Any Christians on the Forum? I was wanting to do some Rational Responding.
Posted on: February 14, 2008 - 3:35pm
Offline
Any Christians on the Forum? I was wanting to do some Rational Responding.
The subject line says it all.
If you accept Jesus as your savior and you think you have a strong argument or solid evidence bring it on.
I promise to be open minded, but I must warn you that reason and evidence to me are the final arbiters of truth.
Your life is a love story!
- Login to post comments
[edit out]
Hah. "By default.."
Yes..
ar·ro·gant /ˈærəgənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ar-uh-guhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
2. characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.
I do not believe in the God figure thor. I do not claim that my claim is of "superior importance" then someone else's claim, e.g. claiming his belief is absurd.
I'm sorry if you don't understand simple prescriptive use of language.. but you don't. I didn't want to sugar coat it so I figured I would come right out and say it.
(Notice how easy it is to be arrogant? I just did it right there.. of course, it didn't really serve much in the purpose of this argument).
My claim that "all claims are equal" is by definition.. not arrogant. It forbids an assumption that any claim, including itself, could ever be superior to others.
Even so, my "claim" that "all claims are equal," even if that is how it might best be described, I'm not sure it is, is just an argument, a piece of a conversational debate. If it falls apart, alright then--then I move on an learn something else.
All beliefs are relatively equal in my mind, my belief. Does that mean I won't share my thoughts on the matter? Of course not, because I do believe there to be some "absolute truth" in the world.. one that can only be reached through discussion or observation. If it happens to be the "atheistic worldview"--so be it, I'm surely not going to find it by keeping mum on the issue or by arrogantly professing my belief to be absolutely truth or "superior" to other beliefs.
Even under this defeinition, the atheist does not require faith, nor can it be assumed that the athiest has faith from his or her actions. Actions that stem from a belief in reality are not "non-consistent" with actions that stem from a belief in no reality. (Yes, there are actions that a "no-reality" person might perform that would be inconsistent with a "reality" person's actions).
Further, just becuase you think an act might not have consequences doesn't mean that you will do it anyway. If someone believes that actions might have consequences, but might not, the "smart" thing to do would probably be to act as if they do. This doesn't require belief that they actually will. So, a person who believes that he might be the only person might act as if he is not because he knows that it is also possible that he is not.
There is still no faith there; no assumptions are required.
My point is that the hypotheticals are not representative of the question. The question is not about someone who believes he is the only person who exists. The question is about someone who believes it's possible that he is the only person who exists, but also realizes that other people might exist.
Such feelings aren't based on reality. It's quite possible to feel bad about doing something harmful, only to discover later that no one was actually harmed, at which point there is no more bad feeling.
I still don't see any faith.
And that would make you not only a lier but an idiot as well for attempting such a blatant lie.
Ok, so by your standard if all beliefs are equal, then I could litteraly fart a Lamborginni out of my ass, merely because I believe I can. So by default, farting a Lamborginni out of my ass by proxy of mere beleif is equal to the FACT of gravity and evolution?
One can believe that they will win American Idol, but only one will win. So not all beliefs are equal. And beyond that is that there is a differance between belief and knowlege.
I am smart enough to KNOW that only one person will win American Idol. The deluded person commits suicide when they dont.
You know damned well that belief in Thor is absurd. You are stuck in a Mr Rogers atmosphere where Rodney King says , 'Cant we all just get along"
And as nice as the "cant we all just get along" is, doesnt chage the fact that hocus pocus doesnt exist and Superman vs Kriptonite is merely a utopian projection of humans.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Best response I've ever had. Thank you.
Yet..
Like I said, if "for an intents and purposes" actions are consistent with "other people exist"--what does it matter whether you "think they might not"?
How are feelings that "you might be doing something bad" not based upon reality? How can you "do something bad" and have it not based upon reality?
It might be that you're saying "not based upon what is actually true." In this case, yes, I would agree. Nevertheless, I would still posit that the position is still not undercut here.. a "feeling of badness," within the hypotheticals, is still based upon a belief that others are independent individuals.
It is not, as you hypothetical suggests, based upon "time X perspective" that is changed by "time Y perspective." The belief that other people are independent entities is the very baseline of all these other assumptions.
Yet, since you said you're merely addressing the person who acts one way yet concedes their "might be the other".. so let me go back to this one.
And what I am saying is.. if he acts as if other people DO exist.. what does it matter what he "thinks might be possible?"
If he acts as if other people DON'T exist.. what does it matter if he "thinks people might actually exist"?
Actions are all that are important. And in a case like this, where actions are, IMO, fundamentally affected by the "presumption"--it takes "faith" to act in one way and not the other.
It is, in essence, the argument many people on this forum use a lot against Pascal's Wager, just by flipping it around:
What you are saying is:
If non-solipsism true, then gain everything (because you're correct, and there is some inherent goodness to respecting other peoples rights). If non-solipsism is not true, then lose nothing (which, in pascal's wager, is the part that is attacked so much. This second presumption).
So... it's flipped.
If solipsism false, then lose nothing (because, to a certain extent you cannot control the world, therefore must live by its rules and the consequences inherent in its structure). If solipsism true, then gain everything (because there will be freedom from internal moral constraints which inhibit us from taking advantage of opportunites sometimes).
Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding your counterargument.. so, I will continue and try to. Apologies if that is the case.
Well.. by definition belief /= fact. What I was said, as you quoted, is that beliefs = beliefs.
True be it.. that I perhaps said "claim" in parts of my post, when I should have said "belief"-- so let this stand as correction for that. A belief is a claim.. not all claims are beliefs. Still, even with regards to claims, I will not "judge one as absurd"--merely by fiat. If someone claims that he can fart a lamborginni.. so be it. I suppose he has his reasons. If I was interested in them, I'd ask. But that doesn't change MY belief that my belief in evolution and gravity have applications that seem to me to be relevant to the world--while the farting of a lamborginni, unless his reasons are sufficient for me, doesn't.
There is a different between thinking that a belief is more relevant then another and "making a claim" or "pretension" that mine is. One is arrogance, the other is necessary in order to hold any belief whatsoever.
Another correction, of my previous post, I made a statement that "by definition a claim that all claims are relatively equal cannot be arrogant." This might not be entirely true.. so if someone wishes to argue that point, feel free, but I won't defend the position much.
So, in conclusion, let me agree, and clarify, that a belief, of course, does not change reality. There is a truth. There are beliefs. Beliefs /= truth. Beliefs (relatively) = other beliefs.
so then get to the point already
If God didn't want atheists than we wouldn't exist..
If doubt makes me a sudo-theist, I guess I'll have to live with that. I've never been able to say "I know God exists and there is absolutely no doubt that he does not."
As for "my point"--like I said before, I wasn't making an argument for "strong christianity"--my point thus far has merely been to address one other persons response who said "where does an atheist have faith"--I tried to make an argument that he/she does in at least one respect.
Granted, its a common assumption, but when that can be only held on faith alone since it is "not based on proof."
In other words, I'm not trying to prove Christianity, merely trying to address some concerns I have in the discussion between atheist/theist to begin with. I don't know how one can have a valid discussion when one side views the other as "stupid" or the person absurd merely because they have "faith" in something. Tis true, I suppose one can claim that he/she feels a certain "faith" is absurd.. but to consider a person holding "faith" absurd per se, doesn't seem, to me, to be helpful in the discussion.
Rhad,
I have to give you props for having this thought out so much. I really do. I don't think I ever pondered things as much as you have when I was a theist.
The only thing I have to say right now is that you and I already agreed that faith is belief without evidence.
But you also agree that we all take physical evidence into our deicision making.
This has to be different from faith.
Do you see what I'm trying to say?
Your life is a love story!
Contingent faith has historical evidence. Religious faith has no evidence.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Contingent faith is subject to inductive logic
wouldn't you like to know there is a difference in the truth of what you believe compared to a suicide bomber or Mormon? I know you just "take it on Faith" (since you have "run out" of logic),but......
so do they.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
Faith can be without proof. It does not necessarily disappear with it. My definition stated that it was not *based* on proof.
Onto your question.
I can see what you're trying to say, I think. Do you mean to say that we take physical evidence into all decision making? Or specifically with regard to our discussion of solipsism/non-solipsism?
If the former, then yes--of course we do. Would I call it faith? No, because using physical evidence to make decisions in a world that is, to a large extent, outside of our control, not only seems praticable but also wise. Whether or not solipsism/nonsolipsism, physical evidence suggests the same things and is a good basis for the "scientific method."
However, when addressing the central question about whether physical evidence can be used to support solipsism/nonsolipsism, I would contend that it support both equally. Agreed? yes/no?
Furthermore, if it does support both equally, I would contend that it takes faith to accept one over the other as true. Agreed? yes/no?
I think we do.. but maybe not. I think the main point of contention that is coming up here is whether or not a person still has faith if he acts consistent with nonsolipsism, disgards the possible benefits that could come from acting consistent with solipsism, although he admits solipsism "might be" true.
But you have said that since we experience a world outside of our control it is a good indication that Solipsism is not true, which tips the balance towards Non-S. I don't think you make a decision in a vaccuum or based on each individual item, but on a collection of data.
Iff all things were equal in the S vs. N-S debate, then we could agree that it is a kind of leap of faith. However, since we all (most people, anyhow) agree that Sol. is not a likely case, we have little reason to accept that one leap of faith (if it is) allows more leaps of faith. (Not that it becomes an argument from popularity, but that no on, except a few, are really entertaining the idea, whereas billions have considered the question of God. Likewise, no one is debating whether it is time to change my socks, but the absolute truth of the matter still exists).
That is, say Sol. vs. N-S is a leap of Faith, that doesn't mean other leaps are warrented. Plus, as you have said, there is evidence (and very convincing evidence) against Sol., which renders the whole thing rather moot. Except in strictly philosophical circles.
Yes, Solipsism may be true, but it is unlikely. And, since we have no way of knowing truths absolutely, we must make the best inference we can of all the data. There is even a system to assess the quality of explanations, a la, Peter Carruthers.
That said, ANY philosophy MIGHT be true, so if we are stuck on the problem of whether Solipsism is true or not, then how do you suggest we have the ability to determine anything? Faith? How does that help us determine anything? It seems you are comfortable to use logic in the S vs. N-S case ("world outside our control" = N-S.), but you then suggest that IF there is equal weight, then we must take it on Faith.
Which is it?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
With proof it ceases to be faith. Unless you move the goal posts, and say you believe in some new non-sequitur supposedly related to the now-confirmed thing.
The fact that "there is a world that seems to be outside of your control" is not evidence that leads to non-solipsism over solipsism. Consider for a moment your own ability to change "sub conscious" elements of your mind--or even the very fundamental methods by which your mind functions--can you change either of these things?
Does that somehow mean they are not a product of your mind?
Solipsism could equally account for a "part of the world that seems outside of your control."
So.. once again, I would posit, that S v. N.S. are equivalent. Unless you can give a bit of "convincing evidence" that suggests one over the other.
No.. all it would mean is that your "faith" in the object is not based upon proof. For instance, if one has "faith" in the existence of black holes--all this would suggest is that even if there were no evidence or if there was contradicting evidence, he would still have a "belief in black holes."
This is how I interpret the use of the word *based on* with regards to faiths definition, "a belief not *based on* evidence."
Acknowledging evidence contradicts a non-contingent position. You can have faith which is non-contingent, or you can acknowledge evidence, and therefore contingency. Once evidence is regarded, supportive or not, it ceases to be faith. You're not reconciling the two positions by acknowledging evidence, and saying you'd believe regardless, you're merely alternating between two positions.
I'm afraid you're going to have to explain more on that one Mag because I don't understand what you're saying. Not saying that I can't.. merely that it's not clear to me yet.
So, there is non-contingent faith and contigent faith.. and the difference is? and which one ceases to be faith? or both? whether or not there is supportive evidence or not?
Not two kinds of faith, just the typical definition of religious faith; which is defined as non-contingent. This is a belief that is held regardless, truly regardless, of evidence even as a possibility. It is the assertion that something is simply so, and that's that. Otherwise you have someone with a tentative belief, saying they have faith; yet they'll look at evidence, "Hmm, could it be proof? No, no, that's not it. Back to my default position of faith." This is alternating between a regard and disregard for evidence.
I guess this is where you and me would have to disagree. I don't know where you have gotten your definition for "religious faith," I certain don't have a source for mine, but speaking specifically from my own personal perspective and my personal "faith," is certainly not a belief that is held "regardless of evidence even as a possibility."
...I'm not even sure if I understand that correctly. Why would someone believe something if he didn't believe "evidence for it was even a possibility"?
Not wanting to get to much into semantics.. and I may have undercut my position to much alread by conceeding things I usually don't conceed. But what exactly is your definition of "proof"? Because, you seem to be using proof = evidence interchangeably. If that is the case.. that faith is "belief not based upon evidence"--then I think that is slightly different argument on my part to make..
Regarding evidence implies contingency, contingency contradicts faith. You either believe, in which case whatever evidentiary claims that follow are irrelevant, or you're open to evidence, meaning you don't have faith. Like I said, it is one or the other, and alternating between the two doesn't reconcile them.
Evidence versus proof is a question of degrees, both of which are irrelevant if faith is upheld; and faith is necessary because neither are obtained.
Just for a little perspective for all of us I thought I would look up faith in the dictionary nearest to me.
faith (n)
1. a)allegiance to duty or a person: Loyalty. b) fideliy to one's promises. Sincerity of intentions.
2. a) belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion. Belief and tryst in and loyalty to God. b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Complete trust.
3.) Something that is believed with strong conviction.
This is taken from Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictonary 10th Ed.
1993.
Just thought that would lend us all a little perspective.
Your life is a love story!
This is just gibberish as far as I'm able to parse it. Are you saying that promise of heaven represented by Jesus is immune to rational inquiry? If so, how can you know that it exists?
So your saviour Jesus is really nothing more than a good orator that said some memorable stuff. I'm fine with that if you are.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Two things. From where do you base your assertion that "contigency contradicts faith" or any other number of assertions made in the statement. Linguistical, historical, scientific, something which supports the assertions.. otherwise you're asking me to accept what you're trying to argue, i.e. begging the question.
Secondly, "regarding evidence implies contigency" means? Are you meaning to say, "if one regards evidence then it implies that his belief is contigent on something"?
In echo of mindcore's perspective post. Here is the definition from Random Unabridged Dictionary from dictionary.com.
faith
/feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
Non Contingent faith is belief even in the face of contradicting evidence or no evidence
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
If you had to refute the baseless fallacy that atheists must have faith as often as I have, you would be getting a little testy, too. I HATE being accused of having faith because, IMO, it is one of the dumbest things that people can have.
Rhad, this is just stupid. Now you are trying to argue that people might have faith even if they don't think they do just by acting like they do? So having faith is simply appearing to believe something? So, if I'm playing poker and I appear to believe that I have the best hand, I actually have faith that I have the best hand, according to you?
You are full of it. You can't assign a kind of unconscious, unwilling faith to atheists because they appear, to you, to accept certain propositions without inquiry. You have to show that they really hold, in their minds, those propositions without evidence or in violation of evidence that refutes the proposition.
You think I go sit in a chair without testing it first because I have faith that it will hold me. I'm here to tell you that I have no faith that it will hold me: I just sit in chairs without testing because a) people don't tend to keep broken chairs around and b) it is impractical to test every chair I'm going to sit in. So what you call faith by implication is really just observation and logic and not faith at all.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I'm bothered by the assertion that faith is de facto dumb.
You're basing your decision on probability. Probability tends to support one conclusion. Therefore you have evidence for your belief. (I'm going to use proof and evidence interchangeably here.. since, IMO, they are according to definition, and it would seem mag agrees to some degree). Therefore, your "belief that you have the best hand" is based upon "proof"--ergo, not "faith."
On a secondary point, yes. If someone "claims they don't believe something" yet acts consistent with that belief--I would say their claim is inconsequential.
That is what I'm trying to show. Evidence, def., "something which tends to prove something." Back to my ORIGINAL argument/question.. show me one piece of evidence which supports non-solipsism over solipsism which does cannot equally be used to support solipsism over non-solipsism.
I contend you cannot.
Fine, if you're argument is that "atheist don't have to believe either or"--fine. Then we just come to a difference of opinion.. I personally think that a persons actions speak louder than his claims. I can claim "I am not going to punch you" and then punch you, so what does it matter what I claim?
There are places where my argument can be attacked, by showing that:
(1) there is evidence which tends to prove solipsism more than non-solipsism (therefore, one is "more likely" than the other);
(2) a person can act in a way which disgards the benefits of one worldview and take advantage of an alternative worldview, yet still remain "non-commital" to either worldview;
(3) faith means something other than belief not based upon proof;
(4) some other thing.
But to this point nothing seems to be addressing any of these points.. all that is being said are assertions such as "S is more supported by evidence then NS"--which then lead to other arguments that are based upon this presumption, e.g., "so if I believe, through probability, that I have better hand, or because of "past experience," then that is faith?"
Well then.. those would both have evidence tending to prove the belief.. ergo, not faith.
As for your chair analogy.. by your own admission.. it is based upon probability, e.g., "people don't tend to keep broken chairs around." Ergo, isn't analogous to my argument... unless you are suggesting that probability would tend to support S v. N.S.
You might say.. "well my second supporting argument was not based upon probability, was just rationality." But the "rationale" of "it wouldn't be efficient to test every chair" would not be rationale if there was no "probability" with regards to how many broken chairs there are to proper chairs. If 99 chairs were broken per 100.. the rationale certainly wouldn't hold up. So, once again, based upon probability, based upon evidence, ergo, not faith.
In hopes to understand you better.. please place the word "contigent" with one of the following definitions, except 8, since that would just be redundant:
con·tin·gent
/kənˈtɪn
dʒənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh
n-tin-juh
nt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective
Now you're just irritating me.
One of your own definitions places religious faith in the category of non-contingent belief. Many Christians accept this definition, and those who do not have failed to produce a meaningful alternate definition. Perhaps you can be the first.
If the 'virtue' of faith is believing something without evidence, one cannot be waiting for something better to come along. The evaluation of evidence must allow for the contingency that it contradicts one's preexisting beliefs. If one is open to contrary evidence, how can one justify a belief based on none?
Apologies.. but I'm really trying to understand. You're not the only one using this phrase.. contingent faith.. and, I've never heard of it before. So I'm just trying to get a grasp of it..
"...not based on evidence." Why do I have to keep pointing this out. Why can't people stick to the words that I use just to make me happy? If you think they mean the same thing, then it makes no difference to you. And if they don't mean the same thing, well then, you have to bring another dictionary that supports your definition. As it is, the def. is "not based on proof."
True. Yet, I am saying that "faith" does not require the evaluation of evidence to be held. Does that mean that it cannot, for the sake of argument, be evaluated? Of course not.
For instance, I have suggested that my "God belief" would be changed if for one day there was no raping, killing, death due to starvation or international conflict or domestic terrorism. Apart from that, my "faith" accounts for every single piece of "evidence" that can be thrown at it. It does not "ignore" contradictory evidence, the evidence is a part of the "God belief" construct. In the SAME WAY as non-solipsism uses all evidence in order to "support it" even though it can equally support solipsism, so I use "evidence." Does that mean my faith is based upon evidence? No. Because, at the same time that I use it to "fit into" my belief.. so I realize that it "fits into" other beliefs.
Justified only by the whim of personal feeling. If we consider "personal feelings" evidence, then this whole conversation is meaingless. I don't think it will be..
Feelings, can always be overcome by "contradicting evidence"-- for instance, my feeling that God exist can be overcome by the scenario I mentioned earlier.
noncontingent faith has no basis for possibilty because there is no evidence of past occurrence
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Okay.. I'm going to have to read into it a little bit.
Are you saying "contigent faith" is faith that is dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; conditions (often following by on or upon)?
"Noncontigent faith" would therefor be "faith that is not dependent for existence, occurence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; conditions (often following by on or upon), i.e. self-sufficient?
I'm just plucking a definition from the list I copied and fitting it into the phrase "X faith."
I'm not introducing the term "contingent faith," nor do I recognize it. If I used that term, I misspoke. The distinction I'm drawing is between religious faith and contingent beliefs.
The evaluation of evidence, in allowing the possibility of contradiction, precludes religious faith. If something is true regardless one minute, and one stops to examine evidence the next, one is alternating between religious faith and contingent belief. I can think of no other way to say this.
That's not consistent with any definition of religious faith I know of. Perhaps you'd like to more formally define yours.
Non-solipsism, as in reality being as it appears, depends on reality appearing in some way. It has to appear, or 'exist.' The whole experience could be false, but it's not an idea that's apparent within the experience itself. There is no comparison between this and immaterial agencies either contradict or add nothing to an explanation of reality.
Again, you're just alternating between views. I suppose it would be special pleading.
Thanks for clarifying, Aiia.Just to be clear, I'm using the word "belief," paired with contingency, rather than "faith" to avoid equivocation between the different definitions.
Ah. Well that will definitely help out with thinks a bit.. because I was getting confused, partially, because of this.
And now I understand.
Well then.. I have a contingent belief in God.
While some might still consider what I have to be a belief.. I am comfortable with the proposition that it is merely a contingent belief. You have won me over. What I have been arguing this entire time has been "faith" as a common factor.. as opposed to a "contingent belief." While am not fully convinced that "faith" cannot encompass a "contingent belief"--at least now I understand from whence the argument can be derived from the definition "not based upon proof."
That being said.. I've only met a few people in my life that have "faith" as you define it.. for the most part, at least in the group I grew up with, I would venture to say they are all christians with "contingent beliefs."
If you want to keep going on this argument.. we can, I might need a clearer statement here though. However, we're already assuming that theism requires an "immaterial agency." I've been on here long enough to know that I can't concede this point without losing since the term 'immaterial" is meaningless.
Although.. I once did try to construct a positive ontology for it.. no one seemed to accept it, I'm not sure why. Immaterial = all things that are in time but not space.
Heh.. in any case. I've conceded a lot. So if the argument with regard to solipsism/non-solipsism comparison to theism (as a contingent belief)/atheism.. then so be it.
Nono.. just a conflation of language. I honest did not draw a distinction between a contingent belief and faith. For the sake of this argument and discussion (and probably for the rest of my time here on RRS) I will concede the point that they are different.
Okay Rhad,
I think we all understand what you mean by faith and belief now.
So could you define God for me?
Your life is a love story!
I would offer that those objections ARE convincing evidence that Solipsism is vastly more unlikely than, say, Naturalism.
The issue is to discover why you don't feel those objections are convincing - by what criteria do you judge explanations?
Then, as we see the other posters trying to clarify, that you rigorously hold to your definition of Faith so that it is meaningful in the way that you use it. I think this is another well-tread discussion and I would encourage you to strongly consider the other posters careful and rigorous attempts at defining the term.
After all, we are all aware that the strongest argument the Theist has is that "you must take it on Faith - that there is no convincing evidence of God".
If we accept your definition can you tell us WHY Faith would be a valuable tool to determine truth? Let's say that we take it on Faith that we are in a Non-Solipsism world (for sake of argument). Can you tell us why the Scientific method would cease to be of value? That determining between different explanations becomes impossible (or equal)? How many leaps of Faith must you make before you arrive at Theism? (Please don't say "one", because we know this isn't true). At what point do you stop making leaps of Faith (say, to Mormonism) - and why the distinction?
The problem I see is that you are trying to have it both ways: you want to be the pure skeptic and have Solipsism on the table, but then follow through a dizzying path of leaps of faith to Theism. You are trying to defend your belief by claiming that noone can have beliefs that are better than any other person. If you believe this, perhaps you can tell us what criteria you use to determine that Theism is more likely true than Solipsism?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
We are so fucked over with GOD shit,
Why asked a buddha .... ALL IS ONE ! wtf is with you people?
Thanks buddha , you rock !
Atheism Books.
Of course it is dumb. It is the purposeful shutting down of rational faculties. It automatically decreases analysis and critical inquiry. If being smart means thinking effectively, then having faith must mean being dumber since it means thinking less effectively.
All this is beside the point.
OK, back to my poker analogy. If I claim and act (by betting aggressively) as if I have the best hand, does that mean that I really believe that I have the best hand? According to you, it does!
You are leaving consideration of the subject's mental state out of your calculations.
I can. Solipsism results in death. It is self-refuting and invalid. A non-solipsist stance is necessary for life and therefore an a priori axiom in reason.
My argument is that an atheist has to form beliefs, but those beliefs do not have to rest on faith. So the question is not whether or not you claim you are going to punch me or even if you actually punch me but WHY you punch me. And you can't answer that question without reference to your mental state.
It is necessary to believe one and not the other in order to avoid self-contradiction.
I suppose this could refer to my stance. I act as though I believe many things are true but I hold no belief in the absolute truth of any of them. I hold the position that they are true, it doesn't mean they are in any sense outside of my head.
Faith doesn't refer to the belief itself, but rather the process by which one arrives at belief. Faith-based beliefs are held on principle, as a moral imperative, whereas evidence-based beliefs rely on logic and empirical observation.
OK, you are missing the point. I am pointing to an action that seems to be motivated by faith and all you are doing is coming up with non-faith based motivations for the action. This isn't getting us anywhere. Before we go further, tell me an action that, in your opinion, could only be motivated by faith. Remember, it is you that is claiming that actions are the same as beliefs.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
I've put some astericks next to the more important parts.. some of them may severely pre-empt the need for further discussion.
This whole section just begs the question.
faith -> dumb -> because decreases analysis and critical inquiry -> and being dumber means thinking less effectively -> i.e., its dumb because its dumb.
IMO, it's not.. I directly answered your question.
You're right. I did leave a hole in the sentence but one that I've covered in earlier posts--it is not the hole you suggest. My sentence should have more probably stated (as it has before) "If some "claims they don't believe something" yet whose actions are consistent *only* with that believe--then I would say their claim is inconsequential."***
This is the contention I have made throughout this thread.. my last summarization of this point was faulty but I correct it here. Now, to apply to your analogy.
No, it would not, because my contention does not apply.. if his actions of playing and betting aggressively are consistent with more than one belief, then it would not fulfill the requirement that I put forth.
How exactly does solipsism result in death? Solipsism, as I have contended earlier, changes nothing about reality except internal moral constraints.
Then same thing applies. Although not perfectly analogous:
I say I won't punch you for X. I punch you.
Certainly a possibility is that I punched you for X reason. Claims are irrelevant. And, as per my whole argument, if X reason is the *only* reason that I can have to punch you, then implicit in my punching you is the premise that I did it for X reason.
I would appreciate an argument for this.
I believe this is what alia and mag refer to as a contingent belief. Something which I have in God. I consider certain contingent beliefs to be faith.. such as my belief in God. Alia and Mag would disagree with me I suppose.. if you do, well then, I guess the whole argument is moot due to fundamental difference of definitive positions.*****************
See above. I don't see how faith, all of it, can be categorized in such a way. Certainly the religions of old were based upon empirical evidence and logic. Are we to assume they were not based upon faith? I see nothing "illogical" about connecting the sun with conscious divinity when no one has knowledge of scientific laws or celestial bodies--furthermore, connecting the "will" of gods to natural phenomena also seems "logical" in the absence of scientific laws and understanding. To make a correlation between action X and event B was the basis for all, IMO, sacrificial actions and religious traditions of old. Why did they do it? Because they drew a logical connection between X and B based upon the weak correlation between X and B (or strong, depending).. And the very fact that we see the sun now, means they had empirical evidence for these beliefs.
Where did I say that? I said that actions imply belief regardless of the claim.***
And in furtherance of that contention: see all of americas actions with regard to african americans when they said that "all men are created equal" and through their collective actions, for a time, show that despite their claim they did not feel all men were created equal.
Unless you have evidence of 'god' contingency is impossible.
You can only have noncontingent faith/belief. Contingency needs a reference to some basis in relation to a given thing, in the case of 'god' there is no evidence of existence, so when you claim faith in 'god', 'faith' is nonconingent.
In its broadest philosophical usage, a proposition, thought or judgement is contingent if, and only if, it may come to pass and also may not come to pass based on past observations. Faith is an expectation. When you go to start you car you expect it to start; it always did before. Thus your faith that your car will start is contingent.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
geezz, I have DEEP deep " faith + belief ", Jesus was an atheist, says so right there in that bible ! Solid proof !
SO, They kill the guy and then they lie about his message, you know, the religious types.
Atheism Books.
Hey Alia.. welcome back.
I don't claim "faith" in god.. I claim a "contingent belief"--at least according to the definition given by mag.
Hmm... using your definition, i.e.:
and..
My faith is based upon the expectation that the world will be in pretty bad shape tomorrow. It was pretty bad yesterday. I have a contingent belief that it will be bad some more. My belief in "God," if you will, is based upon this "contingent belief."
In the same way, that, one believes that everyone is a seperate entity because of the way the world seems to be structured. They have a contigent belief that it will be structured that way tomorrow. Their "faith," if you would, is based upon this "contigent belief."
*Evidence* in both cases does not "necessarily lead" nor even "tend to lead" to the conclusion that one has "faith"--furthermore, in both scenarios, the "faith" can be destroyed by a "contingent."
Hmm.. maybe I'm missing something here. All these new words are confusing.
RhadTheGizmo "All these new words are confusing." ----
- YEAH, All those OLD words are confusing too !
Faith / Presumption / Hope / .....
Scientists use it too
so godly it IS !
Atheism Books.
I AM GOD AS YOU
I know? Right? Words are just confusing in general..
Life is AWE ! Lets make it as FUN as we can for ALL .... for the kids , keep them laughing, tickle them, don't scare them with religion ! Religion is so mean
Atheism Books.
By 'world' I assume you're not referring to the earth, but to life I guess?
And by 'pretty bad shape', bad compared to what?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Alright.. let me first start off by saying.. I was understanding Mag a lot better with this whole contingent belief/non-contigent faith. In fact, he specifically stated that there is no such thing as a contingent faith. So, I will be careful not to use that.
I already said. It is contingent on the world being bad bad tomorrow. It's based on the world being bad yesterday.
God
Compared to why I know to be possible.
Tell that to the person whose in the police station who just got raped.. or the millions of people infected with aids in africa.. or perhaps the countless rural citizens of china who are have a bit of trouble finding food and water.
Easy for us to say from the perspective of individuals who own computers and have enough spare time to type on a computer..
No.
What the heck is evidence if not "perceived evidence?"
Evidence is merely something that tends to prove something to you. It's all perceived. Unless you mean scientific evidence.. in which case.. the world is still "scientific evidence" even though the conclusion of "God" might not be a scientific conclusion since "God" is an unscientific principle--I still don't see why it would be. Are you contending that "contingent beliefs" can only exist when scientific evidence is used to make scientifically acceptable conclusions?
You haven't really been explaining.. more asserting. Explaining would be to explain the difference between what is "perceived evidence" and what is the evidence that is used for "contingent belief." Then, to explain what the difference is between a "contingent belief" in non-solipsism or solipsism and "faith" in God.
Second part I understand as an analogy of what you are saying faith is. As for "contingent faith"--mag told me that it doesn't exist.. so, you're confusing me now that you're bringing it back into the conversation.
Like I said, it seems like an assertion again. I've analogized my belief to one where a person chooses between two equally likely possibilities each with evidence that supports their position equally (meaning, no position has "exclusive" evidence) and upon which my belief will be destroyed on the happening of a contigency.. showing that I am open to the evaluation of new evidence.