Happy Atheist Forum

Occasionally I indulge my morbid curiosity and read the debates between theists and atheists.  I never find them satisfactory.  Oh, certainly I consider the atheists to have immeasurably better arguments - frankly I don't credit the theists with having any serious arguments at all - but the debate continues until the last dogged participant finally gives up, and then the thread dies, and a new thread rises from the ashes like a phoenix, and the debate starts again.  Recently it occurred to me that maybe the wrong topic is being debated.

The atheist says, "I need evidence before I'll consider any claim."  Meanwhile, the theist says something like, "I know in my heart God exists."  But of course the atheist doesn't care what the theists know in their hearts, so then the theist attempts to play the only game the atheist is willing to play - the evidence game.  Naturally the theist fails miserably because there isn't any evidence that will convince, unless one already knows what one needs to know in one's heart.

The real issue, it seems to me, is the attitude toward faith.  Atheists reject faith on principle - any faith, all faith, in any and all contexts.  Theists, by contrast, embrace faith to varying degrees, some going so far as to claim any faith, all faith, is valid, while others narrow the domain of what modes of faith are valid and what modes aren't.  There are theists who will entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe, leprechauns really exist.  Other theists find that notion ridiculous but have no problem with archangels.  Nevertheless, by embracing any faith at all, theists of any stripe position themselves on one side of a bright line of demarcation, on the other side of which we atheists stand, and will stand forever, or at least until the maggot makes a breakfast of our remains.    

So why not talk about the real issue?  Faith is grotesque, say I.  It is anti-life from every conceivable perspective, for it is anti-mind, anti-world, anti-survival, anti-progress, anti-strength, anti-wealth, anti-cosmopolitan, and anti-wonder.  Faith is death and degradation, psychosis and chaos, failure and misery, conflagration and decay.  Faith is a zombie devouring brains from inside the skull.  Faith is the only gibbering demon that really exists.
 
Theists apparently think otherwise.  Why?  That's what I want to know.  I invite theists to explain their attitude toward faith.  Not toward God.  I don't care about their attitude toward God because it's based on a principle I utterly repudiate, namely, faith.  So it's that principle, faith, that I invite theists to contemplate and describe, even defend, if they can.  I just ask them for one favor.  I ask that they please don't say that their faith is based on evidence.  It isn't.  Everyone knows it isn't.  Evidence and faith have nothing to do with one another.  It is the very essence of faith to be indifferent to evidence.

I yield the floor to any theist who wishes to step up.

I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

If it was evidence then it would be knowledge and not faith.

Inevitable Droid, this is one the best posts I have ever seen in explaining the constant debates between atheists and christians. You have nailed it on the head. It truly does come down to faith. Good post.  

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

If it was evidence then it would be knowledge and not faith.

Sorry, the knowledge comes after the proof.  You've substanciated my faith and NOW it is knowledge.  

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"So why not talk about the real issue?  Faith is grotesque, say I.  It is anti-life from every conceivable perspective, for it is anti-mind, anti-world, anti-survival, anti-progress, anti-strength, anti-wealth, anti-cosmopolitan, and anti-wonder.  Faith is death and degradation, psychosis and chaos, failure and misery, conflagration and decay.  Faith is a zombie devouring brains from inside the skull.  Faith is the only gibbering demon that really exists.

Hey Droid - good topic.

Like it or not, "Faith" and its many and varied manifestations in the world, exists in abundance.

Why?

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, it must afford some trait or traits that give an edge to those that have it.

As Henry Ford put it: ""Whether You Believe You Can, Or You Can't, You Are Right"
... or from M.C. Escher: "Only Those Who Attempt The Absurd Will Achieve The Impossible"

Faith can be a motivating force.  It can fuel the imagination and make the seemingly impossible possible.

Faith may also provide a cushion against some of the harsh realities of the world, giving the believer a greater sense of calm and purpose.  This may afford them the ability to survive situations, or handle stress in a more productive way.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), one cannot choose to believe.  You believe or not.  Evidence may sway you one way or another, but in the end it's internal to each individual.

Where am I going with this?

I have no idea.

I Believe (I'll go have a beer),
JoeActor

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

By the following definitions, what you just referred to cannot be called faith.  You do have some amount of proof by your previous experiences.

From Merriam-Webster.com:

faith
2) b) 1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof

proof
1) a) the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

cogent
2) a) appealing forcibly to the mind or reason : convincing

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

By the following definitions, what you just referred to cannot be called faith.  You do have some amount of proof by your previous experiences.

Hi Persimmon Hamster.

I can agree to some extent, however the words that were placed in this thread as you quote above were placed HERE and not somewhere else.  It is a new thread in which it hasn't YET been proven that my words will be read.  NOW there is proof and NOW there is knowledge.  Prior to proof MY words would be read, it was faith based on other topics and other postings.  Had there been an equal topic already in existence named the same, with the same original posting by the same author, and my words in reply...then the above would ring true.  (in other words an exact, repeatable test.)  I'm open to being wrong.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

If it was evidence then it would be knowledge and not faith.

Sorry, the knowledge comes after the proof.  You've substanciated my faith and NOW it is knowledge.  

Faith and knowledge are not the same. You have faith and you believe it, I really take no issue with that, as I have no reason to think your not telling the truth about it. You seem honest.

My issue is asserting that strong faith is equal or greater than knowledge or can become it, which is not the case.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

Presumably you're saying that when you've posted to other threads, your words were read, so you have faith in the principle that what has occurred before will occur again, and thus you have faith your words in this thread will be read.

That isn't faith.  That's reasonable certainty grounded in extrapolation from your own direct experience with your own eyes.  I don't absolutely know the sun will rise tomorrow morning but I'm reasonably certain it will, by virtue of extrapolating from all the mornings I've experienced with my own eyes since 1961 when I was born.

The only way you can equate the above with faith in Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior is if you've had direct experience of the Lamb of God with your own eyes.  Have you?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

Presumably you're saying that when you've posted to other threads, your words were read, so you have faith in the principle that what has occurred before will occur again, and thus you have faith your words in this thread will be read.

That isn't faith.  That's reasonable certainty grounded in extrapolation from your own direct experience with your own eyes.  I don't absolutely know the sun will rise tomorrow morning but I'm reasonably certain it will, by virtue of extrapolating from all the mornings I've experienced with my own eyes since 1961 when I was born.

The only way you can equate the above with faith in Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior is if you've had direct experience of the Lamb of God with your own eyes.  Have you?

I didn't even mention God or Christ...I thought you wanted to leave Him out?

Didn't someone already post the definition of faith?  There was no proof that anyone would read my words in THIS thread at the point which I posted them.

Quote from: "Dretlin"My issue is asserting that strong faith is equal or greater than knowledge or can become it, which is not the case.

Sorry I missed this post and didn't mean to ignore it.

I don't know that any one equates faith with knowledge.  If they do, then they and I separate at that point.

I do not equate faith and knowledge, however through faith in observation, as evidenced by my first post in this thread, we can become knowledgable on specific points.  Here the point being that through faith in evidence I was confident my words would be read.  Proof, however came after some other entity responded and even quoted them therefore giving me knowledge they were read.

One issue is that there are several different connotations of "faith" which depend on the surrounding context; it's been my experience that many theists, and some atheists, equivocate the varying connotations.

I keep faith with my friends; I am faithful in that regard.

I have no faith; I am in that regard faithless.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I can agree to some extent, however the words that were placed in this thread as you quote above were placed HERE and not somewhere else.  It is a new thread in which it hasn't YET been proven that my words will be read.  NOW there is proof and NOW there is knowledge.  Prior to proof MY words would be read, it was faith based on other topics and other postings.  Had there been an equal topic already in existence named the same, with the same original posting by the same author, and my words in reply...then the above would ring true.  (in other words an exact, repeatable test.)  I'm open to being wrong.  

If I file this under "being difficult", will you mind?
There was proof before.  Not absence of proof.  NOW there is simply more proof.  You posted words on the Internet, in a thread, on a forum.  The forum has active users.  The thread has an OP.  We know how forums work; that is, people visit them and read them and reply to any thread which catches their interest and it stands to reason at least one person will have an interest in this case: the OP.  The OP asked a direct question, therefore anticipates responses and is seeking them.  The OP has a fairly large amount of posts for only being a user for under 4 days.  With all of this evidence, you have more than a complete lack of proof.  There is no lack of cogent evidence to compel acceptance by the mind that your words would be read.  It stands to reason that you were going to be correct.  It was not faith.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Dretlin"My issue is asserting that strong faith is equal or greater than knowledge or can become it, which is not the case.

Sorry I missed this post and didn't mean to ignore it.

I don't know that any one equates faith with knowledge.  If they do, then they and I separate at that point.

I do not equate faith and knowledge, however through faith in observation, as evidenced by my first post in this thread, we can become knowledgable on specific points.  Here the point being that through faith in evidence I was confident my words would be read.  Proof, however came after some other entity responded and even quoted them therefore giving me knowledge they were read.

By knowledge I mean it in the sense of Objectivity. The knowledge of your faith, and your awareness of it, does not elevate it to anything higher than faith. If that were true, I could say the knowledge that I am left handed was true. Yes the thought exists, I have knowledge that the thought exists - the issue is that it does not hold true to reality. As I am right handed.

And I would never think you would ignore any posts!  

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"If I file this under "being difficult", will you mind?

Not at all...in fact it would seem that my stance is more "scientific" and less "faith" based by the ending results.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"There was proof before.  Not absence of proof.

I respectfully disagree.  There was no PROOF anyone would read my post.  There are a number of things that could've happened to prevent it.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"NOW there is simply more proof.  You posted words on the Internet, in a thread, on a forum.  The forum has active users.  The thread has an OP.  We know how forums work; that is, people visit them and read them and reply to any thread which catches their interest and it stands to reason at least one person will have an interest in this case: the OP.  The OP asked a direct question, therefore anticipates responses and is seeking them.  The OP has a fairly large amount of posts for only being a user for under 4 days.  With all of this evidence, you have more than a complete lack of proof.  There is no lack of cogent evidence to compel acceptance by the mind that your words would be read.  It stands to reason that you were going to be correct.  It was not faith.

If then it stands to reason, then there is room for doubt and thus not proven.

If I'm being difficult, I suppose I'm simply being as critical as some are in other areas dealing with proof, evidence and reason.  The proof in THIS thread is substanciated as proof only AFTER proof is seen.  Until then, it remains a "stands to reason" point.  In fact, to the many that have not even seen my post yet, they are unaware of proof and so to them the proof is non-existent and meaningless.

Quote from: "Dretlin"By knowledge I mean it in the sense of Objectivity. The knowledge of your faith, and your awareness of it, does not elevate it to anything higher than faith. If that were true, I could say the knowledge that I am left handed was true. Yes the thought exists, I have knowledge that the thought exists - the issue is that it does not hold true to reality. As I am right handed.

Define "left-handed" - Do you not use your left hand?  In picking up things to your left, one can assume and reason you use your left hand more than your right to do so and in context it can be true you are left-handed.

Objective knowledge only came about the moment someone read my words.  More proof was given the moment a reply was made specific to my words and even more proof was given when my words were quoted.

Quote from: "Dretlin"And I would never think you would ignore any posts!  :)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I respectfully disagree.  There was no PROOF anyone would read my post.  There are a number of things that could've happened to prevent it.

If then it stands to reason, then there is room for doubt and thus not proven.

Then you have redefined "proof" as something different from that which I posted.  Maybe if you tell me what you mean when you say "proof", I can propose an alternate term that is more in line with the dictionary.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If I'm being difficult, I suppose I'm simply being as critical as some are in other areas dealing with proof, evidence and reason.  The proof in THIS thread is substanciated as proof only AFTER proof is seen.  Until then, it remains a "stands to reason" point.  In fact, to the many that have not even seen my post yet, they are unaware of proof and so to them the proof is non-existent and meaningless.

Stands to reason = proof, by the definitions I listed.

When you posted, what would you have estimated the probability that your words would be read to be?

Some additional, related reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Problem_of_Induction

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Define "left-handed"

My right hand is my principle hand.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The proof in THIS thread is substanciated as proof only AFTER proof is seen.  Until then, it remains a "stands to reason" point.  

As pointed out in another thread, you accepted this standard of reasoning there when it favored your position, yet you use the phrase here in a skeptical context.

Consistency may be the hallmark of genius, or the bugbear of small minds, depending on who you cotton to, but it does have the benefit of aiding clear thinking.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Didn't someone already post the definition of faith?  There was no proof that anyone would read my words in THIS thread at the point which I posted them.

There was reasonable certainty based on extrapolation from prior direct observations made with your own eyes.  Are you proposing that we define faith as reasonable certainty extrapolated from prior direct observations made with our own eyes?  If you are, then my next question will be, do you have this kind of faith with respect to religious matters?  If instead you aren't proposing anything of the kind, then my next question will be, on what did you base your faith that your words would be read?

This discussion so far has provided me with an interesting modality for assessing individual cognition.  I will suggest that individuals can be assessed with respect to what level of measurably probable accuracy they demand with respect to a proposition before being willing to accept that proposition.  Each individual could be plotted along a spectrum, with some arbitrarily selected guideposts looking like so:

1. Demands a measurably probable accuracy of 100%.  Absolute skeptic, perhaps neurotic.

2. Demands a measurably probable accuracy of at least 90%.  Strong skeptic.

3. Demands a measurably probable accuracy of at least 51%.  Weak skeptic.

4. Demands a measurably probable accuracy of at least 40%.  Weak rube/mark.

5. Demands a measurably probable accuracy of at least 10%.  Strong rube/mark.

6. Demands that probable accuracy be measurable but doesn't care if, when measured, it is zero.  Nearly absolute rube/mark.

7. Doesn't demand measurability at all with respect to probable accuracy.  Absolute rube/mark.


Given the above, then, two individuals may differ in either or both of two ways:

1. They may be plotted at different points along the spectrum.

2. They may disagree as to the measurably probable accuracy of a particular proposition.
 
If the first is true, and if it is emphatically true, such that, the distance between the two individuals on the spectrum is vast, then it is pointless for the two individuals to debate any topic whatsoever, as their cognitive functions are just too different.

If the first is false, or if it is only mildly true, such that, the distance between the two individuals on the spectrum is small, then it wouldn't be pointless for the two individuals to debate any topic they saw fit to debate.

Is it wrong for me to say "I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow morning?"

Yes?
No?
Yes AND no?

After all, I have no evidence that the sun will come over the horizon tomorrow morning. But due to human experience over the last gazillion years, there is a great probability the sun will come over the horizon tomorrow morning. Is this faith?

We got a new manager at work. He'd been here perhaps a month or so, at the time. I was to take a test for a new and higher license (for work) and I'd taken it twice before and failed. I mentioned it to him the day before the third test and he told me he had faith in me that I would pass the test this time. Well, his faith was misplaced...*chucklin*...I failed again.

Dretlin said:

QuoteIf it was evidence then it would be knowledge and not faith.

That much is true.
And since this was posted in the "Religion" section and not "Philosophy", I'll just have to bring in the theistic side of things...*wicked evil grin*

If theistic belief is an act of faith then the one holding the belief either thinks the evidence against belief outweighs or equals the evidence for belief, or the belief is held without regard for evidence at all. Otherwise, the belief is not an act of faith, but of belief that the evidence is stronger for belief than against.
But some theists chide me for having "faith" in the nonexistence of Gods. That argument is specious because there is a difference between belief through knowledge and faith, which relies on zero knowledge.

Religious faith is a perfect defense against disproof. If an idea or concept or belief is held with faith it simply cannot be disproved. Religious faith has no moral flavour, it is a moral flavour enhancer. Faith is the idea that belief in an idea is good and that doubt is bad. It can be quite circular in that faith is belief in a belief with faith which is a virtue. Faith relies heavily on feeling and not on rationality. If you know without evidence that an idea/concept/belief is right, you can feel it is right, have faith in it and be confident that that faith is well placed...and is a virtue. Looking at that idea or concept with rationality is now interpreted as doubt, and theistically speaking...a sin.

So faith allows an idea/concept/belief with no evidence to anchor in your brain, protected in an unassailable position. And protecting the article of faith from doubt (reason) makes the person feel better, is a virtue, and virtue is its own reward. To me, it is really mindboggling that people still succumb to "faith".

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If the first is true, and if it is emphatically true, such that, the distance between the two individuals on the spectrum is vast, then it is pointless for the two individuals to debate any topic whatsoever, as their cognitive functions are just too different.

If the first is false, or if it is only mildly true, such that, the distance between the two individuals on the spectrum is small, then it wouldn't be pointless for the two individuals to debate any topic they saw fit to debate.

A very good analysis, and one I am inclined to agree with.  As a tool to expedite debate, if that is your goal, how would you propose locating people on the scale?  I ask because I think the thing about rubes, weak and strong, is that they would try to evade being located on it by any means necessary or their lack of logical thinking would prevent them from being able to help (even if they wanted to).

Quote from: "Gawen"After all, I have no evidence that the sun will come over the horizon tomorrow morning. But due to human experience over the last gazillion years, there is a great probability the sun will come over the horizon tomorrow morning. Is this faith?

Quote from: "Captain Obvious"The sun HAS to come up tomorrow morning, otherwise tomorrow morning will not exist.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"A very good analysis, and one I am inclined to agree with.  As a tool to expedite debate, if that is your goal, how would you propose locating people on the scale?

To be properly rigorous, we'd probably need a test, or series of tests, devised by a clinical psychologist, presumably employing one, two, three, or all four of the following: (1) observation in the wild; (2) experimentation in the lab; (3) survey questionnaires; (4) interviews.  But for purposes of streamlining debate, a soft rigor might often suffice.  For example, the strong skeptic would almost certainly self-identify as such with only a moment's introspection.  That same strong skeptic could almost certainly identify other strong skeptics by the propositions suggested, accepted, or rejected, and could also almost certainly identify strong or weak rube/marks in the same manner.  The value of the analysis would reside in the fact that the strong skeptic could stop wasting time debating rube/marks, as the pointlessness of that whole endeavor would be evident and could drive the decision to disengage earlier rather than later.    

QuoteI ask because I think the thing about rubes, weak and strong, is that they would try to evade being located on it by any means necessary or their lack of logical thinking would prevent them from being able to help (even if they wanted to).

I agree that my labels are biased.  I'm open to suggestions as to less emotionally loaded labels.  Would believer be a clear enough label for the opposite of skeptic?  Would it be less biased?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"This discussion so far has provided me with an interesting modality for assessing individual cognition.[...]

I think that you'll find that this will actually only describe people on the upper end of your scale and that there is hardly any one on the bottom end of your spectrum. Have you talked to a theist that will take their religion without any evidence, and is also willing to take anything else without any evidence? I have not. I have never met anyone that will just switch beliefs without any or very little evidence. I think you'll find that there is a great amount of inconsistency between what evidence is required for a theist to believe in their religion and the evidence that is required for them to accept that their religion is wrong about things... like how old the Earth is.

Any way, I'm pretty sure this scale will only represent skeptics at the top, progressing into a specific kind of crazy near the bottom.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"This discussion so far has provided me with an interesting modality for assessing individual cognition.[...]

I think that you'll find that this will actually only describe people on the upper end of your scale and that there is hardly any one on the bottom end of your spectrum. Have you talked to a theist that will take their religion without any evidence, and is also willing to take anything else without any evidence? I have not. I have never met anyone that will just switch beliefs without any or very little evidence. I think you'll find that there is a great amount of inconsistency between what evidence is required for a theist to believe in their religion and the evidence that is required for them to accept that their religion is wrong about things... like how old the Earth is.

Any way, I'm pretty sure this scale will only represent skeptics at the top, progressing into a specific kind of crazy near the bottom.

Very true. Indeed, I think the biggest drive towards atheism is a strong desire for consistency in one's application of skepticism. Maybe we should find a way to measure that.

Quote from: "Davin"I think you'll find that there is a great amount of inconsistency between what evidence is required for a theist to believe in their religion and the evidence that is required for them to accept that their religion is wrong about things... like how old the Earth is.

Interesting.  I interpret you as saying that a theist requires very little evidence to believe in their religion, but would require a great deal of evidence to accept their religion is wrong about things.  Is that what you're saying?  If so, to what do you attribute this double standard?

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Davin"I think that you'll find that this will actually only describe people on the upper end of your scale and that there is hardly any one on the bottom end of your spectrum. Have you talked to a theist that will take their religion without any evidence, and is also willing to take anything else without any evidence? I have not. I have never met anyone that will just switch beliefs without any or very little evidence. I think you'll find that there is a great amount of inconsistency between what evidence is required for a theist to believe in their religion and the evidence that is required for them to accept that their religion is wrong about things... like how old the Earth is.

Any way, I'm pretty sure this scale will only represent skeptics at the top, progressing into a specific kind of crazy near the bottom.

Very true. Indeed, I think the biggest drive towards atheism is a strong desire for consistency in one's application of skepticism. Maybe we should find a way to measure that.

Hmm.  I could agree that, in many theists, it appears they lack consistency in their application of skepticism.  To put it another way, it appears they require different measurably probable accuracy to accept different propositions.  But why would a person have multiple standards for multiple propositions?

As beings with limited time and resources, no single one of us can truly obtain and evaluate all of the evidence in support of all propositions and determine the probable accuracy of each.  Therefore we necessarily rely on others to do that for us, and we choose which groups to recognize as authorities on various matters.

I would say an absolute rube is a person who accepts anyone as an authority on any topic.  I do believe we could find such people, but they would either all be under 5 years old, or they would suffer from a mental disorder just like Inevitable Droid has suggested an absolute skeptic might.  From birth, I think we begin by defaulting to recognize authority in anyone until we have some reason to do otherwise.

But then there are theists like the one I am talking about in the "Literal Genesis - Why?" thread.  They may rank at the top of the curve in science & math.  They understand how it works, and how to evaluate propositions by the scientific method.  And yet they can still believe in a literal Genesis at the same time.  When it comes to science, they argue these points:
- We can never know what the laws of nature were before recorded history
- We can never know what they will be tomorrow (bubble nucleation?)
- We don't really know what they are now (we continually discover new ideas that render old ideas obsolete -- when will it end?)

In this manner they start to regard the scientific community as having less authority.  Meanwhile, they accept the authority of the church (or perhaps better stated, the Bible).  They do think critically about everything.  They would argue there is as much evidence for believing what it says as for believing anything the scientific community says.  A large community of apologists and scholars "connect the dots" outside of the Bible for them to create the impression of evidence through historical study, genealogy exercises, manipulation of scientific concepts such as the uncertainty principle, etc.  This body grows, amasses more arguments, and reflects skepticism back at the scientific community, and these theists don't have the time to work out the probable accuracy of every last argument for themselves.

Thus they might say they are consistent in their application of skepticism, and that when it comes to the proposition of God they find there to be similar (or greater) measurably probable accuracy than propositions of science.

Maybe elliebean is right.  Maybe the key difference between a theist like that, and myself, is they have less desire for consistency, so they spend less time assessing the accuracy of the propositions they accept.  If they had a stronger desire, they might not only question the scientific community, they might more rigorously question the apologist community as well and find they are giving it more authority than it deserves.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The value of the analysis would reside in the fact that the strong skeptic could stop wasting time debating rube/marks, as the pointlessness of that whole endeavor would be evident and could drive the decision to disengage earlier rather than later.

Why should a strong skeptic want to disengage in debate with a rube?  An absolute rube, sure... but I thought perhaps locating a person on this scale might help us determine how to streamline a debate, not necessarily disengage it.

I prefer to deal with people as people, and not numbers.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"Hmm.  I could agree that, in many theists, it appears they lack consistency in their application of skepticism.  To put it another way, it appears they require different measurably probable accuracy to accept different propositions.  But why would a person have multiple standards for multiple propositions?

An excellent question, which I have put to Davin, who first raised the possibility that you and I both are curious about.

QuoteTherefore we necessarily rely on others to do that for us, and we choose which groups to recognize as authorities on various matters.

Yes.  We also, or at least I, certainly, rely on whatever checks and balances are systematically in place to keep authorities honest.

QuoteI would say an absolute rube is a person who accepts anyone as an authority on any topic.

I agree.

QuoteI do believe we could find such people, but they would either all be under 5 years old, or they would suffer from a mental disorder just like Inevitable Droid has suggested an absolute skeptic might.

Perhaps.  I'm willing to entertain the possibility that to be an absolute rube/mark is be in some sense neurotic or otherwise mentally disabled, perhaps developmentally.  I lack the data by which to pronounce on this.

QuoteFrom birth, I think we begin by defaulting to recognize authority in anyone until we have some reason to do otherwise.

Yes, probably true.  As we mature we grow steadily more discerning and more demanding.

QuoteBut then there are theists like the one I am talking about in the "Literal Genesis - Why?" thread.  They may rank at the top of the curve in science & math.  They understand how it works, and how to evaluate propositions by the scientific method.  And yet they can still believe in a literal Genesis at the same time.

Such people have long been a conundrum for me.  But your next portion raises an intriguing interpretation.

QuoteWhen it comes to science, they argue these points:
- We can never know what the laws of nature were before recorded history
- We can never know what they will be tomorrow (bubble nucleation?)
- We don't really know what they are now (we continually discover new ideas that render old ideas obsolete -- when will it end?)

Thus the Ouroboros of absolute skepticism turns around on itself and begins devouring itself by the tail?  Wow!  You may be onto something here! :eek:

QuoteA large community of apologists and scholars "connect the dots" outside of the Bible for them to create the impression of evidence through historical study, genealogy exercises, manipulation of scientific concepts such as the uncertainty principle, etc.  This body grows, amasses more arguments, and reflects skepticism back at the scientific community, and these theists don't have the time to work out the probable accuracy of every last argument for themselves.

If anything is possible, then accept whatever propositions make us feel good?  Wow thricely!

This is an insidious and debased mode of thought, a gangrenous corruption of the mind, if indeed it actually occurs in people's heads.

QuoteMaybe elliebean is right.  Maybe the key difference between a theist like that, and myself, is they have less desire for consistency,

You define yourself as ignostic, by which is usually meant that one finds the definitions of such words as God and theist to be so unclear as to afford no purchase by which to formulate a proper question of accuracy.  Does that describe you?

Quoteso they spend less time assessing the accuracy of the propositions they accept.  If they had a stronger desire, they might not only question the scientific community, they might more rigorously question the apologist community as well and find they are giving it more authority than it deserves.

Or else, as noted by me above, they reason that since nothing is certain, then anything is possible, so accept whatever propositions make you feel good.  Thus they claim themselves as final authority, which might be constructive, except they employ emotion as their measuring rod - emotion, which is reliable for discerning beauty, but never truth.

QuoteWhy should a strong skeptic want to disengage in debate with a rube?  An absolute rube, sure... but I thought perhaps locating a person on this scale might help us determine how to streamline a debate, not necessarily disengage it.

One debates with another human being so as to learn, to teach, or to win.  The rube has nothing to teach me, nothing to learn from me, and will never admit defeat, while never causing me to admit defeat either.  Debate with such a one is therefore a waste of time.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Perhaps.  I'm willing to entertain the possibility that to be an absolute rube/mark is be in some sense neurotic or otherwise mentally disabled, perhaps developmentally.  I lack the data by which to pronounce on this.

In some sense a victim of brainwashing or torture may fit the bill.  Though usually a brainwasher/torturer would condition the brainwashee/torturee to only accept his authority/truth and not that of just anyone.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If anything is possible, then accept whatever propositions make us feel good?  Wow thricely!

Sure, and that's a world view that has subscribers.  But it's not my own, nor is it that of a theist like I am describing.  They are not accepting just any old proposition.  They see the Bible's very existence as at least some evidence that someone once believed what was written, they assume they had reason to believe it (such as it was true), and they work diligently to corroborate that theory.  If a scientist would ask them why they are trying so hard to justify something they can never prove for certain, they would just ask the scientist the same thing.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"This is an insidious and debased mode of thought, a gangrenous corruption of the mind, if indeed it actually occurs in people's heads.

I take it you disapprove of nihilism?  What is the purpose to everything as you see it?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"You define yourself as ignostic, by which is usually meant that one finds the definitions of such words as God and theist to be so unclear as to afford no purchase by which to formulate a proper question of accuracy.  Does that describe you?

I currently believe my own theological position is best classified as ignosticism, but I only recently discovered the term and that is therefore subject to change as I continue to enhance my understanding of it and, of course, as I continue to enhance my own views.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Or else, as noted by me above, they reason that since nothing is certain, then anything is possible, so accept whatever propositions make you feel good.  Thus they claim themselves as final authority, which might be constructive, except they employ emotion as their measuring rod - emotion, which is reliable for discerning beauty, but never truth.

Again, that would not be the reasoning of the theists I was attempting to describe.  Those I describe think rationally and would not let emotion be their only measuring rod.  They believe there is evidence external to themselves to be referenced/found/inferred in support of their belief.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"One debates with another human being so as to learn, to teach, or to win.  The rube has nothing to teach me, nothing to learn from me, and will never admit defeat, while never causing me to admit defeat either.  Debate with such a one is therefore a waste of time.

[strike:3uguvr71]I do not follow the conclusion that a rube has nothing to learn from you.  An absolute rube, being incapable of learning, sure.  But I think you might be able to reason with any other sort of rube -- it just might take you an absurdly long amount of time.  But if you could convert one rube into a skeptic, would it be a waste?[/strike:3uguvr71]
I take that back.  Upon reconsidering your original scale, and the definition of "rube" it provided, I think I understand your point, strictly speaking.  Though I still question how you will effectively locate people on it.  I think your proposed method of soft rigor may lend itself to classifying people "lower" on the scale than they actually are.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"They are not accepting just any old proposition.  They see the Bible's very existence as at least some evidence that someone once believed what was written, they assume they had reason to believe it (such as it was true), and they work diligently to corroborate that theory.  If a scientist would ask them why they are trying so hard to justify something they can never prove for certain, they would just ask the scientist the same thing.

I keep seeing mention of this concern that things be proven for certain.  This is what I've described as the absolute skeptic position.  What I hadn't realized is that some people apparently reason - if such a thought process can be called reasoning - that unless a proposition's probable accuracy is 100%, it is completely open to question, and if accepted, that acceptance is utterly arbitrary.  How ridiculous!  The likeliest answer is the best answer and the best answer is to be accepted.  Reservations as to the possibility of error merely induce the reasonable person to take whatever precautions will mitigate any jeopardies, and put in place any verification procedures available for use.  But the likeliest answer is still accepted and acted upon.  Answers less likely are to be rejected.  Nothing is less likely than the myth of seven day creation.

QuoteI take it you disapprove of nihilism?  What is the purpose to everything as you see it?

What prompted that question?  I'm missing the connection to what we were talking about.  Nevertheless, I'll answer your question.  Rather than say I disapprove of nihilism, I will say that I consider it an inaccurate interpretation.  Objective meaning is an oxymoron, because meaning can only exist in the context of subjectivity, but subjective meaning is everywhere to be found, in the mental experience of every subject, everywhere.  As for purpose, every subject has purposes.  If the universe as a whole were a subject, I would say that it must have purposes.  Since I doubt the universe as a whole is a subject, I doubt it has purposes.  But in the mental experience of every living creature that qualifies as a subject, purpose is there to be found.  If I were a telepath walking through a forest, I would surely detect purposes all around me, in the mental experiences of all the insects, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds in the vicinity.  

QuoteI currently believe my own theological position is best classified as ignosticism, but I only recently discovered the term and that is therefore subject to change as I continue to enhance my understanding of it and, of course, as I continue to enhance my own views.

I will suggest, then, that you consider whether the concept of God, to be at all intelligible, must contain within it the concept of the supernatural - and whether you are willing to entertain as a proposition the existence and relevance of a supernatural dimension to reality.

QuoteUpon reconsidering your original scale, and the definition of "rube" it provided, I think I understand your point, strictly speaking.  Though I still question how you will effectively locate people on it.  I think your proposed method of soft rigor may lend itself to classifying people "lower" on the scale than they actually are.

You may be right.  But I would still succeed in avoiding the waste of time represented by an attempt at fruitless debate.  Maybe now and then I might miss an opportunity to learn something from someone who is more skeptical than I gave them credit for - but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I prefer to deal with people as people, and not numbers.

Numbers are SO much more agreeable though, no?  

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I keep seeing mention of this concern that things be proven for certain.  This is what I've described as the absolute skeptic position.  What I hadn't realized is that some people apparently reason - if such a thought process can be called reasoning - that unless a proposition's probable accuracy is 100%, it is completely open to question, and if accepted, that acceptance is utterly arbitrary.  How ridiculous!  The likeliest answer is the best answer and the best answer is to be accepted.  Reservations as to the possibility of error merely induce the reasonable person to take whatever precautions will mitigate any jeopardies, and put in place any verification procedures available for use.  But the likeliest answer is still accepted and acted upon.  Answers less likely are to be rejected.  Nothing is less likely than the myth of seven day creation.
...
What prompted that question?  I'm missing the connection to what we were talking about.  Nevertheless, I'll answer your question.  Rather than say I disapprove of nihilism, I will say that I consider it an inaccurate interpretation.  Objective meaning is an oxymoron, because meaning can only exist in the context of subjectivity, but subjective meaning is everywhere to be found, in the mental experience of every subject, everywhere.  As for purpose, every subject has purposes.  If the universe as a whole were a subject, I would say that it must have purposes.  Since I doubt the universe as a whole is a subject, I doubt it has purposes.  But in the mental experience of every living creature that qualifies as a subject, purpose is there to be found.  If I were a telepath walking through a forest, I would surely detect purposes all around me, in the mental experiences of all the insects, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds in the vicinity.

I agree.  I think theists like I describe erroneously believe that the scientific community and those that would accept its authority on matters expect to find objective meaning through the scientific method.  They correctly deduce that it won't.  They erroneously believe that their concept of God provides it.  Therefore they wish to shine skepticism on science to draw in converts (apparently humans like knowing that other humans think similarly to them).  Surely any good, contemporary scientist would grant that the laws of nature could change tomorrow, and may not have always been what they are, and that he may not yet understand them as well as he would like, but he would also ask what relevance such propositions have for the present (and by extension, for him).

I asked the question about your view of nihilism out of humor because of the strong language you have been using.  Insidious, debased, gangrenous, anti-progress, etc.  Such strong statements suggest that your own sense of purpose is that we have some sort of responsibility to live up to involving our capacity for reason and our continual application thereof.  Is this an accurate description of your sense of purpose?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I will suggest, then, that you consider whether the concept of God, to be at all intelligible, must contain within it the concept of the supernatural - and whether you are willing to entertain as a proposition the existence and relevance of a supernatural dimension to reality.

I find the term supernatural unintelligible.  I would tend to concede that elements of the natural universe may exist wholly outside of my physical/mental capacity to perceive or comprehend, but I would never call such things supernatural.  I would, however, consider such things generally irrelevant to my existence.  They may certainly influence my existence, but as I cannot perceive or comprehend them my efforts would seem to be best spent on that which I can.

Assume, for a moment, that certain events which are traditionally described as supernatural, as depicted in the Bible, actually occurred.  Additionally assume, for a moment, that all of the explanations one can fathom for every such event that are perfectly within my ability to comprehend were falsified, leaving only incomprehensible explanations.  Why, then, should (and how can) I attempt to comprehend them?  Such explanations would prove utterly inarticulable -- am I even capable of entertaining such explanations to attempt to articulate them?

It would seem the paradox is that most would set out to define their concept of God as having attributes they would consider to be supernatural (or as I would identify such attributes, outside our capacity to perceive/comprehend).  But assigning any sort of language to describe something like that (and thereby derive meaning from the description) is impossible because language (and meaning) will always be either equal to or a subset of our capacity for perception/comprehension.  So I believe they would find themselves unable to provide a definition that contains the concept of the "supernatural".  That is, I think by the time they finished defining God to my satisfaction they would find it was no longer what they thought it was, or that they really never thought it was much of anything at all.

I think responses to both things you asked me to consider have been covered by the above.  Do I still sound ignostic?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"You may be right.  But I would still succeed in avoiding the waste of time represented by an attempt at fruitless debate.  Maybe now and then I might miss an opportunity to learn something from someone who is more skeptical than I gave them credit for - but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

Fair enough.  You might also deprive same of an opportunity to learn something from you.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"I asked the question about your view of nihilism out of humor because of the strong language you have been using.  Insidious, debased, gangrenous, anti-progress, etc.  Such strong statements suggest that your own sense of purpose is that we have some sort of responsibility to live up to involving our capacity for reason and our continual application thereof.  Is this an accurate description of your sense of purpose?

My subjective sense of purpose - yes, an accurate description.  Subjectivity is the glory and the burden of the living creature.  I have never understood why objectivity is ransacked in ever nook and cranny in vain pursuit of meaning, when all anyone has to do to find all the meaning anyone could possibly handle, is to engage in introspection, identify one's own bottom lines, and make those the themes of one's own life.

QuoteI think responses to both things you asked me to consider have been covered by the above.  Do I still sound ignostic?

Yes.  In my own case, I have no trouble defining God as, "that which, not of nature, made nature exist."  I then reject this concept out of hand because I reject the existence of anything that is not of nature, since that which is not of nature cannot be apprehended by biological or technological sensing apparatus, thus erecting an inassailable barrier to the empiricism project, a barrier that can be swept away by simply refusing to credit its existence.      

QuoteFair enough.  You might also deprive same of an opportunity to learn something from you.

Actually, any weak rube/marks who might learn something from my diatribes have plenty of opportunities to do so, by reading my discussions with strong and weak skeptics, such as the one I'm having with you now, a perfectly pleasant one, for me at least.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Davin"I think you'll find that there is a great amount of inconsistency between what evidence is required for a theist to believe in their religion and the evidence that is required for them to accept that their religion is wrong about things... like how old the Earth is.

Interesting.  I interpret you as saying that a theist requires very little evidence to believe in their religion, but would require a great deal of evidence to accept their religion is wrong about things.  Is that what you're saying?  If so, to what do you attribute this double standard?

I do not have any more information than what I've offered as my observation of dealing with a great many theists. I have a lot of speculations, but no reasonable data. I also think it would be near impossible to get some usable data on the subject as I think most people do not want to be considered irrational (even anonymously).

Greetings to all and I hope all is well with each one of you.

Faith means believing the unbelievable or it is no virtue at all. Also hope is faith holding out its hand in the dark. But there is a paradox of hope or faith, that the more hopeless is the situation the more hopeful must be the man.

Reason is itself a matter of faith.  It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.

Faith is unfashionable, and it is customary on every side to cast against it the fact that it is a paradox. Everybody mockingly repeats the famous childish definition that faith is "the power of believing that which we know to be untrue." Yet it is not one atom more paradoxical than hope or charity. Charity is the power of defending that which we know to be indefensible. Hope is the power of being cheerful in circumstances which we know to be desperate. It is true that there is a state of hope which belongs to bright prospects and the morning; but that is not the virtue of hope. The virtue of hope exists only in earthquake and eclipse. It is true that there is a thing crudely called charity, which means charity to the deserving poor; but charity to the deserving is not charity at all, but justice. It is the undeserving who require it, and the ideal either does not exist at all, or exists wholly for them. For practical purposes it is at the hopeless moment that we require the hopeful man, and the virtue either does not exist at all, or begins to exist at that moment. Exactly at the instant when hope ceases to be reasonable it begins to be useful.

Whatever may be the meaning of faith, it must always mean a certainty about something we cannot prove.  Thus, for instance, we believe by faith in the existence of other people. But there is another Christian virtue, a virtue far more obviously and historically connected with Christianity, which will illustrate even better the connection between paradox and practical necessity. This virtue cannot be questioned in its capacity as a historical symbol. The virtue of humility. I admit, of course, most readily, that a great deal of false Eastern humility (that is, of strictly ascetic humility) mixed itself with the main stream of European Christianity.  We must not forget that when we speak of Christianity we are speaking of a whole continent for about a thousand years. But of this virtue even more than of the other three, I would maintain the general proposition adopted above. Civilization discovered Christian humility for the same urgent reason that it discovered faith and charity, that is, because Christian civilization had to discover it or die. Humility is the thing which is for ever renewing the earth and the stars. It is humility, and not duty, which preserves the stars from wrong, from the unpardonable wrong of casual resignation; it is through humility that the most ancient heavens for us are fresh and strong.

The curse that came before history has laid on us all a tendency to be weary of wonders.  If we saw the sun for the first time it would be the most fearful and beautiful of meteors. Now that we see it for the hundredth time we call it, in the hideous and blasphemous, "the light of common day." We are inclined to increase our claims.  We are inclined to demand six suns, to demand a blue sun, to demand a green sun. Humility is perpetually putting us back in the primal darkness. There all light is lightning, startling and instantaneous. Until we understand that original dark, in which we have neither sight nor expectation, we can give no hearty and childlike praise to the splendid sensationalism of things.  The terms "pessimism" and "optimism," like most modern terms, are unmeaning. But if they can be used in any vague sense as meaning something, we may say that in this great fact pessimism is the very basis of optimism. The man who destroys himself creates the universe. To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea. When he looks at all the faces in the street, he does not only realize that men are alive, he realizes with a dramatic pleasure that they are not dead.

In short, the rational human faith must armor itself with prejudice in an age of prejudices, just as it armored itself with logic in an age of logic. But the difference between the two mental methods is marked and unmistakable. The essential of the difference is this: that prejudices are divergent, whereas creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each other's way. A creed is a collective thing, and even its sins are sociable. A prejudice is a private thing, and even its tolerance is misanthropic. So it is with our existing divisions but are out of each others way.

QuoteWhatever may be the meaning of faith, it must always mean a certainty about something we cannot prove.

And therein lies the rub.

Quote from: "Achronos"Greetings to all and I hope all is well with each one of you.

I want to thank you for responding.  Your perspective is exactly the one I was hoping to interact with on this thread.  I'm grateful you took the time to participate.

QuoteFaith means believing the unbelievable or it is no virtue at all. Also hope is faith holding out its hand in the dark. But there is a paradox of hope or faith, that the more hopeless is the situation the more hopeful must be the man.

I of course consider faith to be the very opposite of a virtue.  But your divergent viewpoint is what I wanted to explore when I started this thread.  I credit you with this much: you don't pretend that your theism is somehow scientific.  In this, at least, you're a breath of fresh air.

QuoteReason is itself a matter of faith.  It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.

If so, then, by your definition, the notion that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all must be unbelievable.  Why would that be the case?  I can sit here and have any number of thoughts about what would happen if I grasped any number of objects in my vicinity, lifted them, and dropped them.  I can then go ahead and grasp, lift, and drop them.  For the heck of it, I'm actually doing it, even though no one is here to see me.  A pill bottle, a pencil, and a coaster were all manhandled by me in my investigations.  What they did is what my thoughts led me to expect them to do.  The only way I could conclude that my thoughts were somehow illusory is if I entertained the premise that my sensory apparatuses were illusory.  The probable accuracy of that premise is impossible to investigate, let alone calculate, and so I reject the premise out of hand, as I reject any premise of which the probable accuracy is impossible to calculate, or especially if it's impossible to even investigate.  I also reject that premise as being so counter-productive to all the processes of life as to be literally anti-life.  I don't care if anti-life premises are true.  I reject them in advance, prior to considering their truth or falsehod.

I've noticed that some people, perhaps even yourself, despite the fact that you defined your term, confuse faith with any and all instances of commitment to propositions.  Being committed to a proposition isn't necessarily faith, albeit faith is one sub-category of commitment to propositions.  Your definition above actually wasn't too far from what mine would be.  I would define faith as commitment to a proposition of which the probability, calculated objectively, would be less than fifty percent.  I define objectivity as the perspective of the psyche that excludes emotion or appetite.  I'm therefore implying a second definition for faith, namely, commitment to a proposition for reasons of emotion or appetite over and above ratiocination.  Do you agree that you believe in the propositions of Christianity for reasons of emotion and/or appetite?
 

QuoteFaith is unfashionable, and it is customary on every side to cast against it the fact that it is a paradox. Everybody mockingly repeats the famous childish definition that faith is "the power of believing that which we know to be untrue." Yet it is not one atom more paradoxical than hope or charity. Charity is the power of defending that which we know to be indefensible. Hope is the power of being cheerful in circumstances which we know to be desperate.

If we define charity as you propose, as being the power of defending the indefensible, then I lack charity toward charity, for I would never defend the act of defending the indefensible.  The indefensible isn't to be defended, but rather is to be abandoned for some other person, place, or thing that is defensible.  But that is my shouldmust.  I coined the term shouldmust on another thread to stand for any instantiation and all instantiations of meaning, purpose, value, or standards of conduct.  Your shouldmust includes charity as you've defined it.  Mine doesn't.  Yours also includes faith as you've defined it.  Mine doesn't.  I'm a fan of hope but I don't by any means define it as you have, as I don't view it as having anything to do with cheerfulness.  I define hope as the assumption that a proposition's probability of being actualized is greater than fifty percent if sufficient enterprise is brought to bear on behalf of actualization, and the consequent willingness to bring enterprise to bear, because the proposition finds purchase in one's shouldmust.  I have hope in the promise of robotics.  I try my best to have faith in nothing.  

QuoteIt is true that there is a state of hope which belongs to bright prospects and the morning; but that is not the virtue of hope. The virtue of hope exists only in earthquake and eclipse. It is true that there is a thing crudely called charity, which means charity to the deserving poor; but charity to the deserving is not charity at all, but justice. It is the undeserving who require it, and the ideal either does not exist at all, or exists wholly for them. For practical purposes it is at the hopeless moment that we require the hopeful man, and the virtue either does not exist at all, or begins to exist at that moment. Exactly at the instant when hope ceases to be reasonable it begins to be useful.

There!  That is precisely the question I want to ask.  Why do you consider unreasonableness a virtue?  

Any valid shouldmust interacts with questions of justice, utility, social appropriateness, reasonableness, sanity, and authenticity.  You've cited unreasonableness as a virtue.  Would you likewise cite as virtues injustice, inutility, social inappropriateness, insanity, or inauthenticity?  Your endorsement of charity, as you've defined it, hints at an endorsement of injustice.
 

QuoteWhatever may be the meaning of faith, it must always mean a certainty about something we cannot prove.

Thank you again for stating such a thing so clearly.  I wish all Christians would do likewise.

QuoteCivilization discovered Christian humility for the same urgent reason that it discovered faith and charity, that is, because Christian civilization had to discover it or die.

Setting aside humility for a moment, here is my unvarnished interpretation of the rest of what you just said.  Filtered through my brain, you just said, "Civilization had to discover the virtues of unreasonableness and injustice because if it didn't discover those virtues, it would have died."  I tend to think unreasonableness and injustice are contra-survival for the individual and for society.  What leads you to think otherwise?

QuoteHumility is the thing which is for ever renewing the earth and the stars. It is humility, and not duty, which preserves the stars from wrong, from the unpardonable wrong of casual resignation; it is through humility that the most ancient heavens for us are fresh and strong.

I don't understand what you said here.  Can you restate it without metaphor?

QuoteThe curse that came before history has laid on us all a tendency to be weary of wonders.  If we saw the sun for the first time it would be the most fearful and beautiful of meteors. Now that we see it for the hundredth time we call it, in the hideous and blasphemous, "the light of common day." We are inclined to increase our claims.  We are inclined to demand six suns, to demand a blue sun, to demand a green sun. Humility is perpetually putting us back in the primal darkness. There all light is lightning, startling and instantaneous. Until we understand that original dark, in which we have neither sight nor expectation, we can give no hearty and childlike praise to the splendid sensationalism of things.

I think you're saying if we were humbler we would be more amazed by natural phenomena.  Presumably your point is that humility would lead us to praise God for His creation.  I think scientists display humility in their perpetual willingness to let data trump theory.  Often, when the data defies all expectation, the scientist will be awestruck by the endless capacity of nature to surprise.  Humility may be a virtue that Christians and atheists can both appreciate, a common ground, despite the different perspectives as to what to do with one's awe.
 

QuoteThe terms "pessimism" and "optimism," like most modern terms, are unmeaning. But if they can be used in any vague sense as meaning something, we may say that in this great fact pessimism is the very basis of optimism. The man who destroys himself creates the universe. To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea. When he looks at all the faces in the street, he does not only realize that men are alive, he realizes with a dramatic pleasure that they are not dead.

Apparently you're equating pessimism with humility, so you must be talking about pessimism with respect to self.  Self-pessimism enables awe, apparently, in your view.  To some extent I can agree, for example if we're talking about pessimism with respect to one's propositions being accurate in all cases.  The willingness to entertain the possibility of being misled in one's expectations can enable one to acknowledge and incorporate surprising data into one's purview, and be awed thereby.  Where we differ is in my insistence that the data trumps theory.  This is precisely what faith denies.  Faith insists instead that the theory trumps data, if the theory in question is one's creed.

QuoteIn short, the rational human faith must armor itself with prejudice in an age of prejudices, just as it armored itself with logic in an age of logic. But the difference between the two mental methods is marked and unmistakable. The essential of the difference is this: that prejudices are divergent, whereas creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each other's way. A creed is a collective thing, and even its sins are sociable. A prejudice is a private thing, and even its tolerance is misanthropic. So it is with our existing divisions but are out of each others way.

Is our present age an age of logic or an age of prejudices in your view?

QuoteIf so, then, by your definition, the notion that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all must be unbelievable.  Why would that be the case?  I can sit here and have any number of thoughts about what would happen if I grasped any number of objects in my vicinity, lifted them, and dropped them.  I can then go ahead and grasp, lift, and drop them.  For the heck of it, I'm actually doing it, even though no one is here to see me.  A pill bottle, a pencil, and a coaster were all manhandled by me in my investigations.  What they did is what my thoughts led me to expect them to do.  The only way I could conclude that my thoughts were somehow illusory is if I entertained the premise that my sensory apparatuses were illusory.  The probable accuracy of that premise is impossible to investigate, let alone calculate, and so I reject the premise out of hand, as I reject any premise of which the probable accuracy is impossible to calculate, or especially if it's impossible to even investigate.  I also reject that premise as being so counter-productive to all the processes of life as to be literally anti-life.  I don't care if anti-life premises are true.  I reject them in advance, prior to considering their truth or falsehod.

I've noticed that some people, perhaps even yourself, despite the fact that you defined your term, confuse faith with any and all instances of commitment to propositions.  Being committed to a proposition isn't necessarily faith, albeit faith is one sub-category of commitment to propositions.  Your definition above actually wasn't too far from what mine would be.  I would define faith as commitment to a proposition of which the probability, calculated objectively, would be less than fifty percent.  I define objectivity as the perspective of the psyche that excludes emotion or appetite.  I'm therefore implying a second definition for faith, namely, commitment to a proposition for reasons of emotion or appetite over and above ratiocination.  Do you agree that you believe in the propositions of Christianity for reasons of emotion and/or appetite?

Do human thoughts, and senses, accurately relate to reality? Countless words have whirled around the question, and none have come to rest on anything bridging reason to resolve. There is no reasonable answer to the question, only a practical one. Trusting in the mind or the senses because there is no reason not to, may be no more reasonable than distrusting them because there is no reason to trust them. Either trust, however, is faith, and one faith is the beginning while the other is the end. Knowledge accordingly is belief; belief in a world of events and precedes all deliberate use of intuitions as signs or descriptions of things; as I turn my head to see who is there, before I see who it is. All alleged knowledge of matters of fact is faith only, and that an existing world, whatever form it may choose to wear, is intrinsically a questionable thing.

Having faith, or accepting something that cannot be proven, does not always imply a lack of argument or reason. That is only the wrong end of fideism, believing for the sake of belief, and one may be faulted for it, even when the belief is reasonable. Faith is commonly a reference to a body of reasoning, which is built on an assent to a practical bias bridging a gap between a logical impasse. In the event of such a stalemate, though philosophy should ignore this faith for its lack of proof, it may not employ reason to defeat it. For, the battlefield lies across the rational void, and while faith has crossed, leaps of logic are entirely bad form.

The paradoxical nature of reasoning lies in the ambition to ground reason in itself. Thus, the reasonable futility of presenting propositions without first having reason to believe them. The backward spiral that swallows the deliberator is manifest in persistent reasoning unaided by the sense that is called common. For if a man is to be always deliberating, he may go on ad infinitum.

As for the question you have raised, and as you may have noted, I am a very logical person, probably to my disadvantage, therefore for me to become a Christian I had to accept the logicality of the faith before I could transcribe into the emotional appeal. I honestly would tell you that I wish I could blindly believe in the faith because my mind is constantly being rattled. There have been specific times when I have read through sixty page research papers merely for the sake of argument.
 

QuoteIf we define charity as you propose, as being the power of defending the indefensible, then I lack charity toward charity, for I would never defend the act of defending the indefensible.  The indefensible isn't to be defended, but rather is to be abandoned for some other person, place, or thing that is defensible.  But that is my shouldmust.  I coined the term shouldmust on another thread to stand for any instantiation and all instantiations of meaning, purpose, value, or standards of conduct.  Your shouldmust includes charity as you've defined it.  Mine doesn't.  Yours also includes faith as you've defined it.  Mine doesn't.  I'm a fan of hope but I don't by any means define it as you have, as I don't view it as having anything to do with cheerfulness.  I define hope as the assumption that a proposition's probability of being actualized is greater than fifty percent if sufficient enterprise is brought to bear on behalf of actualization, and the consequent willingness to bring enterprise to bear, because the proposition finds purchase in one's shouldmust.  I have hope in the promise of robotics.  I try my best to have faith in nothing.  

My general meaning touching the three virtues of which I have spoken will now, I hope, be sufficiently clear. They are all three paradoxical, they are all three practical, and they are all three paradoxical because they are practical. It is the stress of ultimate need, and a terrible knowledge of things as they are, which led men to set up these riddles, and to die for them. Whatever may be the meaning of the contradiction, it is the fact that the only kind of hope that is of any use in a battle is a hope that denies arithmetic. Whatever may be the meaning of the contradiction, it is the fact that the only kind of charity which any weak spirit wants, or which any generous spirit feels, is the charity which forgives the sins that are like scarlet. Whatever may be the meaning of faith, it must always mean a certainty about something we cannot prove.  Thus, for instance, we believe by faith in the existence of other people.

QuoteThere!  That is precisely the question I want to ask.  Why do you consider unreasonableness a virtue?  

Any valid shouldmust interacts with questions of justice, utility, social appropriateness, reasonableness, sanity, and authenticity.  You've cited unreasonableness as a virtue.  Would you likewise cite as virtues injustice, inutility, social inappropriateness, insanity, or inauthenticity?  Your endorsement of charity, as you've defined it, hints at an endorsement of injustice.

Well the old pagan world went perfectly straightforward until it discovered that going straightforward is an enormous mistake. It was nobly and beautifully reasonable, and discovered in its death-pang this lasting and valuable truth, a heritage for the ages, that reasonableness will not do. The pagan age was truly an Eden or golden age, in this essential sense, that it is not to be recovered. And it is not to be recovered in this sense again that, while we are certainly jollier than the pagans, and much more right than the pagans, there is not one of us who can, by the utmost stretch of energy, be so sensible as the pagans. That naked innocence of the intellect cannot be recovered by any man after Christianity; and for this excellent reason, that every man after Christianity knows it to be misleading. Let me take an example, the first that occurs to the mind, of this impossible plainness in the pagan point of view. The greatest tribute to Christianity in the modern world is Tennyson's "Ulysses." The poet reads into the story of Ulysses the conception of an incurable desire to wander. But the real Ulysses does not desire to wander at all. He desires to get home. He displays his heroic and unconquerable qualities in resisting the misfortunes which balk him; but that is all. There is no love of adventure for its own sake; that is a Christian product. There is no love of Penelope for her own sake; that is a Christian product. Everything in that old world would appear to have been clean and obvious. A good man was a good man; a bad man was a bad man. For this reason they had no charity; for charity is a reverent agnosticism towards the complexity of the soul.  For this reason they had no such thing as the art of fiction, the novel; for the novel is a creation of the mystical idea of charity. For them a pleasant landscape was pleasant, and an unpleasant landscape unpleasant.  Hence they had no idea of romance; for romance consists in thinking a thing more delightful because it is dangerous; it is a Christian idea. In a word, we cannot reconstruct or even imagine the beautiful and astonishing pagan world. It was a world in which common sense was really common.
 

QuoteSetting aside humility for a moment, here is my unvarnished interpretation of the rest of what you just said.  Filtered through my brain, you just said, "Civilization had to discover the virtues of unreasonableness and injustice because if it didn't discover those virtues, it would have died."  I tend to think unreasonableness and injustice are contra-survival for the individual and for society.  What leads you to think otherwise?

The great psychological discovery of Paganism, which turned it into Christianity, can be expressed with some accuracy in one phrase. The pagan set out, with admirable sense, to enjoy himself. By the end of his civilization he had discovered that a man cannot enjoy himself and continue to enjoy anything else. The absurd shallowness of those who imagine that the pagan enjoyed himself only in a materialistic sense. Of course, he enjoyed himself, not only intellectually even, he enjoyed himself morally, he enjoyed himself spiritually. But it was himself that he was enjoying; on the face of it, a very natural thing to do. Now, the psychological discovery is merely this, that whereas it had been supposed that the fullest possible enjoyment is to be found by extending our ego to infinity, the truth is that the fullest possible enjoyment is to be found by reducing our ego to zero.

I have not spoken of another aspect of the discovery of humility as a psychological necessity, because it is more commonly insisted on, and is in itself more obvious. But it is equally clear that humility is a permanent necessity as a condition of effort and self-examination. It is one of the deadly fallacies that a nation is stronger for despising other nations. As a matter of fact, the strongest nations are those which began from very mean beginnings, but have not been too proud to sit at the feet of the foreigner and learn everything from him. Almost every obvious and direct victory has been the victory of the plagiarist. This is, indeed, only a very paltry by-product of humility, but it is a product of humility, and, therefore, it is successful. For example Prussia had no Christian humility in its internal arrangements; hence its internal arrangements were miserable. But it had enough Christian humility slavishly to copy France, and that which it had the humility to copy it had ultimately the honor to conquer. The case of the Japanese is even more obvious; their only Christian and their only beautiful quality is that they have humbled themselves to be exalted. All this aspect of humility, however, as connected with the matter of effort and striving for a standard set above us, I dismiss as having been sufficiently pointed out by almost all idealistic writers.

It may be worth while, however, to point out the interesting disparity in the matter of humility between the modern notion of the strong man and the actual records of strong men. Hero-worship is certainly a generous and human impulse; the hero may be faulty, but the worship can hardly be. It may be that no man would be a hero to his valet. But any man would be a valet to his hero. But in truth the proverb itself upon it ignore the most essential matter at issue. The ultimate psychological truth is not that no man is a hero to his valet. The ultimate psychological truth, the foundation of Christianity, is that no man is a hero to himself.

Christianity, with a surer and more reverent realism, says that they are all fools. This doctrine is sometimes called the doctrine of original sin. It may also be described as the doctrine of the equality of men. But the essential point of it is merely this, that whatever primary and far-reaching moral dangers affect any man, affect all men. All men can be criminals, if tempted; all men can be heroes, if inspired. There are no wise few. Every aristocracy that has ever existed has behaved, in all essential points, exactly like a small mob. Every oligarchy is merely a knot of men in the street; that is to say, it is very jolly, but not infallible. And no oligarchies in the world's history have ever come off so badly in practical affairs as the very proud oligarchies, the oligarchy of Poland, the oligarchy of Venice. And the armies that have most swiftly and suddenly broken their enemies in pieces have been the religious armies, the Muslim Armies, for instance, or the Puritan Armies. And a religious army may, by its nature, be defined as an army in which every man is taught not to exalt but to abase himself. This virtue of humility, while being practical enough to win battles, will always be paradoxical enough to puzzle pedants. It is at one with the virtue of charity in this respect. Every generous person will admit that the one kind of sin which charity should cover is the sin which is inexcusable. And every generous person will equally agree that the one kind of pride which is wholly damnable is the pride of the man who has something to be proud of. The pride which, proportionally speaking, does not hurt the character, is the pride in things which reflect no credit on the person at all. Thus it does a man no harm to be proud of his country, and comparatively little harm to be proud of his remote ancestors. It does him more harm to be proud of having made money, because in that he has a little more reason for pride. It does him more harm still to be proud of what is nobler than money, intellect. And it does him most harm of all to value himself for the most valuable thing on earth, goodness. The man who is proud of what is really creditable to him is the Pharisee, the man whom Christ Himself could not forbear to strike.

QuoteI don't understand what you said here.  Can you restate it without metaphor?

It is the wonderment of being new again in our vision of the stars and earth, of life itself; as I said we become childlike in its wonder.

QuoteI think you're saying if we were humbler we would be more amazed by natural phenomena.  Presumably your point is that humility would lead us to praise God for His creation.  I think scientists display humility in their perpetual willingness to let data trump theory.  Often, when the data defies all expectation, the scientist will be awestruck by the endless capacity of nature to surprise.  Humility may be a virtue that Christians and atheists can both appreciate, a common ground, despite the different perspectives as to what to do with one's awe.

Could the data itself cause ourselves to become more humble?

QuoteIs our present age an age of logic or an age of prejudices in your view?

In the words of Oscar Wilde: "We live in the age of the overworked, and the under-educated; the age in which people are so industrious that they become absolutely stupid." I believe this is also an age of both pride and prejudice, but that's not to see some resemblances of logic don't appear. What's your take?

The only logical cure for all this is the assertion of a human ideal. In dealing with this, I will try to be as little transcendental as is consistent with reason; it is enough to say that unless we have some doctrine of a divine man, all abuses may be excused, since evolution may turn them into uses. It will be easy for the scientific plutocrat to maintain that humanity will adapt itself to any conditions which we now consider evil. The old tyrants invoked the past; the new tyrants will invoke the future evolution has produced the snail and the owl; evolution can produce a workman who wants no more space than a snail, and no more light than an owl. The racist white employer need not mind sending a black to work underground; he will soon become an underground animal, like a mole. He need not mind sending a diver to hold his breath in the deep seas; he will soon be a deep-sea animal. Men need not trouble to alter conditions, conditions will so soon alter men. The head can be beaten small enough to fit the hat. Do not knock the fetters off the slave; knock the slave until he forgets the fetters. To all this plausible modern argument for oppression, the only adequate answer is, that there is a permanent human ideal that must not be either confused or destroyed. The most important man on earth is the perfect man who is not there. The Christian religion has specially uttered the ultimate sanity of Man, says Scripture, who shall judge the incarnate and human truth. Our lives and laws are not judged by divine superiority, but simply by human perfection. It is man, says Aristotle, who is the measure. It is the Son of Man, says Scripture, who shall judge the quick and the dead.

Quote from: "Achronos"Faith is commonly a reference to a body of reasoning, which is built on an assent to a practical bias bridging a gap between a logical impasse.

I think you're saying faith is maintained out of practical necessity.  Certainly commitment to propositions can derive from practical necessity.  Do you count Christianity as an example of this?  Is Christian faith practical?  In what way?  I would call Christianity the most impractical system of thought ever seriously proposed.

QuoteThe paradoxical nature of reasoning lies in the ambition to ground reason in itself. Thus, the reasonable futility of presenting propositions without first having reason to believe them. The backward spiral that swallows the deliberator is manifest in persistent reasoning unaided by the sense that is called common. For if a man is to be always deliberating, he may go on ad infinitum.

I agree.  This is why I will reject some propositions out of hand, in advance of even considering whether they're true or not.  If seriously accepting a proposition would be to court psychosis, I drop the proposition like a hot potato.  I'd rather be sane than indisputable.

QuoteAs for the question you have raised, and as you may have noted, I am a very logical person, probably to my disadvantage, therefore for me to become a Christian I had to accept the logicality of the faith before I could transcribe into the emotional appeal. I honestly would tell you that I wish I could blindly believe in the faith because my mind is constantly being rattled. There have been specific times when I have read through sixty page research papers merely for the sake of argument.

You find Christianity logical?  Seriously?  I would call it the most illogical system of thought ever proposed.

I will have to hear you on certain questions before I can begin to imagine your perspective.  Why was it necessary that Jesus be crucified?  Why is it necessary that people believe in the crucifixion and what it meant?  How is it reasonable and just that many people are born in places where the likelihood of their coming to believe the Christian creed is almost nill?  How is it reasonable and sane to accept the Christian creed while rejecting the Muslim or Buddhist ones?  Why are the myriad varieties of suffering reasonable and just under the auspices of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God?  I apologize for basically asking you for a Christianity 101 primer, but I currently dispute that Christianity has anything logical to say in answer to any of these questions, and I've studied quite a bit of Christian theology.

QuoteThere is no love of adventure for its own sake; that is a Christian product.

How so?

QuoteThere is no love of Penelope for her own sake; that is a Christian product.

How so?

QuoteFor this reason they had no such thing as the art of fiction, the novel; for the novel is a creation of the mystical idea of charity.

How so?

QuoteHence they had no idea of romance; for romance consists in thinking a thing more delightful because it is dangerous; it is a Christian idea.

How so?

QuoteIn a word, we cannot reconstruct or even imagine the beautiful and astonishing pagan world. It was a world in which common sense was really common.

I'm a big fan of common sense.  You're making me wonder if my perspective is anachronistic.  It would be fun to think that.

QuoteBy the end of his civilization he had discovered that a man cannot enjoy himself and continue to enjoy anything else.

How so?

QuoteAnd it does him most harm of all to value himself for the most valuable thing on earth, goodness. The man who is proud of what is really creditable to him is the Pharisee, the man whom Christ Himself could not forbear to strike.

How is justified pride harmful?

Quote

QuoteHumility may be a virtue that Christians and atheists can both appreciate, a common ground, despite the different perspectives as to what to do with one's awe.

Could the data itself cause ourselves to become more humble?

Yes it could, and does.  The antidote for over-confidence in one's expectations is always the uncooperative data.  As a result, the wise scientist traverses humility on the way to wonder.  This is almost the whole story of the history of science.

Quote

QuoteIs our present age an age of logic or an age of prejudices in your view?

In the words of Oscar Wilde: "We live in the age of the overworked, and the under-educated; the age in which people are so industrious that they become absolutely stupid." I believe this is also an age of both pride and prejudice, but that's not to see some resemblances of logic don't appear. What's your take?

I think we live in an age when logic (science) and illogic (superstition) are engaged in an epic struggle.

Quoteit is enough to say that unless we have some doctrine of a divine man, all abuses may be excused, since evolution may turn them into uses. It will be easy for the scientific plutocrat to maintain that humanity will adapt itself to any conditions which we now consider evil. The old tyrants invoked the past; the new tyrants will invoke the future.  Evolution has produced the snail and the owl; evolution can produce a workman who wants no more space than a snail, and no more light than an owl.

This is precisely why we must accept the fact that meaning, purpose, value, standards of conduct, can never be grounded in objectivity, but only in subjectivity, in emotion and/or appetite as aided by ratiocination.  

QuoteThe most important man on earth is the perfect man who is not there. The Christian religion has specially uttered the ultimate sanity of Man, says Scripture, who shall judge the incarnate and human truth. Our lives and laws are not judged by divine superiority, but simply by human perfection. It is man, says Aristotle, who is the measure. It is the Son of Man, says Scripture, who shall judge the quick and the dead.

Yet all Jesus teaches us is how to get ourselves killed.  Surely we can find better role models.  Charles Darwin comes to mind.

Relevant to what this thread is about, I quote here Kurt Wise, who has a PhD in geology and is a well known creationist: "As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/wise.asp

I credit Kurt Wise with at least being honest about the nature of faith.

Quote from: "Kurt Wise""...I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Did he ever indicate what his view would be should all evidence in the universe also turn against the Bible actually being the Word of God?  Or give any indication as to the evidence he would currently cite for believing it is?

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"Did he ever indicate what his view would be should all evidence in the universe also turn against the Bible actually being the Word of God?

Only vaguely, as far as I know, in that he says this in the same article: "It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution."

QuoteOr give any indication as to the evidence he would currently cite for believing it is?

He cites his personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I sometimes wonder about a fanciful scenario.  As background, I'll cite this: "Jay G. Williams writes: "It is this emphasis [on one central shrine], in particular, which has led scholars to identify Deuteronomy as the scroll of the law found in the Temple during the reign of King Josiah in the seventh century. According to II Kings 22-23 this scroll led Josiah to initiate a reform of the religion of Judah which, in particular, involved the destruction of all places of sacrifice except the Temple in Jerusalem. Since only Deuteronomy, of all the books of the Torah, calls for such a reform and since it is inconceivable that such an important book of the law would have been lost after Josiah's time, it is likely that the identification of Deuteronomy as the discovered scroll is correct. The fact that Deuteronomy often reflects both the language and the thought of the eighth century prophets helps to confirm this identification." (Understanding the Old Testament, p. 137)"

Source: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/deuteronomy.html

Now imagine that somehow it was demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the scroll of the Law described above was secretly deposited in the Temple by scheming Babylonians with the express intention of destabilizing Jewish society by inciting religious conflict.  Would Kurt Wise and others like him begin to doubt that Deuteronomy, at least, was the Word of God?

Probably not.

As an atheist, but a former theist, I think I can offer insight into Christian faith, and I would say it is not at all "indifferent to evidence".

Many people point to Hebrews 11 as the definition of Christian faith (believing in the unseen), but actually the definition comes in Hebrews 10: "Let us keep firm in the hope we profess, because the one who made the promise is trustworthy." Christian faith is simply the courage to put fear aside and persevere in trust of someone known to be trustworthy. This is the crucial bit. Belief depends on evidence of God's fidelity to his chosen people---the empty tomb, the Passover, and the like.

This was very much reflected in what my Christian friends taught me. They offered what they considered historical evidence. They offered historical defenses of the reliability of the Bible. They offered arguments such as: Jesus claimed to be God; if he isn't God, then he was either a liar or a nut; his sayings are not the works of a liar or a nut; therefore, Jesus is God. In short, they offered evidence and reason to believe. It is only AFTER conversion that faith comes into it, and even then it simply has to do with having the courage of your convictions.

And this was the downfall of the attempts to convert me. Ultimately I weighed the evidence and the reasons, and found them completely inadequate to support a belief that the Bible was reliable. It became clear that the evidence was strongly on the side of the Bible being a purely human construction.

Furthermore, I disagree that "atheists reject faith". We routinely rely on trustworthy sources. And that is all that faith is. And we don't do so blindly, any more than Christians do. We are concerned about the trustworthiness of our sources, and if we find them unreliable, we abandon them.

I think what distinguishes a person who relies on God from a person who relies on the scientific method is simply a lack of education. As Feynman pointed out, we are easily fooled and the easiest person to fool is yourself. A person who is educated about the ways in which we fool ourselves, and how we can guard against that, is probably not going to remain a Christian for very long. But rather than abandoning faith altogether, such a person will simply find more reliable sources of truth to put their faith in.

Quote from: "Achronos"Do human thoughts, and senses, accurately relate to reality?

Solipsism...*yawn*
Let me whack you with a baseball bat, then, you tell me that it wasn't real and that I didn't do that to you. Or,
Take the Yahzi patented Baseball Bat Test (TM):

Step 1. Obtain a baseball bat.

Step 2. Fix your mind firmly on the notion that reality is just an illusion.

Step 3. Strike yourself in the head with the bat until step 2 is no longer possible.

QuoteTrusting in the mind or the senses because there is no reason not to, may be no more reasonable than distrusting them because there is no reason to trust them.

Well, first, tell us a time when a 'normal' person shouldn't trust their senses because there is no reason to. Actually, the statement "There is no reason to trust your senses." is just idiotic.

QuoteEither trust, however, is faith, and one faith is the beginning while the other is the end.

The words "trust" and Faith" are not mutually inclusive. They are separate words with different meanings. Trying to shoehorn the two together is simply...wrong.

QuoteKnowledge accordingly is belief;

Belief is confidence of/in something not immediately susceptible to proof. Knowledge is an acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation gained by sight, experience, or report (senses); or sexual intercourse, depending on how archaic one is...*chucklin*. So...

QuoteAll alleged knowledge of matters of fact is faith only,

only counts for a theist. The error or deception here is to imply that everything (knowledge) is a matter of faith. This would include a scientific statement; one supported by evidence marshaled forth the way scientists do in support of their scientific claims, is a matter of faith. To use 'faith' in such a broad way is to strip it of any theological significance the term might otherwise have. It is bad form...
Such a conception of faith treats belief in all non-empirical statements as acts of faith. Therefore, belief in the external world, belief in the law of causality, or even fundamental principles of logic such as the principle of contradiction or the law of the excluded middle, would be acts of faith from your point of view. A view that I do not share. It is profoundly deceptive and misleading about lumping together as acts of faith such things as belief in the Virgin birth and belief in the existence of an external world or in the principle of contradiction and trivializes religious faith by putting superstitions, fairy tales, and delusions of all varieties, and all empirical and non-empirical claims in the same category as religious faith.

Christianity is not a belief, it is a faith. It requires no proof (proof implies doubt, doubt is a sin, faith is a virtue) it needs no evidence to support it.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post. I've had enough with the first paragraph.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Relevant to what this thread is about, I quote here Kurt Wise, who has a PhD in geology and is a well known creationist: "As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/wise.asp

IOW: "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's already made up."

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"imagine that somehow it was demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the scroll of the Law described above was secretly deposited in the Temple by scheming Babylonians with the express intention of destabilizing Jewish society by inciting religious conflict.  Would Kurt Wise and others like him begin to doubt that Deuteronomy, at least, was the Word of God?

Or imagine archaeologists finding a genuine letter to the faithful (http://metaed.blogspot.com/2003/06/epistle-of-thomas.html) that casts doubt upon the accepted Gospel.

Quote from: "metaed"They offered arguments such as: Jesus claimed to be God; if he isn't God, then he was either a liar or a nut; his sayings are not the works of a liar or a nut; therefore, Jesus is God.

OK, I guess that's evidence, after a fashion, but it's flimsy.  The only evidence we have that Jesus existed is the same book being defended on the basis that he existed.  The only evidence we have that he said reasonable things is the same book being defended by the fact that he said reasonable things.  It's circular.

Comparing scriptural authority to scientific authority, moreover, is an insult to science.  Anything a scientist says can be double-checked by running the same experiment, performing the same calculations, going out to the same stretch of wilderness and observing the same beasts.  Scientific claims can be falsified.  Scriptural claims cannot.

QuoteI think what distinguishes a person who relies on God from a person who relies on the scientific method is simply a lack of education.

I wish that were the case, since education would then provide the antidote.  But there are Christians with doctorates, even doctorates in science.

The difference between theists and atheists resides in what they revere.  Theists revere what they imagine.  Atheists revere logic and falsifiability.  Come to think of it, imagination probably resides in the opposite brain hemisphere from logic and empiricism.  The difference may have to do with which hemisphere is dominant in the particular individual.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Theists revere what they imagine.  Atheists revere logic and falsifiability.

I think we agree on this point, but we may not agree on which comes first. I think you've described how theists become atheists. At least I hear this story over and over again from people who left religion. They "get" why they believe weird things---they realize how gullible they are, and learn how to arm themselves against it, and then as a consequence they fall out of religion. You're right that there are some PhD scientists who are Christian, but the real story is that they're a minority. Scientists are much less religious than other people, and I think that's an effect of their education. And yes, a person's self concept can be so tied up in their beliefs that they persist in cognitive dissonance rather than fall out of them. Education is not going to reach some people.

Quote from: "metaed"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Theists revere what they imagine.  Atheists revere logic and falsifiability.

I think we agree on this point, but we may not agree on which comes first.

Are you saying that being atheist precedes coming to revere logic and falsifiability, rather than the latter preceding the former?  That wouldn't describe me.  But I guess someone could be atheist because they don't revere what they imagine, or, perhaps, because they don't imagine.

My own deconversion came first by thinking that the idea of god is bullshit, and only later by understanding the reasoning behind that point.  My intuition was certainly ahead of my logic at that point.

It was only five or so years later that I understood that rationality ought to be pre-eminent above atheism, and applied generally through my life, rather than restricted to my religious views.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"My own deconversion came first by thinking that the idea of god is bullshit, and only later by understanding the reasoning behind that point.  My intuition was certainly ahead of my logic at that point.

This topic of intuition interests me.  My own intuition gets triggered now and then, and tells me things that stop me in my tracks.  But I have always taken what it told me as a hypothesis to be tested, empirically if feasible, but at least logically.  Treating intuition's message as knowledge in itself never occurred to me.  Doing so would be to treat my brain as a mysterious revelation machine; I.e., as something like God.  Nevertheless, when my intuition has told me things about real people and what they might be doing, thinking, or feeling, and I have tested the hypothesis, it has proven accurate consistently.  I still do the test, however.  To not do it would be intellectual treason.

QuoteIt was only five or so years later that I understood that rationality ought to be pre-eminent above atheism, and applied generally through my life, rather than restricted to my religious views.

Interesting.  I was scientarian first, and only as a result, atheist.  Between adopting scientarianism and adopting atheism, a long phase of study and thought intervened.  I eventually concluded that scientarianism in itself precluded supernaturalism of any stripe.  Supernaturalism, for a scientarian, is (to use the term a second time) intellectual treason.  On principle I restricted my logic to naturalistic systems of thought.

During my intervening phase of study and thought, I actually considered worshipping Crom!    (I interpret Robert E. Howard's Crom, the God of Conan, as symbolizing natural selection.)

It's become increasingly clear to me that the crucial difference between most theists and most atheists is epistemological.  Here's my epistemology: "Empiricism and logic, with intuition as a powerful source of hypotheses, are the sole path to knowledge."  Few theists would agree with that.  Few atheists would disagree.

If two people agree on epistemology, they can debate most any topic fruitfully.  If they disagree on epistemology, they will never get anywhere with any debate unless and until they debate epistemology itself, and reach some resolution or compromise that both can buy into.

I think reason together with faith can discover truth.

Quote from: "Achronos"I think reason together with faith can discover truth.

You and I uphold different epistemologies and will never agree on anything philosophical unless we first agree on a compromise epistemology we can both buy into.  Incidentally, that was the original point of this whole thread, and it is even clearer to me now than when I brought this thread into being.  Unfortunately, I have no hope of us ever agreeing on a compromise epistemology that we can both buy into.  You would have to convince me that faith has some sort of utility on the path to knowledge, or I would have to convince you that it has none.  Neither is going to happen.

Quote from: "Achronos"I think reason together with faith can discover truth.

I agree with you, faith and reason can discover the truth, but the scientific method will discover the truth. Instead of "can", "will" is more powerful, because once one does discover the truth with the scientific method, only those that don't understand the theory and/or deny the evidence will not accept it (or even worse, reject it).

The problem isn't whether truth can be reached through a process, it's whether you can trust that the process will only lead to truth. Faith ensures that one cannot be sure that the conclusion they come to is the truth, while the facts, logic and testing require a conclusion to be the truth (or at least as close to the truth as is humanly possible).

When someone asks me how I know something, I can explain it, teach it, test it, demonstrate it and verify test results with others. Faith only allows one to guess and find other people kind of guessing the same thing for verification. But faith is still just a guess based on nothing factual, demonstrable or independently verifiable.

Science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant. Theory is the very goal of the scientific method! Contrary to what you may believe about science, it is not about proclaiming facts except as these facts are necessary for the articulation of theories to explain these facts.

When new scientific discoveries are made, for example new interpretations of Genesis must be allowed. St. Basil, although he believed in a flat earth, did not think the idea was important for theology. I think we can reconcile the fathers (priests) in this manner, by understanding that they did not have available what we have today. Thus, we have to be more sympathetic towards the Fathers and towards today's scientific discoveries. The more we take the Fathers' and the Bible's words literally, the more we (as Christians) ridicule ourselves and the Faith.

“Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been...And when they are asked, how…the reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and...thus there was at intervals a new beginning made…But they say what they think, not what they know.  They are deceived…by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.”  Augustine, The City of God, 12.10.

Quote from: "Achronos"Science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant. Theory is the very goal of the scientific method! Contrary to what you may believe about science, it is not about proclaiming facts except as these facts are necessary for the articulation of theories to explain these facts.

Any time I see a religious nut write about what science is, or what makes a good scientist or the like, I get a good laugh out of it. So thanks for that.

Oh, and you have heretofore been impossible to take seriously in any of your posts.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"It's become increasingly clear to me that the crucial difference between most theists and most atheists is epistemological.  Here's my epistemology: "Empiricism and logic, with intuition as a powerful source of hypotheses, are the sole path to knowledge."  Few theists would agree with that.  Few atheists would disagree.

If two people agree on epistemology, they can debate most any topic fruitfully.  If they disagree on epistemology, they will never get anywhere with any debate unless and until they debate epistemology itself, and reach some resolution or compromise that both can buy into.

Well put.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Achronos"Science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant. Theory is the very goal of the scientific method! Contrary to what you may believe about science, it is not about proclaiming facts except as these facts are necessary for the articulation of theories to explain these facts.

Any time I see a religious nut write about what science is, or what makes a good scientist or the like, I get a good laugh out of it. So thanks for that.

Oh, and you have heretofore been impossible to take seriously in any of your posts.

Whoa! Uncalled for personal attack. Achronos is allowed to explain this just as much as anyone else here. Additionally, he articulated it pretty accurately in layman's terms.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Achronos"Science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant. Theory is the very goal of the scientific method! Contrary to what you may believe about science, it is not about proclaiming facts except as these facts are necessary for the articulation of theories to explain these facts.

Any time I see a religious nut write about what science is, or what makes a good scientist or the like, I get a good laugh out of it. So thanks for that.

Oh, and you have heretofore been impossible to take seriously in any of your posts.

Whoa! Uncalled for personal attack. Achronos is allowed to explain this just as much as anyone else here. Additionally, he articulated it pretty accurately in layman's terms.

My apologies to Achronos. No disrespect intended. I guess I shouldn't have used the term "religious nut" because it does come across as offensive.

That being said... I do laugh every time I see a person who is very religious attempting to explain what makes good science or a good scientist. The only reason that seemed to be aimed at Achronos was because he happened to be the religious person whose quote I had just read before having that thought and posting it. Really it could've been a quote from any of our religious members and it wouldn't have made a difference to me... I would've still had the same thought regardless.

And I realize the last line did come across as me being a jerk. Achronos is a good writer. The posts are well written and thought out. In my opinion however, I personally (speaking for nobody else) have a hard time taking the content seriously. Although well written and thought out, they are much the same as any religious person who is good at spinning everything to fit their religious agenda.

I guess what I'm trying to say in this bumbling mess of a post is that, while it didn't appear that way, I'm attacking the content and not the writer. Again, my apologies to Achronos.

Quote from: "Achronos"Science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant. Theory is the very goal of the scientific method! Contrary to what you may believe about science, it is not about proclaiming facts except as these facts are necessary for the articulation of theories to explain these facts.

Where did I ever say otherwise? I never said that science is absolute, the closest I came to it was saying that the scientific method will lead to the truth. This doesn't mean that those using the scientific method will find the absolute truth, just that the scientific method will always point those who use it in the direction of the truth.

Quote from: "Achronos"When new scientific discoveries are made, for example new interpretations of Genesis must be allowed. St. Basil, although he believed in a flat earth, did not think the idea was important for theology. I think we can reconcile the fathers (priests) in this manner, by understanding that they did not have available what we have today. Thus, we have to be more sympathetic towards the Fathers and towards today's scientific discoveries. The more we take the Fathers' and the Bible's words literally, the more we (as Christians) ridicule ourselves and the Faith.

What you've said here demonstrates my point: science gets one to understanding reality as closely as possible, while faith has consistently led people away from reality. Those with faith had been going in the completely wrong direction. Those that use and trust the scientific method may have to adjust their course a little bit every once in a while, but those that put their trust in faith very often have to make 180° turns. Personally I'd rather make small course corrections than to change directions erratically.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"My apologies to Achronos. No disrespect intended. I guess I shouldn't have used the term "religious nut" because it does come across as offensive.

That being said... I do laugh every time I see a person who is very religious attempting to explain what makes good science or a good scientist. The only reason that seemed to be aimed at Achronos was because he happened to be the religious person whose quote I had just read before having that thought and posting it. Really it could've been a quote from any of our religious members and it wouldn't have made a difference to me... I would've still had the same thought regardless.

And I realize the last line did come across as me being a jerk. Achronos is a good writer. The posts are well written and thought out. In my opinion however, I personally (speaking for nobody else) have a hard time taking the content seriously. Although well written and thought out, they are much the same as any religious person who is good at spinning everything to fit their religious agenda.

I guess what I'm trying to say in this bumbling mess of a post is that, while it didn't appear that way, I'm attacking the content and not the writer. Again, my apologies to Achronos.

Thanks, much appreciated.  

Seemed a bit out of character for you.

Quote from: "McQ"Thanks, much appreciated.  

Seemed a bit out of character for you.

Yeah. Me and lack of sleep tend to equal grumpier-than-usualness.

By your own admission:

Quote from: "Achronos"Science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date.

and still has not found a god. Funny how 4 billion people can find gods without a lick of science...don't you think?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"But I have always taken what it told me as a hypothesis to be tested, empirically if feasible, but at least logically.  Treating intuition's message as knowledge in itself never occurred to me.  

Agreed.  Intuition too can be wrong, and it took a few years for me to realize that trusting it implicitly is rarely a good idea.  My intuitions get the twice-over from my rationality due to the errors I've made by not doing so.

QuoteInteresting.  I was scientarian first, and only as a result, atheist.  Between adopting scientarianism and adopting atheism, a long phase of study and thought intervened.  I eventually concluded that scientarianism in itself precluded supernaturalism of any stripe.  Supernaturalism, for a scientarian, is (to use the term a second time) intellectual treason.  On principle I restricted my logic to naturalistic systems of thought.

Overcoming my Southern Baptist upbringing was an arduous process.  Thankfully, a private-school education overseas gave me the tools so that when I wanted to understand why superstition was BS, the task was fairly mundane and caused my little cognitive dissonance.