Scientists create light from vacuum (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html)
Quote(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at Chalmers University of Technology have succeeded in creating light from vacuum – observing an effect first predicted over 40 years ago. The results will be published tomorrow (Wednesday) in the journal Nature. In an innovative experiment, the scientists have managed to capture some of the photons that are constantly appearing and disappearing in the vacuum.
The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. They appear, exist for a brief moment and then disappear again. Since their existence is so fleeting, they are usually referred to as virtual particles...
Evidence supporting Quantum Theory.
Very cool! Thanks for posting that story, Tank. One of the standard quips used by Creationists in attempting to support their belief and "win" in discussions on the origin of the universe is looking less and less viable. 8)
Quote from: Recusant on November 17, 2011, 05:55:22 PM
Very cool! Thanks for posting that story, Tank. One of the standard quips used by Creationists in attempting to support their belief and "win" in discussions on the origin of the universe is looking less and less viable. 8)
Yep! *Does happy dance*
From the article:
"The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence."
So, it's not really "nothing." We've known this for awhile. So the title of thread is slightly misleading. Something is coming from particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. How such a situation came to be in our universe is unknown to any of us. So it doesn't answer whether or not there is an intelligent being behind the whole process. However, it is cool, and it does serve to confirm quantum theory.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 07:13:12 PM
From the article:
"The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence."
So, it's not really "nothing." We've known this for awhile. So the title of thread is slightly misleading. Something is coming from particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. How such a situation came to be in our universe is unknown to any of us. So it doesn't answer whether or not there is an intelligent being behind the whole process. However, it is cool, and it does serve to confirm quantum theory.
Not so much as "misleading" as it is, using colloquial terms. Like when people say "said" in reference to things typed, not so much misleading (as inaccurate as it is), but the colloquial definition.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 07:13:12 PM
From the article:
"The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence."
So, it's not really "nothing." We've known this for awhile. So the title of thread is slightly misleading. Something is coming from particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. How such a situation came to be in our universe is unknown to any of us. So it doesn't answer whether or not there is an intelligent being behind the whole process. However, it is cool, and it does serve to confirm quantum theory.
If you tried to extract any conventional stable matter from a pure vacuum you could not. If you want a definition of nothing that is a vacuum and has been since the word was created. It is that meaning of nothing that theist claim nothing can be created from. You're using a samantic argument and a disengenuious twisting of language to win your point at the expence of the truth, as usual.
Quote from: Tank on November 17, 2011, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 07:13:12 PM
From the article:
"The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence."
So, it's not really "nothing." We've known this for awhile. So the title of thread is slightly misleading. Something is coming from particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. How such a situation came to be in our universe is unknown to any of us. So it doesn't answer whether or not there is an intelligent being behind the whole process. However, it is cool, and it does serve to confirm quantum theory.
If you tried to extract any conventional stable matter from a pure vacuum you could not. If you want a definition of nothing that is a vacuum and has been since the word was created. It is that meaning of nothing that theist claim nothing can be created from. You're using a samantic argument and a disengenuious twisting of language to win your point at the expence of the truth, as usual.
My only argument is that a confirmation of quantum theory (which seems to be the effect of the experiment) does not eliminate the possibility of a creator god. The particles are coming from some set of circumstances, and what those circumstances are is unknown. Why the universe is set up the way it is, with the laws that it has, is unknown. Neither side can claim any triumph.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 07:57:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 17, 2011, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 07:13:12 PM
From the article:
"The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence."
So, it's not really "nothing." We've known this for awhile. So the title of thread is slightly misleading. Something is coming from particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. How such a situation came to be in our universe is unknown to any of us. So it doesn't answer whether or not there is an intelligent being behind the whole process. However, it is cool, and it does serve to confirm quantum theory.
If you tried to extract any conventional stable matter from a pure vacuum you could not. If you want a definition of nothing that is a vacuum and has been since the word was created. It is that meaning of nothing that theist claim nothing can be created from. You're using a samantic argument and a disengenuious twisting of language to win your point at the expence of the truth, as usual.
My only argument is that a confirmation of quantum theory (which seems to be the effect of the experiment) does not eliminate the possibility of a creator god. The particles are coming from some set of circumstances, and what those circumstances are is unknown. Why the universe is set up the way it is, with the laws that it has, is unknown. Neither side can claim any triumph.
Bruce nothing can eliminate the possibility of a personal fantasy, particularly one that has taken decades to fabricate. You can believe what you like, it's your right. If you want to live in a fantasy it's your choice. And no you can't claim triumph, so why on Earth do you and people like you continue to base your entire world view on something you can't even accurately describe let alone agree on?
There is no objective, repeatable, testable evidence for the existance of the supernatural in any form, so sorry but because of this I feel quite at liberty to dismiss the existance of the supernatural and all that that entails.
Quote from: Recusant on November 17, 2011, 05:55:22 PM
Very cool! Thanks for posting that story, Tank. One of the standard quips used by Creationists in attempting to support their belief and "win" in discussions on the origin of the universe is looking less and less viable. 8)
... actually, they'll probably jump on this one as more proof.
Consider:
1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
*** Given ***
1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void;
*** So, Particles in flux... in a void or vacuum ***
1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
*** Boom! God just made something out of nothing! ***
We're just now figuring out how correct the bible is...
(no, I'm not serious... but they will be),
JoeActor
Quote from: Tank on November 17, 2011, 08:08:32 PM
Bruce nothing can eliminate the possibility of a personal fantasy, particularly one that has taken decades to fabricate. You can believe what you like, it's your right. If you want to live in a fantasy it's your choice. And no you can't claim triumph, so why on Earth do you and people like you continue to base your entire world view on something you can't even accurately describe let alone agree on? There is no objective, repeatable, testable evidence for the existance of the supernatural in any form, so sorry but because of this I feel quite at liberty to dismiss the existance of the supernatural and all that that entails.
Nothing can stop you from describing faith in God as a personal fantasy, and nothing can stop you from deciding to limit reality to those things that you can repeatably test. But there are others who have different experiences than you do, and who have concluded that those personal experiences point toward another aspect of reality that folks such as yourself reject
a priori. I see no need to reject science or the empirical findings of those who work in the realm of objective, repeatable testing of hypotheses. But I also see no need to reject other sources of information about reality that are not subject to the scientific method, and that may lead to faith as opposed to knowledge. Our difference is epistemological.
Quote from: joeactor on November 17, 2011, 09:05:45 PM
... actually, they'll probably jump on this one as more proof.
Consider:
1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
*** Given ***
1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void;
*** So, Particles in flux... in a void or vacuum ***
1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
*** Boom! God just made something out of nothing! ***
We're just now figuring out how correct the bible is...
(no, I'm not serious... but they will be),
JoeActor
You make an excellent point. I should never underestimate the ingenuity of Creationists. ;)
Quote from: Recusant on November 17, 2011, 09:13:06 PMYou make an excellent point. I should never underestimate the ingenuity of Creationists. ;)
Yeppers - intelligence, like many things, can be used for good or, uh, not so good...
After hearing all the other excuses to shoehorn facts into the myth, I've come to expect it.
Grand Canyon and the flood - oh puuuleeeeaaase!
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 09:07:12 PM
But I also see no need to reject other sources of information about reality that are not subject to the scientific method, and that may lead to faith as opposed to knowledge. Our difference is epistemological.
Do you reject the Qu'ran, the Torah, the Hindi scriptures?
One thing I don't get though is why creationists, deists or whatever believe that there was a time when 'nothing' in the pure sense of the word actually existed (or...didn't exist since as long as ''something' exists there can never be 'nothing') ???
There's a good documentary by Lawrence Krauss called "The Universe From Nothing", available for free on Youtube. If anybody hasn't watched it already, I recommend it. :)
A couple of issues.
1. People have a preconcieved idea of what nothing is. It seems that nothing is the answer to infinite regress. This is a platform from which something begins to exist and it is impossible to stop this process. You can never just find nothing without something popping in and out of existence.
2. Theists just pose a lazy and high level position that god is infinite regress and hence all existence originates from god. With this approach they don't have to prove anything and they don't have to state what it is that god actually creates. They say god created the Universe, but then science says that the Universe comes from the Big Bang, so they say god created the big bang, but then science says that matter/energy comes from nothing via quantum fluctuations so they say god created the conditions of quantum fluctuations. There is no level of effort on the theists, they just keep differing scientific advancement, without having to give any detail of what it is that a creator god did.
Quote from: Stevil on November 17, 2011, 10:33:52 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 09:07:12 PM
But I also see no need to reject other sources of information about reality that are not subject to the scientific method, and that may lead to faith as opposed to knowledge. Our difference is epistemological.
Do you reject the Qu'ran, the Torah, the Hindi scriptures?
I reject all of those books, as well as the New Testament, as infallible sources of truth. I accept all of those books as expressions of individuals who have had experiences with God. For me, my experience is with Jesus, so I don't have any personal experience of God outside that context.
Quote from: Stevil on November 17, 2011, 10:40:36 PM
A couple of issues.
1. People have a preconcieved idea of what nothing is. It seems that nothing is the answer to infinite regress. This is a platform from which something begins to exist and it is impossible to stop this process. You can never just find nothing without something popping in and out of existence.
2. Theists just pose a lazy and high level position that god is infinite regress and hence all existence originates from god. With this approach they don't have to prove anything and they don't have to state what it is that god actually creates. They say god created the Universe, but then science says that the Universe comes from the Big Bang, so they say god created the big bang, but then science says that matter/energy comes from nothing via quantum fluctuations so they say god created the conditions of quantum fluctuations. There is no level of effort on the theists, they just keep differing scientific advancement, without having to give any detail of what it is that a creator god did.
My thoughts exactly. You hardly ever come across a theist who says that this universe was created, but by something that was itself created? No, it's much simpler and easier to believe that infinite regress doesn't go beyond whatever came before us, even though it's just as plausible as the hypothesis they give for an intelligence creating our existence. There's no proof for either, just interpretations and paradigms.
Path of least mental resistance: thinking about infinite regress is uncomfortable so god becomes a logical argument that doesn't seem so absurd to them. Also is a great way to cease questions on where god might have come from, and if god exists and was created, then is he perfect? If he isn't perfect, then that complicates things for believers because then he ceases to be what they want him to be for their own psychological reasons (comfort blanket, sense of some control over the universe, sense of purpose, etc.)...
::)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 18, 2011, 06:35:30 AM
Path of least mental resistance: thinking about infinite regress is uncomfortable so god becomes a logical argument that doesn't seem so absurd to them. Also is a great way to cease questions on where god might have come from, and if god exists and was created, then is he perfect? If he isn't perfect, then that complicates things for believers because then he ceases to be what they want him to be for their own psychological reasons (comfort blanket, sense of some control over the universe, sense of purpose, etc.)...
If you have a universe that didn't have to be created, then why can't you have a God that didn't have to be created? Works both ways. You're not philosophically stuck with infinite regression whether you are an atheist or a theist. Furthermore, "perfect" is a human standard that may not have any meaning when applied to God, any more than it would have meaning if applied to the universe. If God exists, he is what he is, just like the universe is what it is.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 18, 2011, 06:38:52 PM
If you have a universe that didn't have to be created, then why can't you have a God that didn't have to be created? Works both ways. You're not philosophically stuck with infinite regression whether you are an atheist or a theist. Furthermore, "perfect" is a human standard that may not have any meaning when applied to God, any more than it would have meaning if applied to the universe. If God exists, he is what he is, just like the universe is what it is.
The problem with your god not being created and having been around before existence, is that people attribute that your god is intelligent and all knowing.
Without existence, where did your god get knowledge from? Without knowledge where did your god get intelligence from?
The scientific theory is how energy and matter comes from nothing. It is over simplifying to simply say the universe comes from nothing.
BTW It is possible that there are many, many universes throughout space. The conditions that created our Universe will likely have created many, many others, and being an ongoing condition, universes are being created all the time.
So science does not claim that our universe is eternal, or uncaused. The beginnings of our universe if we only go back to the start of the big bang (no doubt in my mind that there were many events prior to the big bang), shows us that the universe was incredibly simple, just made up of energy, possibly no particles, or only simple particles. No life, no intelligence, no knowledge.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 18, 2011, 06:38:52 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 18, 2011, 06:35:30 AM
Path of least mental resistance: thinking about infinite regress is uncomfortable so god becomes a logical argument that doesn't seem so absurd to them. Also is a great way to cease questions on where god might have come from, and if god exists and was created, then is he perfect? If he isn't perfect, then that complicates things for believers because then he ceases to be what they want him to be for their own psychological reasons (comfort blanket, sense of some control over the universe, sense of purpose, etc.)...
If you have a universe that didn't have to be created, then why can't you have a God that didn't have to be created? Works both ways. You're not philosophically stuck with infinite regression whether you are an atheist or a theist. Furthermore, "perfect" is a human standard that may not have any meaning when applied to God, any more than it would have meaning if applied to the universe. If God exists, he is what he is, just like the universe is what it is.
God = infinitly complex
Universe = initial conditions remarkably simple
Quote from: Tank on November 18, 2011, 07:07:03 PM
Universe = initial conditions remarkably simple
I don't think you can say that. Are you saying quantum theory is remarkably simple? We don't even know how it all works yet. How the laws of physics operated together to give rise to a universe seems to me to be a thing of infinite complexity.
Quote from: Stevil on November 18, 2011, 07:06:34 PM
The problem with your god not being created and having been around before existence, is that people attribute that your god is intelligent and all knowing.
Without existence, where did your god get knowledge from? Without knowledge where did your god get intelligence from?
I see nothing that would prevent knowledge and intelligence from being the fundamental conditions from which this highly complex universe arose. The laws of nature that we observe today are infinitely complex, yet they have existed from the beginning. The universe came into being already infintely complex. I think it would not take much of a leap to theorize that the nature of the universe arose from
a priori knowledge and intelligence, giving rise to the complex universe that we see today in which conscious, intelligent life is capable of evolving.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 18, 2011, 07:49:31 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 18, 2011, 07:07:03 PM
Universe = initial conditions remarkably simple
I don't think you can say that. Are you saying quantum theory is remarkably simple? We don't even know how it all works yet. How the laws of physics operated together to give rise to a universe seems to me to be a thing of infinite complexity.
The start conditions of this universe were very simple, basically a load of hyper-hot particles and energy. Almost infinitly simpler than an all seeing all knowing supernatural entity.
Quote from: Tank on November 18, 2011, 08:07:58 PM
The start conditions of this universe were very simple, basically a load of hyper-hot particles and energy. Almost infinitly simpler than an all seeing all knowing supernatural entity.
I'll make one more post, then you get the last word. There was a lot more than just hyper-hot particles and energy. There were laws of physics and quantum realities that, in very complex fashion, led to rapidly expanding space/time and self-organization, ultimately leading to conscious life. Gravity, the strong & weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, multiple dimensions. How can you call this simple?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 09:07:12 PM
Nothing can stop you from describing faith in God as a personal fantasy,
True, because until demonstrated otherwise, a fantasy it is.
Quoteand nothing can stop you from deciding to limit reality to those things that you can repeatably test.
No, there are also things we have not thought of yet out there. And some we have thought of but failed to explain. Flying unicorns, however..? Not on this planet, no.
QuoteBut there are others who have different experiences than you do, and who have concluded that those personal experiences point toward another aspect of reality that folks such as yourself reject a priori.
I believe that there is what Tank called "living in a fantasy" - or something similar.
Their attributing of personal and highly subjective experiences to your particular variety of "other aspect" points more towards crappy imagination, mediocre-at-best education and/or intelligence and a tendency to jump to very weak conclusions, quite possibly in an attempt not to overstrain that little gray lump between their ears.
QuoteI see no need to reject science or the empirical findings of those who work in the realm of objective, repeatable testing of hypotheses.
Which means you are wiser than many.
QuoteBut I also see no need to reject other sources of information about reality that are not subject to the scientific method, and that may lead to faith as opposed to knowledge. Our difference is epistemological.
Knowledge is power. Faith is a dog collar.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 18, 2011, 08:32:11 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 18, 2011, 08:07:58 PM
The start conditions of this universe were very simple, basically a load of hyper-hot particles and energy. Almost infinitly simpler than an all seeing all knowing supernatural entity.
I'll make one more post, then you get the last word. There was a lot more than just hyper-hot particles and energy. There were laws of physics and quantum realities that, in very complex fashion, led to rapidly expanding space/time and self-organization, ultimately leading to conscious life. Gravity, the strong & weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, multiple dimensions. How can you call this simple?
It is simple when compared to the conjecture of the existance of an entity capable of creating said conditions and in full knowledge of how things would come out in the end. There is also no confirmed evidence for additional dimensions beyond the 4 we can currently percieve. It is also expected that when the Standard Model is 'fixed' the resulting model will be simpler than it is now.
Quote from: Tank on November 18, 2011, 09:15:53 PM
...and in full knowledge of how things would come out in the end.
This bit is key to me. If the god entity already knows the result then nothing was learned, nothing achieved, just an incredibly boring 14 billion years worth of events that it knew would happen. There would be absolutely no point or purpose for an all powerful, all knowing, perfect god to create existence.
Quote from: Tank on November 18, 2011, 09:15:53 PM
There is also no confirmed evidence for additional dimensions beyond the 4 we can currently percieve.
I assume you are including time as the forth dimension. Yeah, I don't think there are more dimensions than this, for this reason I am highly skeptical of string theory with its insistence on 11 dimensions and a 1 dimensional vibrating string.
Quote from: Tank on November 18, 2011, 09:15:53 PM
It is also expected that when the Standard Model is 'fixed' the resulting model will be simpler than it is now.
With regards to the laws of physics, these aren't really laws. People have made mathematical models based on observations of reality and called these laws because they expect everything to behave consistent to these models.
But the cosmos does not know about these laws, it does not obey through fear of breaking a law. These are natural characteristics/attributes of reality, they aren't rules or laws. I think many people often get confused with semantics, this is why acceptance of symbolism is often a human trait.
Quote from: Stevil on November 18, 2011, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 18, 2011, 09:15:53 PM
It is also expected that when the Standard Model is 'fixed' the resulting model will be simpler than it is now.
With regards to the laws of physics, these aren't really laws. People have made mathematical models based on observations of reality and called these laws because they expect everything to behave consistent to these models.
But the cosmos does not know about these laws, it does not obey through fear of breaking a law. These are natural characteristics/attributes of reality, they aren't rules or laws. I think many people often get confused with semantics, this is why acceptance of symbolism is often a human trait.
That's why it's called a 'Model' ;D
Quote from: Tank on November 18, 2011, 11:15:05 PM
Quote from: Stevil on November 18, 2011, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 18, 2011, 09:15:53 PM
It is also expected that when the Standard Model is 'fixed' the resulting model will be simpler than it is now.
With regards to the laws of physics, these aren't really laws. People have made mathematical models based on observations of reality and called these laws because they expect everything to behave consistent to these models.
But the cosmos does not know about these laws, it does not obey through fear of breaking a law. These are natural characteristics/attributes of reality, they aren't rules or laws. I think many people often get confused with semantics, this is why acceptance of symbolism is often a human trait.
That's why it's called a 'Model' ;D
Yes, probably a bit confussing since I didn't quote Ecurb's post, I was responding to Ecurbs reference of laws, but was using your post as I agreed with it and thought it went along with the same correct theme of modelling.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 18, 2011, 06:38:52 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 18, 2011, 06:35:30 AM
Path of least mental resistance: thinking about infinite regress is uncomfortable so god becomes a logical argument that doesn't seem so absurd to them. Also is a great way to cease questions on where god might have come from, and if god exists and was created, then is he perfect? If he isn't perfect, then that complicates things for believers because then he ceases to be what they want him to be for their own psychological reasons (comfort blanket, sense of some control over the universe, sense of purpose, etc.)...
If you have a universe that didn't have to be created, then why can't you have a God that didn't have to be created? Works both ways. You're not philosophically stuck with infinite regression whether you are an atheist or a theist. Furthermore, "perfect" is a human standard that may not have any meaning when applied to God, any more than it would have meaning if applied to the universe. If God exists, he is what he is, just like the universe is what it is.
As an atheist, I would ask, why even posit the existence of a god that wasn't created in the first place? Until further evidence comes along, I would stick with saying that the universe, which I know exists, was always there is some form.
Also, about infinite regress, people who believe that some being created our existence generally assume that it itself wasn't created. You hardly ever come across someone who says that whatever created us was also created.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'perfect'...what I meant was god being something other than what people want him to be. We could be to god as ants are to us, but people don't ever want to believe that. Theists
want to believe in something that cares about them.
Quote from: Stevil on November 18, 2011, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 18, 2011, 09:15:53 PM
There is also no confirmed evidence for additional dimensions beyond the 4 we can currently percieve.
I assume you are including time as the forth dimension. Yeah, I don't think there are more dimensions than this, for this reason I am highly skeptical of string theory with its insistence on 11 dimensions and a 1 dimensional vibrating string.
Some say that it's in fact a holographic universe with only 2 spatial dimensions. (apparently with some evidence to suggest, based on why the universe doesn't loose information in black holes, but I couldn't understand it if I tried).
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 09:07:12 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 17, 2011, 08:08:32 PM
Bruce nothing can eliminate the possibility of a personal fantasy, particularly one that has taken decades to fabricate. You can believe what you like, it's your right. If you want to live in a fantasy it's your choice. And no you can't claim triumph, so why on Earth do you and people like you continue to base your entire world view on something you can't even accurately describe let alone agree on? There is no objective, repeatable, testable evidence for the existance of the supernatural in any form, so sorry but because of this I feel quite at liberty to dismiss the existance of the supernatural and all that that entails.
Nothing can stop you from describing faith in God as a personal fantasy, and nothing can stop you from deciding to limit reality to those things that you can repeatably test. But there are others who have different experiences than you do, and who have concluded that those personal experiences point toward another aspect of reality that folks such as yourself reject a priori. I see no need to reject science or the empirical findings of those who work in the realm of objective, repeatable testing of hypotheses. But I also see no need to reject other sources of information about reality that are not subject to the scientific method, and that may lead to faith as opposed to knowledge. Our difference is epistemological.
I don't know how you could make any claim to know anything about "reality" without the scientific method. The whole point of the method is to try and verify that something isn't just made up in your mind, or a creation of personal bias. "Faith", to me, is just another word for "subjective gobbledegook." Yeah, we all have subjective views on things, you need to to function in the day to day world, but I wouldn't call that a virtue.
Beyond that, of course this doesn't "disprove" God, but it certainly doesn't strengthen the case for a Creator God.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 20, 2011, 03:45:05 PM
"Faith", to me, is just another word for "subjective gobbledegook." Yeah, we all have subjective views on things, you need to to function in the day to day world, but I wouldn't call that a virtue.
I certainly think that faith is a virtue in the non-religious realm. No business venture, no new movement ever began without faith - faith that the business would be profitable or faith that the movement would change things. Without faith, we lose hope in the future. When you transport faith over into the religious realm, it doesn't have to be much different - faith that it all means something, faith that there is hope for the future, even after life. It gets many people through the night. So it can be a virtue, IMO.
Just a general thought based on complexity of the universe vs. complexity of god.
1) Since the universe becomes more complex with time, and
2) It had a (fairly) simple set of beginning conditions...
3) Is it possible to posit a god that is even simpler giving rise to the initial conditions and rules that govern the universe's creation?
More of a deist view than anything. And it doesn't say anything about if said "god" was created, is still around, or what he/she/it is capable of...
I think many religious and non-religious people get into trouble when they try to define "god".
This is where the omni-whatevers come from and all the mental anguish.
"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.
Everyone has faith. Everyone has knowledge. Nobody operates in a day-to-day existence without both.
2 cents from JoeActor
Quote from: joeactor on November 20, 2011, 04:30:29 PM
Everyone has faith. Everyone has knowledge. Nobody operates in a day-to-day existence without both.
Are you sure you are not mistaking trust for faith?
For instane, do I believe the quantum theory guys are on to something? Yes. Is it faith? No. I am nowhere near the degree of confidence to call my moderate trust in those scientists anything even remotely close to faith.
Quote from: Asmodean on November 20, 2011, 04:51:54 PM
Quote from: joeactor on November 20, 2011, 04:30:29 PM
Everyone has faith. Everyone has knowledge. Nobody operates in a day-to-day existence without both.
Are you sure you are not mistaking trust for faith?
For instance, do I believe the quantum theory guys are on to something? Yes. Is it faith? No. I am nowhere near the degree of confidence to call my moderate trust in those scientists anything even remotely close to faith.
Trust and faith are a continuum for me. Some things lean toward trust, others toward faith. I think people are also on the continuum. Some are more faith-based, some trust-based... but few if any are all faith or all trust.
Just part of being a meat-computer, IMHO.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 20, 2011, 03:52:54 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 20, 2011, 03:45:05 PM
"Faith", to me, is just another word for "subjective gobbledegook." Yeah, we all have subjective views on things, you need to to function in the day to day world, but I wouldn't call that a virtue.
I certainly think that faith is a virtue in the non-religious realm. No business venture, no new movement ever began without faith - faith that the business would be profitable or faith that the movement would change things. Without faith, we lose hope in the future. When you transport faith over into the religious realm, it doesn't have to be much different - faith that it all means something, faith that there is hope for the future, even after life. It gets many people through the night. So it can be a virtue, IMO.
I guess I just don't get that. You could say that I have "faith" that my husband isn't cheating on me, but it's not a stand-alone belief just because I
want to believe it. I also have plenty of
reasons to trust him. If he started giving me
reasons to distrust him, my faith in him would be misplaced and misguided.
All business ventures, movements, and ideas should really have a logic to them before you put your faith in them; the more detached something is from reason, the less I think you should put faith in it. I.e, If you start a business based on a solid understanding of your market niche and business principles, yes, I think you should have the "faith" in it to follow it through. If you start a business plan because you hear voices in your head that tell you to sell pencil shavings, no, I don't think faith in that venture would be a virtue.
The faith that we use on a day-to-day basis is just a middle-man for logic, to my mind. It can be a great motivator, but I'd think it needs to have some substance behind it.
Quote from: joeactor on November 20, 2011, 04:30:29 PM
Everyone has faith. Everyone has knowledge. Nobody operates in a day-to-day existence without both.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. Can you provide an example of something that every atheist puts 'faith' in?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 20, 2011, 05:31:41 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 20, 2011, 03:52:54 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 20, 2011, 03:45:05 PM
"Faith", to me, is just another word for "subjective gobbledegook." Yeah, we all have subjective views on things, you need to to function in the day to day world, but I wouldn't call that a virtue.
I certainly think that faith is a virtue in the non-religious realm. No business venture, no new movement ever began without faith - faith that the business would be profitable or faith that the movement would change things. Without faith, we lose hope in the future. When you transport faith over into the religious realm, it doesn't have to be much different - faith that it all means something, faith that there is hope for the future, even after life. It gets many people through the night. So it can be a virtue, IMO.
I guess I just don't get that. You could say that I have "faith" that my husband isn't cheating on me, but it's not a stand-alone belief just because I want to believe it. I also have plenty of reasons to trust him. If he started giving me reasons to distrust him, my faith in him would be misplaced and misguided.
All business ventures, movements, and ideas should really have a logic to them before you put your faith in them; the more detached something is from reason, the less I think you should put faith in it. I.e, If you start a business based on a solid understanding of your market niche and business principles, yes, I think you should have the "faith" in it to follow it through. If you start a business plan because you hear voices in your head that tell you to sell pencil shavings, no, I don't think faith in that venture would be a virtue.
The faith that we use on a day-to-day basis is just a middle-man for logic, to my mind. It can be a great motivator, but I'd think it needs to have some substance behind it.
Completely agree. If you start a business with nothing but faith, you're not going to make it very long at all. I'm pretty sure that everyone who has ever started a venture had a logical reason to do so, be it that they believed they knew what they were doing, that they had a good idea, etc. The second you have ANY reason to believe something, you cease to rely on faith.
In fact, the only way one could start a business based on faith is if they knew they were a bad businessman with a bad idea, yet still believed it would work. Know a lot of people like that Ecurb?
Quote from: joeactor on November 20, 2011, 05:00:05 PM
Trust and faith are a continuum for me.
So is yellow and orange, yet those are two different colors. You can, I suppose, say that faith is trust which requires supreme confidence in the object of that trust. However, even worded that way, it is a highly faulty assumption that everyone trusts in something on that level.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 20, 2011, 08:47:04 PM
Quote from: joeactor on November 20, 2011, 04:30:29 PM
Everyone has faith. Everyone has knowledge. Nobody operates in a day-to-day existence without both.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. Can you provide an example of something that every atheist puts 'faith' in?
That they will wake up in the morning ;D
Quote from: Tank on November 20, 2011, 09:58:44 PM
That they will wake up in the morning ;D
Never really went to bed expecting to wake up... I do, however, go to bed expeting to fall asleep. Some times I do not though, so the level of trust I put in those expectations is meager at best.
Quote from: Asmodean on November 20, 2011, 10:00:43 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 20, 2011, 09:58:44 PM
That they will wake up in the morning ;D
Never really went to bed expecting to wake up... I do, however, go to bed expeting to fall asleep. Some times I do not though, so the level of trust I put in those expectations is meager at best.
Haha
Well, if you go to sleep you're either going to wake up or die. Seeing as how I'm only 25, I can't reasonably expect to die in my sleep tonight and the fact that I have woken up every single time I have gone to sleep ever is reason enough for me to expect to wake up.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 20, 2011, 10:10:09 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 20, 2011, 10:00:43 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 20, 2011, 09:58:44 PM
That they will wake up in the morning ;D
Never really went to bed expecting to wake up... I do, however, go to bed expeting to fall asleep. Some times I do not though, so the level of trust I put in those expectations is meager at best.
Haha
Well, if you go to sleep you're either going to wake up or die. Seeing as how I'm only 25, I can't reasonably expect to die in my sleep tonight and the fact that I have woken up every single time I have gone to sleep ever is reason enough for me to expect to wake up.
The probability of a healthy 25 year old dying on any given day is very, very low. I think that's a pretty good reason to have faith that I'll wake up tomorrow.
If I was 108 years old, I might not have that faith.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 20, 2011, 10:10:09 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 20, 2011, 10:00:43 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 20, 2011, 09:58:44 PM
That they will wake up in the morning ;D
Never really went to bed expecting to wake up... I do, however, go to bed expeting to fall asleep. Some times I do not though, so the level of trust I put in those expectations is meager at best.
Haha
Well, if you go to sleep you're either going to wake up or die. Seeing as how I'm only 25, I can't reasonably expect to die in my sleep tonight and the fact that I have woken up every single time I have gone to sleep ever is reason enough for me to expect to wake up.
True, if you can be bothered to reason that way. Me, I do not go to bed to wake up - I go there to sleep. When I wake up, I wake up. If I don't, it won't matter.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 20, 2011, 10:22:53 PM
The probability of a healthy 25 year old dying on any given day is very, very low. I think that's a pretty good reason to have faith that I'll wake up tomorrow.
If you have a reason to believe something (such as the fact that 25 year olds don't die in their sleep) then you are applying logic, not faith. The words probability and faith don't belong in the same point.
If you are 108 and terminally ill and the doctors say you won't make it through the night yet you expect to wake up in spite of this, THAT would be faith.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 21, 2011, 12:22:42 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 20, 2011, 10:22:53 PM
The probability of a healthy 25 year old dying on any given day is very, very low. I think that's a pretty good reason to have faith that I'll wake up tomorrow.
If you have a reason to believe something (such as the fact that 25 year olds don't die in their sleep) then you are applying logic, not faith. The words probability and faith don't belong in the same point.
If you are 108 and terminally ill and the doctors say you won't make it through the night yet you expect to wake up in spite of this, THAT would be faith.
Maybe it's just a semantic argument, but I think you can have "faith" in things that are logical. I'd argue that, regardless of the probability of something, "faith" is how a person's agency plays into those odds. There is 99% chance that I'll wake up tomorrow, but I have faith that I WILL wake up, not that I have a "99% chance of waking up". There's a difference; probability practically never plays in absolutes, whereas human belief almost always does. We can use the odds to guide our opinions and feelings, but at the end of the day, most of us put "stock" in one liklihood or another. That "stock", or personal investment, is what I mean by a secular kind of "faith".
EDIT: Although, now that I look around online, almost every definition I can find of "faith" has to do with belief despite a lack of evidence. In which case, yeah, if that's your definition, I don't see why any belief without evidence makes any sense at all.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 21, 2011, 02:01:01 AM
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 21, 2011, 12:22:42 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 20, 2011, 10:22:53 PM
The probability of a healthy 25 year old dying on any given day is very, very low. I think that's a pretty good reason to have faith that I'll wake up tomorrow.
If you have a reason to believe something (such as the fact that 25 year olds don't die in their sleep) then you are applying logic, not faith. The words probability and faith don't belong in the same point.
If you are 108 and terminally ill and the doctors say you won't make it through the night yet you expect to wake up in spite of this, THAT would be faith.
Maybe it's just a semantic argument, but I think you can have "faith" in things that are logical. I'd argue that, regardless of the probability of something, "faith" is how a person's agency plays into those odds. There is 99% chance that I'll wake up tomorrow, but I have faith that I WILL wake up, not that I have a "99% chance of waking up". There's a difference; probability practically never plays in absolutes, whereas human belief almost always does. We can use the odds to guide our opinions and feelings, but at the end of the day, most of us put "stock" in one liklihood or another. That "stock", or personal investment, is what I mean by a secular kind of "faith".
EDIT: Although, now that I look around online, almost every definition I can find of "faith" has to do with belief despite a lack of evidence. In which case, yeah, if that's your definition, I don't see why any belief without evidence makes any sense at all.
If we were going by the normal person definition of faith,(IE faith in oneself or ones friends) then arguing faith vs trust is pretty semantic.
But the debate at hand is the analog between the faith that the religious have in their god and faith that we exercise every day. I completely reject that notion. I've bolded your last line because that's really all I'm trying to say here.
Quote from: Asmodean on November 20, 2011, 11:52:59 PM
{snip}
True, if you can be bothered to reason that way. Me, I do not go to bed to wake up - I go there to sleep. When I wake up, I wake up. If I don't, it won't matter.
Waking up is a bonus :)
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 21, 2011, 03:21:52 AM
But the debate at hand is the analog between the faith that the religious have in their god and faith that we exercise every day. I completely reject that notion. I've bolded your last line because that's really all I'm trying to say here.
Fair enough. I guess I'm just so used to, personally, meaning something vastly different when I use the word "faith".
The religious like to play with semantics, and they usually equate all meanings of faith. I see them both as slightly different, one is faith without evidence, and even going against evidence while the other has more to do with trust and reason to believe, even if there is no direct evidence.
In case anyone was wondering, I did in fact wake up this morning. PRAISE gOD!
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 21, 2011, 04:03:08 PM
In case anyone was wondering, I did in fact wake up this morning. PRAISE gOD!
If you hadn't posted then I might have been uncertain that Heisenberg had survived the night :)
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 20, 2011, 05:31:41 PM
I guess I just don't get that. You could say that I have "faith" that my husband isn't cheating on me, but it's not a stand-alone belief just because I want to believe it. I also have plenty of reasons to trust him. If he started giving me reasons to distrust him, my faith in him would be misplaced and misguided.
All business ventures, movements, and ideas should really have a logic to them before you put your faith in them; the more detached something is from reason, the less I think you should put faith in it. I.e, If you start a business based on a solid understanding of your market niche and business principles, yes, I think you should have the "faith" in it to follow it through. If you start a business plan because you hear voices in your head that tell you to sell pencil shavings, no, I don't think faith in that venture would be a virtue.
The faith that we use on a day-to-day basis is just a middle-man for logic, to my mind. It can be a great motivator, but I'd think it needs to have some substance behind it.
You can have logical analysis behind a plan of action, but at some point a leap of faith is required. Some people are so paralyzed by fear that, regardless of the amount of analysis, they can never move toward a goal. Others don't over-analyze things, but with faith move forward and succeed. Success is usually a combination of reason and faith. Blind faith is not a virtue, as there needs to be some reason for the faith. However, logic and reason alone, without faith, would never turn a plan into action.
To use a definition from Hebrews 11:1, faith is the substance (realization) of things hoped for, the evidence (conviction) of things not seen. It is what moves one toward the realization of an idea, a plan, a hope, a dream. In that sense, it is certainly virtuous in a non-religious perspective.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2011, 04:21:07 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 20, 2011, 05:31:41 PM
I guess I just don't get that. You could say that I have "faith" that my husband isn't cheating on me, but it's not a stand-alone belief just because I want to believe it. I also have plenty of reasons to trust him. If he started giving me reasons to distrust him, my faith in him would be misplaced and misguided.
All business ventures, movements, and ideas should really have a logic to them before you put your faith in them; the more detached something is from reason, the less I think you should put faith in it. I.e, If you start a business based on a solid understanding of your market niche and business principles, yes, I think you should have the "faith" in it to follow it through. If you start a business plan because you hear voices in your head that tell you to sell pencil shavings, no, I don't think faith in that venture would be a virtue.
The faith that we use on a day-to-day basis is just a middle-man for logic, to my mind. It can be a great motivator, but I'd think it needs to have some substance behind it.
You can have logical analysis behind a plan of action, but at some point a leap of faith is required. Some people are so paralyzed by fear that, regardless of the amount of analysis, they can never move toward a goal. Others don't over-analyze things, but with faith move forward and succeed. Success is usually a combination of reason and faith. Blind faith is not a virtue, as there needs to be some reason for the faith. However, logic and reason alone, without faith, would never turn a plan into action.
No one has ever argued that logic and reason alone turn into action, but I disagree that faith is required for action.
Quote from: Ecurb NoselrubTo use a definition from Hebrews 11:1, faith is the substance (realization) of things hoped for, the evidence (conviction) of things not seen. It is what moves one toward the realization of an idea, a plan, a hope, a dream. In that sense, it is certainly virtuous in a non-religious perspective.
I don't see faith as virtuous at all. Faith in the context of trying for ones goals (hopes, dreams, the American way, puppies, unicorns, honor and other flowery emotional terms), is not needed.
I think it would be best to first define what sort of 'faith' is being talked about here.
From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith):
Quote1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Am I the only one who sees that 'faith' is different in religious and non religious contexts?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 21, 2011, 04:57:59 PM
I think it would be best to first define what sort of 'faith' is being talked about here.
From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith):
Quote1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Am I the only one who sees that 'faith' is different in religious and non religious contexts?
I see it as different, but also that it's not useful in either context.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 21, 2011, 04:57:59 PM
I think it would be best to first define what sort of 'faith' is being talked about here.
From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith):
Quote1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Am I the only one who sees that 'faith' is different in religious and non religious contexts?
Nope, that was kinda the position that I was arguing , but then I looked at the definitions and pretty much everything seemed to have some kind of religious or "beyond evidence" kind of angle.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 21, 2011, 04:57:59 PM
Am I the only one who sees that 'faith' is different in religious and non religious contexts?
There can be both differences and similarities. Both relate to something that is as yet unknown. In business, for example, you don't know that your new enterprise will be successful, but you proceed with faith that it will be (after appropriate planning, of course). In religion, you don't know that living for God will be advantageous, or even that God exists, but you proceed with faith that it will be advantageous and that he does exist. So the object of faith in these two situations is entirely different, but there are similarities in the way it is applied.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2011, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 21, 2011, 04:57:59 PM
Am I the only one who sees that 'faith' is different in religious and non religious contexts?
There can be both differences and similarities. Both relate to something that is as yet unknown. In business, for example, you don't know that your new enterprise will be successful, but you proceed with faith that it will be (after appropriate planning, of course). In religion, you don't know that living for God will be advantageous, or even that God exists, but you proceed with faith that it will be advantageous and that he does exist. So the object of faith in these two situations is entirely different, but there are similarities in the way it is applied.
One doesn't need faith to proceed, one can proceed to see if a business venture is successful without having faith that it will be successful. There is no use in thinking something will be successful because it will or won't work no matter what one believes. I agree there are similarities, the biggest one is that faith is useless.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2011, 08:07:12 PM
In business, for example, you don't know that your new enterprise will be successful, but you proceed with faith that it will be (after appropriate planning, of course).
If you start your business on faith, you will likely end up bankrupt and lose your wife, house and dog. If, however, you start a business based on supply/demand, competition and market research and then maintain supply of that which enough people are willing to pay for to support you, your government and your employees with wages, taxes and whatnot, then you might just succeed. No faith required - just doing something that makes sense if you have done your research.
QuoteIn religion, you don't know that living for God will be advantageous, or even that God exists, but you proceed with faith that it will be advantageous and that he does exist. So the object of faith in these two situations is entirely different, but there are similarities in the way it is applied.
Different objets of faith, but the approach you presented is equally faulty. Try approaching your god using a similar template to the one I provided for business and you might come to some educated conclusions on the usefulness of faith.
Many people prefer not to go all in just because they believe the dice will come up snake-eyes. However, if they poke around a little and discover the dice are shaved to do just that, those same people just might. There you have the difference between people who trust and hope and people who do their homework.
Although I do agree that basing any venture on faith alone probably means it is destined to fail, by the same token a clockwork world where doing one's homework and calculating the odds doesn't guarantee success... it only helps it.
Faith and/or belief in something can be a positive motivating factor, and is a key element to success. It is one part of a larger picture, and by no means worthless or unnecessary.
We are imperfect beings in an imperfect world. No amount of planning or calculation will ensure a given result. Viewing a world as nothing more than data and odds will just as quick lead to failure as viewing the world solely based on faith.
... IMHO, of course ;-)
Quote from: Asmodean on November 21, 2011, 08:26:15 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2011, 08:07:12 PM
In business, for example, you don't know that your new enterprise will be successful, but you proceed with faith that it will be (after appropriate planning, of course).
If you start your business on faith, you will likely end up bankrupt and lose your wife, house and dog. If, however, you start a business based on supply/demand, competition and market research and then maintain supply of that which enough people are willing to pay for to support you, your government and your employees with wages, taxes and whatnot, then you might just succeed. No faith required - just doing something that makes sense if you have done your research.
Well, I'll make one more response and then leave this topic. I assumed in my example above that "appropriate planning" would be done first. That would include the factors you indicated, including market research and financing, etc. Faith is still required to make it a reality. Your research will never go from a business plan to a real business without it. Entrepeneurs are risk-takers, and that involves acts of faith - action to make the plan a reality. Faith in the economy, in the markets, in your suppliers, in your employees, in your financial backers, in your managerial ability and in your idea - all are integral. You have to believe in your idea, your ability, your plan. Otherwise, nothing gets done. Faith is a virtue.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2011, 09:04:14 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 21, 2011, 08:26:15 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2011, 08:07:12 PM
In business, for example, you don't know that your new enterprise will be successful, but you proceed with faith that it will be (after appropriate planning, of course).
If you start your business on faith, you will likely end up bankrupt and lose your wife, house and dog. If, however, you start a business based on supply/demand, competition and market research and then maintain supply of that which enough people are willing to pay for to support you, your government and your employees with wages, taxes and whatnot, then you might just succeed. No faith required - just doing something that makes sense if you have done your research.
Well, I'll make one more response and then leave this topic. I assumed in my example above that "appropriate planning" would be done first. That would include the factors you indicated, including market research and financing, etc. Faith is still required to make it a reality. Your research will never go from a business plan to a real business without it. Entrepeneurs are risk-takers, and that involves acts of faith - action to make the plan a reality. Faith in the economy, in the markets, in your suppliers, in your employees, in your financial backers, in your managerial ability and in your idea - all are integral. You have to believe in your idea, your ability, your plan. Otherwise, nothing gets done. Faith is a virtue.
Everything I get done, I get done without faith (and that's a lot of things). Faith is not required to get anything done. You don't have to have faith to do things. Faith is useless.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2011, 09:04:14 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 21, 2011, 08:26:15 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2011, 08:07:12 PM
In business, for example, you don't know that your new enterprise will be successful, but you proceed with faith that it will be (after appropriate planning, of course).
If you start your business on faith, you will likely end up bankrupt and lose your wife, house and dog. If, however, you start a business based on supply/demand, competition and market research and then maintain supply of that which enough people are willing to pay for to support you, your government and your employees with wages, taxes and whatnot, then you might just succeed. No faith required - just doing something that makes sense if you have done your research.
Well, I'll make one more response and then leave this topic. I assumed in my example above that "appropriate planning" would be done first. That would include the factors you indicated, including market research and financing, etc. Faith is still required to make it a reality. Your research will never go from a business plan to a real business without it. Entrepeneurs are risk-takers, and that involves acts of faith - action to make the plan a reality. Faith in the economy, in the markets, in your suppliers, in your employees, in your financial backers, in your managerial ability and in your idea - all are integral. You have to believe in your idea, your ability, your plan. Otherwise, nothing gets done. Faith is a virtue.
So now we're just turning faith into a meaningless word to describe why we're even willing to get out of bed in the morning? When I cross the street I don't have faith that I won't get hit by a car. I look both ways and if I see no cars coming, I cross. Perhaps I missed a car and it will hit me. I recognize this as a possibility but I'd rather trust that I'm able to see whether or not a car is coming than just sit there and not cross. I find this argument as useless as the idea of faith.
People who are too petrified to act don't suffer from a lack of faith, they suffer from a lack of balls.
Quote from: joeactor on November 21, 2011, 09:00:39 PM
Although I do agree that basing any venture on faith alone probably means it is destined to fail, by the same token a clockwork world where doing one's homework and calculating the odds doesn't guarantee success... it only helps it.
And I neither stated nor implied that you WILL succeed by doing your homework. I did use the word "might" and the word "just"
Acting based on research is more sensible than acting based on faith. It does not guarantee success, but is one step towards that success. Faith is not even that.
Quote
Faith and/or belief in something can be a positive motivating factor, and is a key element to success. It is one part of a larger picture, and by no means worthless or unnecessary.
...If you can not find better motivating factors, perhaps. However, sticking to the example of business, a good motivating factor for me would not be belief in my venture's success, but to start with, doing what I like and, after a while, good results or prospects thereof.
QuoteWe are imperfect beings in an imperfect world. No amount of planning or calculation will ensure a given result. Viewing a world as nothing more than data and odds will just as quick lead to failure as viewing the world solely based on faith.
Disagree. Not just as quickly. Doing your homework to the best of your abilities will in many cases dramatically increase your odds of success. A for instance: You can study mathematics and then take the exam. You may fail, but then if you have done your job studying, you are likely not to. Now, you can take that exam fueled by the power of your belief in knowing math, but without proper study. In this case, you are fare more likely to fail.
Being confident in one's abilities does help, but one should not approach the level of faith in regard to them as I see it - that is likely to be more harmful than beneficial.
I was getting confused with the difference between "faith" and "confidence", so I looked it up
faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)
Quote
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Essentially 3, 4 and 5 are meaningless as definitions as they seem more like examples of 2 rather than definitions.
1 suggests that faith is confidence or trust.
So what is trust?
trust (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trust)
Quote
1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
2. confident expectation of something; hope.
3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust.
4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust.
5. the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted
2 and 3 suggest that trust is a form of confidence
1 and 4 suggest that trust is reliance
5 is circular and hence meaningless as a definition
So what is reliance?
reliance (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reliance)
Quote
1. confident or trustful dependence.
2. confidence.
3. something or someone relied on.
1 and 2 suggest that reliance is a type of confidence or trustful dependance.
We can ignore the trustful dependance part because we are getting a meaningless circular definition.
3 is circular and hence meaningless as a definition
So we end up with a definition that faith is a subset of confidence with the added constraint that it is not based on proof.
This means that when a person says they have faith they are admitting that there is no proof.
If they go on to show you their evidence/proofs then they are contradicting themselves.
Even when they state that they have had a personal experience, this surely would be considered to be a proof revealed to their personal self. If they cite PE then they cannot have faith.
But it begs the question, what is the difference between faith and blind faith?
Quote from: Stevil on November 21, 2011, 11:15:27 PM
But it begs the question, what is the difference between faith and blind faith?
Don't take my word for it, but I think blind faith is the one not questioned, while the "regular" variety does not proclude searching for proof to back it.