Spirituality
12 May 12
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 May 12
Originally posted by FMFYou are still not getting it.
The fact that you disagree with them is neither here nor there.
This is not my personal opinion this is how science works.
I am not making this up.
Science IS it's methods and philosophies.
Belief in anything based on faith is utterly incompatible with science explicitly and by design.
This is just a fact.
My opinion has nothing to do with it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSo many lies in one short sentence.
Science, according to you allows atheist evolution. Atheism and evolution are both faith based beliefs.
Atheism is not a belief or belief system and contains no faith.
Evolution is a scientific theory and contains and requires no faith.
Science as a whole contains no faith.
You know this as you have been told many many times before.
You are thus lying your large posterior off.
24 May 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou're saying that 'a creator initiating evolution' is "contradictory". This is your opinion. "Evolution" offers no facts on the origin of life, only facts about process by which life evolved. If there are no facts about how life originated, they cannot be "contradicted" by a belief as to how it might have happened.
My opinion has nothing to do with it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 May 12
Originally posted by FMFI don't know if you personally don't accept the methods of science.
I don't accept the methods of science?
However my point was that if you accept it as ok to believe based on faith, then you are
implicitly and explicitly contradicting and not accepting the part of science that says it is
not ok ever to believe based on faith.
When you believe based on faith you are rejecting the scientific world view and philosophy
that says that that is never ok.
THAT is the contradiction and the conflict.
If you accept the world view of science you can never believe based on faith.
If you believe based on faith you are not accepting the world view of science.
24 May 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo one is denying that there is conflict between faith based beliefs and science based beliefs, but your claim in this case that a combination of beliefs taken from both create a theory that "contradicts" itself does not follow.
THAT is the contradiction and the conflict.
24 May 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeNow where have I heard this type of argument before?
They can believe that but they would be wrong.
In scientific terms that's total nonsense.
If that is what they believe they DON'T understand or believe in the theory of evolution.
Oh yeah, Thread 146618 - "no one who truly knew Jesus would leave the faith".
They're both forms of "No true Scotsman."
24 May 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeThis is false. There is a philosophy of science that does not rule out faith based beliefs.
Science does not permit ANY faith based beliefs. period.
Methodological Naturalism is the position that science should limit its data to the natural world in forming hypotheses, theories, etc. Questions like the existence of God are not addressed.
Studies by sociologist Elaine Ecklund suggest that religious scientists do in fact apply methodological naturalism. They report that their religious beliefs affect the way they think about the implications, often moral, of their work, but not the way they practice science.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29#Methodological_naturalism
24 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsthat's right. he is trying to reconcile the failure of the bible with modern knowledge, while you have completely embraced the failure of the bible and made it your own.
His fallacy is teaching that the creation days represent long period of time and not literal 24 hour days, as stated in the Holy Bible.
24 May 12
I'm an athiest , but axioms exist in all sciences and by definition are based on faith based first principles. For example you have to accept David Humes problems with inductive logic ,but thats the point of scientific philosophy ,its open to critque and change , religious beliefs are not.
24 May 12
Originally posted by kaminskyWhich has been my point, made over and over. To no avail BTW.
I'm an athiest , but axioms exist in all sciences and by definition are based on faith based first principles. For example you have to accept David Humes problems with inductive logic ,but thats the point of scientific philosophy ,its open to critque and change , religious beliefs are not.
24 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou may be right and yet that would not alter the fact that many people endorse evolution by natural selection, while opposing abortion and gay marriage and professing a firm belief in the Christian God. For this reason, the argument presented by Robbie is false and my argument is intact.
I believe the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church and not all of its membership have fallen for this abominable heresy from Satan. It is many of the leadership that have become like the Pharisees of old and are teaching falsely.
24 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by kaminskyI agree with you but I think you are in danger of being misunderstood with your use of the word “faith” in “faith based first principles”.
I'm an athiest , but axioms exist in all sciences and by definition are based on faith based first principles. For example you have to accept David Humes problems with inductive logic ,but thats the point of scientific philosophy ,its open to critque and change , religious beliefs are not.
You see, when people normally talk about “faith”, they often mean belief that is not based on anything rational at all.
But there are certain assumptions ( such as the principle of induction ) that are rational not because they are based on evidence and not because they are based on deductive logic ( so, in epistemological jargon, they are not “epistemically rational” ) but because you have to make them to have any hope of making any non-trivial predictive falsifiable model of all parts of reality ( so, in epistemological jargon, it is “instrumentally rational for cognitive reasons” ) and we call those rational assumptions our "first principles".
It is this rational bases for the first principles that sets the assumption that they are true apart from “faith” in, say, that there exists a personal god based only merely on ones desires for that to be true.
Originally posted by humyI am a little worried by this. I do not think it works.
I agree with you but I think you are in danger of being misunderstood with your use of the word “faith” in “faith based first principles”.
You see, when people normally talk about “faith”, they often mean belief that is not based on anything rational at all.
But there are certain assumptions ( such as the principle of induction ) that are ratio , say, that there exists a personal god based only merely on ones desires for that to be true.
I think a rational person could indeed believe in God. Someone like Thales is astonishing for his early thoughts about the nature of the material world, but his theory was not terribly well worked out. That is too much for one man to achieve. The development of rational thinking in Greek philosphy was brought to a brutal end by Christian intolerance. If one lived in the Ninth Century in Europe, without access to the majority of Greek philosophy, it would require an enormous effort of ingenuity - an act to genius - to construct a rational basis for atheism. I think that people brought up in a highly religious community and not exposed to secular education would again have difficulty emerging from their socially imposed belief system. That, after all, is the goal of Creationists in education and their approach works quite well when it is permitted. They produce seemingly quite rational, intelligent, capable people who operate normally - for example in business - and yet have no notion of the boundaries imposed on their thinking about religion.
Maybe the model here is not Popper but Kuhn and his proposal that we can usually only think within a paradigm. It is very difficult to escape from that.
A scientific or mathematical axiom is not irrational in itself. It is a proposition. What can be rational or irrational is the way that axiom is employed. It took millenia to realise that Euclid's geometry could be transformed in useful ways by altering a key axiom. The shortest route from New York to Mecca is not a straight line after all and actually faces Northish rather than Southish in a New York mosque, because the surface of the Earth is curved and not flat.
It is not irrational to propose as an axiom that there is a personal God and it is important to accept that many rational people hold this belief. If it is intensely surprising (from an outside perspective) that is not how it would have seemed to virtually anybody three hundred years ago. It is also not a lot different to many scientific assertions which are also surprising. Being surprising is not an argument against.
What is irrational is the manner in which Creationsits and biblical literalists try to protect their convictions against rational discussion and try to push back the tide of scientific discoveries which they find inconvenient and frightening.
24 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes it does.
they are not just different world views.
They are contradictory and mutually exclusive world views.
Science Specifically and Absolutely rejects the belief of ANYTHING based on faith.
If you accept the methods of science then you MUST reject faith.
If you accept faith then you haven't accepted the methods of science.
I ...[text shortened]... don't accept the methods of science then why the hell are you accepting any of it's findings?
Science Specifically and Absolutely rejects the belief of ANYTHING based on faith.
If you accept the methods of science then you MUST reject faith.
Discribe to the Forum the scientific experiment one would conduct in order to prove the truthfulness of these above two statements.