judaism isn't missioning I guess you can exclude jews... "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
espeir wrote:
have Christians
i think you mean "hate Christians".
espeir wrote:
were a kid
he's still juvenile.
No, I'm sure he meant 'have'. You know in like 'I can't com to work, I have the Flu'. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A theory is not considered scientific unless it (among other criteria) could be shown to be false by new evidence.
I'm not sure that's quite correct. Perhaps semantic problem. According to wikipedia "Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false." (emphasis mine) Does that mean the theory itself must state it explicitly, or does that mean the theory must be formulated in such a manner or be of such a nature so that others can submit tests against the theory to "verify" it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Intelligent Design, for example, cannot be falsified
That would make it "unscientific", but not necessarily untrue. (Again according to wikipedia)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It asserts a designer, the existence of which must be taken on faith.
Does it really require faith? It seems ID is saying that some things are too complex to be explained by evolution so someone must've designed it. All one must do then is to explain one of the too-complex-things to show that ID is false according to "Naive Falsification". If that is the case, then ID is falsifiable and is a "scientific" theory. --- Anyway, the whole idea of falsifiability seems a bit strange to me -- seems you would rather want to prove what is true. I understand what is trying to be accomplished with falsifiability, though. If you can prove a theory false, then you move on to something better, hopefully. Eventually though, I think it might be possible to find or observe things that are impossible to explain. One could then postulate that humans simply aren't evolved or advanced enough. Which would lead one to wonder if there is something more advanced than humans who could understand the "impossible to explain" thing. Which would make you wonder if there were things that would be impossible for these extra-human brainiacs to explain. Eventually you continue on with this and begin to wonder if there isn't some "super-intelligent super-being" called "God".
ahz wrote:
Does that mean the theory itself must state it explicitly, or does that mean the theory must be formulated in such a manner or be of such a nature so that others can submit tests against the theory to "verify" it.
The latter.
ahz wrote:
That would make it "unscientific", but not necessarily untrue. (Again according to wikipedia)
Correct. The controversy surrounding ID is entirely due to the fact that its proponents were/are pushing to have it taught as science. It may very well be true, but it isn't science.
ahz wrote:
Does it really require faith? It seems ID is saying that some things are too complex to be explained by evolution so someone must've designed it. All one must do then is to explain one of the too-complex-things to show that ID is false according to "Naive Falsification". If that is the case, then ID is falsifiable and is a "scientific" theory.
The concept of an "Intelligent Designer" is not on its face falsifiable. You can take it case by case, and case by case it may fall, but all the ID proponent needs to do is move on to another case. In other words, science defines a theory to explain a system. ID, while asserting nothing based on scientific evidence, insists that every flaw in competing theories be resolved in order to disprove ID. That's not how science works.
ahz wrote:
Anyway, the whole idea of falsifiability seems a bit strange to me -- seems you would rather want to prove what is true. I understand what is trying to be accomplished with falsifiability, though. If you can prove a theory false, then you move on to something better, hopefully. Eventually though, I think it might be possible to find or observe things that are impossible to explain. One could then postulate that humans simply aren't evolved or advanced enough. Which would lead one to wonder if there is something more advanced than humans who could understand the "impossible to explain" thing. Which would make you wonder if there were things that would be impossible for these extra-human brainiacs to explain. Eventually you continue on with this and begin to wonder if there isn't some "super-intelligent super-being" called "God".
Actually, you don't have to look that far to find things that science can't explain. Just change the question from "what" and "how" to "why" an