Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by jaywill

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.

Why repeat this ?? Because obviously some people haven't got it yet.

Has Science Made Belief in God Obsolete ? - J.P. Moreland

YouTube


While Googlefudge prepares to discribe the science experiment to prove his two statements.

Originally posted by jaywill

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 statement.

There is a logical error of course - or really, an error in the use of language. The claims use language in a way that is open to wide interpretations and misinterpretations. In common speech they are probably acceptable (not to be agreed with, just as propositions) but they will not survive scrutiny as presently expressed.

I do not quite see the role of a scientific experiment in resolving this but you make a rhetorical point well enough.

The word "faith" has many meanings. I can be faithful to my wife, I can have faith in my car, two quite different concepts I think you will agree, neither of which is an example of Faith. I can belong to one faith or another - again this refers to a social category and not to Faith.

Faith is not Science - they are mutually exclusive categories. One does not support Faith by scientific methods and one does not support scientific methods by having Faith. The traditional formulation of this matter concerns Faith and Reason, since the scientific method is a modern concept, but it is not a different debate. It is well rehearsed.

Faith also is not Belief and psychologically is often prior to Belief and even quite independent of Belief. See William James the Varieties of Religious Experience for example. A common argument among catholics is that the Catholic Church has had such appalling popes that it can only have survived with God's help, since on any reasonable grounds it should have collapsed long ago and its survival is a miracle of immense proportions.

Many scientists - very good ones - profess to have Faith (in various religions). Any sociological research would demonstrate that in reality many people can and do accept both. In that respect, the second claim made is false. RJ Hinds and Robbie would also do well to keep this in mind and stop accusing everyone who supports (for example) Darwin of being inherently atheistic. Some are. Some are not. Endorsing the scientific method does not require them to be atheists. A topic debated earlier on this thread.

Many religious beliefs concern matters of fact. This is not true of, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity. It is more likely to be true, for example, concerning the age of the planet. When a religious belief makes a claim about the material world, then it is correct to say that the scientific method does not accommodate mere belief (or "faith" in the particular sense of having certain beliefs or belonging to a faith group) as adequate grounds to accept or even consider seriously such a claim.

Creationists would agree with me about this. After all, they consider it important to argue about the scientific evidence and indeed take the risk of making their belief system (and presumably at some level their "faith" ) contingent on the outcome. The whole point of literalist readings of the Bible is the claim, which most Christians would reject, of its literal truth taking priority over all scientific evidence to the contrary. This is, as I said, very risky since the scientific evidence is totally and flatly against them.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But I do have a way of knowing.

you have not demonstrated knowledge. you have introduced doubt by speculating satanic influences in belief systems and in that way, succeeded in degrading your argument to nil.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you have not demonstrated knowledge. you have introduced doubt by speculating satanic influences in belief systems and in that way, succeeded in degrading your argument to nil.

It is your argument that has been degraded to nil. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by googlefudge
So many lies in one short sentence.

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.

I think is takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe that we evolved from slime in a pool that came about by chance. It is easier for me to believe we were created like we are by a super intelligent being, that is, God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think is takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe that we evolved from slime in a pool that came about by chance. It is easier for me to believe we were created like we are by a super intelligent being, that is, God.

Maybe I've missed it before ... but why do you give your god "super intelligence"?

Does it say so in your bible or is this out of your own mind?

Originally posted by finnegan
I am a little worried by this. I do not think it works.

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 y to push back the tide of scientific discoveries which they find inconvenient and frightening.

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.

oh yes, I do take your point.
I wasn't implying that a totally rational person could not be a theist under literally any circumstances!
But I would claim a truly totally rational person could not be a theist in this modern age of science and reason providing he has been fully exposed to both modern science and reason.
Actually, my father helps to demonstrate this. He was a Moslem because he was brainwashed from a very young age but then he came to the west and was exposed to science and reason and then, as soon as he got round to hearing about and learned what evolution is, he immediately became an atheist! This shows there can occasionally be a gigantic gulf between ignorance and actual irrationality.

The whole point of literalist readings of the Bible is the claim, which most Christians would reject, of its literal truth taking priority over all scientific evidence to the contrary. This is, as I said, very risky since the scientific evidence is totally and flatly against them.

yes, that is so true.

Originally posted by humy

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.

oh yes, I do take your point.
I wasn't implying that a totally rational person could not be a theist under literally any cir ...[text shortened]... ce the scientific evidence is totally and flatly against them. [/quote]
yes, that is so true.

umm how do you therefore explain those atheists, brought up in the West, educated in
science and reason and who then become theists, clearly your assertions of ignorance,
brainwashing, scientific evidence to the contrary and the usual bilge water that you try
to palm off as evidence have no validity in their case, does it. True? I really dont think
you have the slightest inclination what truth as, as is evidenced by your biased posts.

Originally posted by humy

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.

oh yes, I do take your point.
I wasn't implying that a totally rational person could not be a theist under literally any cir ...[text shortened]... ce the scientific evidence is totally and flatly against them. [/quote]
yes, that is so true.

We are usually on the same side in these debates.

I think it is necessary to narrow down the field when making remarks about religion for a lot of reasons.

It is hard to engage with our own history or to deal with cultural difference without choosing to be respectful about and interested in religious beliefs and traditions.

It is still the case that most people who are atheists have, in the earlier lives, been members of religious groups. Maybe education switches them from irrational to rational people, but that seems too simplistic since education rarely sets out to erdicate religious beliefs (that was so in the Soviet block) and typically does the opposite.

If all theists are irrational then there is no purpose whatever to attempting a rational debate with them.

If all theists are irrational then no rational argument will shake their beliefs. However, it is precisely because they often are rational that they have the capacity to think through their belief system and criticise it.

If religious beliefs are inherently irrational, then the target to address is the belief and not the person holding the belief. Few people engage in honest debate under a hail of insults. It is normal human psychology to carry mutually contradictory and irrational beliefs which are not properly examined and it is a healthy thing to do that examination sometimes.

Different religious groups present quite distinctive belief systems and have quite distinctive goals. It is not helpful to treat them all as a single body. One benefit of rational debate can be to shift people from one to another religious point of view.

In particular, there are secular (ie neither atheist nor religious) social objectives that require the consent of people with religious convictions. One is the necessity for tolerance of people with different faiths. Another is to act against people who promote hatred based on religious affiliation. Action to promote the rights of women are more effective if they can be presented in a way that is acceptable to reasonable religious people. Action to prevent violence and abuse against women and children will not succeed until members of every religious affiliation acknowledge that this is relevant to their believers. Efforts to implement democracy in nations lacking that tradition require protection of minority rights. Efforts to develop ethical international relationships demand mutual respect, while war is promoted by people who have intolerant religious attitudes. And so on endlessly.

Some religious groups have explicit or implicit social goals which most reasonable people - including reasonable people with religious beliefs - would want to oppose. Of these, the most poisionous in the present time are the fundamentalists of Chritian, Jewish and Islamic faiths ( and arguably also Hindu nationalists in India). They will only be successfully contested with the assistance of rational religious people - Sunni Muslims in the Middle East, for example, are beginning to assert much greater influence as against the Shiite forces centred in Iran.

The biblical literalists of the US are a notably disastrous socially regressive force, with influence in other countries. In Israel they are closely associated with Jewish extremists and the settlements. In Britain we are seeing their intrusion into some schools with Creationist pseudo science, attacks on Women's reproductive rights and opposition to gay and lesbian rights.

On October 4, 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted its resolution 1580 titled The dangers of creationism in education. The resolution observed that "the war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements", and urged member states "to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_creationism

The necessary reaction against creationists / biblical literalists and fundamentalism generally has produced a brand of debate that is really not helpful outside of that context. People like RJHinds, Robbie Carrie, Jaywill (who is not talking to you and me of course! Never mind) spontaneously invite the most blunt atheistic responses and earn very little respect, but that is not the most interesting aspect of the debates about religion (exemplified, for example, in the writing of Karen Armstrong about the history of religion).

In short, it would help all of us to appreciate what a narrow and unrepresentative minority sect are these literalists, how modern and unhistorical is their approach and how specifically they are linked into a vicious political agenda. They try to dominate this forum with their tiresome, repetitious threads, but if they cleared off there would be space for some far more interesting and enlightening discussion in which, I predict, atheists would learn far more about religion and the religious would open their minds to far more about other religions as well non religious ways to thinking.

Originally posted by finnegan
We are usually on the same side in these debates.

I think it is necessary to narrow down the field when making remarks about religion for a lot of reasons.

It is hard to engage with our own history or to deal with cultural difference without choosing to be respectful about and interested in religious beliefs and traditions.

It is still the case t open their minds to far more about other religions as well non religious ways to thinking.

thats Carrobie, a Romanisation of the Persian for cherub, if you please! and i contend
that there are also atheists who are as equally as fundamentalist in their approach as
the meanest Young earth creationist. Your post is once again biased.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think is takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe that we evolved from slime in a pool that came about by chance. It is easier for me to believe we were created like we are by a super intelligent being, that is, God.

I agree. And that is the point successfully driven home on several fronts by the book -

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Giesler and Frank Turek.

Originally posted by kaminsky
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.

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.

I credit you for realiziong something googlefudge seems not to recognize. The scientific method is built on a philosophy of science which itself is not subject to the method. Ie - a kind of "faith" that the method will render truth about certain things.

Now, religious beliefs are not subject to critique and change ?

Ever hear of the Reformation ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
umm how do you therefore explain those atheists, brought up in the West, educated in
science and reason and who then become theists, clearly your assertions of ignorance,
brainwashing, scientific evidence to the contrary and the usual bilge water that you try
to palm off as evidence have no validity in their case, does it. True? I really dont think
you have the slightest inclination what truth as, as is evidenced by your biased posts.

umm how do you therefore explain those atheists, brought up in the West, educated in
science and reason and who then become theists,

I think I have already inadvertently answered that before you asked that above.
Although I didn't say this in the context of that question above but in quite a different context, I, nevertheless, had just said:

there can occasionally be a gigantic gulf between ignorance and actual irrationality. (my quote)

-which inadvertently answers your question before you asked it.
In case you don't see how: a person brought up in the West, educated in science and reason and therefore is NOT ignorant of science and reason may still be irrational ( at least irrational when it comes to this sort of belief ) and thus become a theist. -why? -Because there can be a gigantic gulf between ignorance and actual irrationality.
Having lots of knowledge doesn't guarantee against being irrational.

Originally posted by finnegan
We are usually on the same side in these debates.

I think it is necessary to narrow down the field when making remarks about religion for a lot of reasons.

It is hard to engage with our own history or to deal with cultural difference without choosing to be respectful about and interested in religious beliefs and traditions.

It is still the case t open their minds to far more about other religions as well non religious ways to thinking.

I agree with much of that. I will try and take your advice.
However, I should point out that much of my insults to certain theists here are in response to their insults to atheists and, in particular, making out that atheism supports Nazism, which it clearly doesn't ( and most Nazis where theists and supported mainly by theists anyway ) . They will have to agree to stop these insults and lies before I can really promise not to give any of them an insult ( not a lie -I am always unwilling to lie ) again and if they complain when I do when they persist in their insults, well, I would say “so you cannot take your own medicine then?”

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thats Carrobie, a Romanisation of the Persian for cherub, if you please! and i contend
that there are also atheists who are as equally as fundamentalist in their approach as
the meanest Young earth creationist. Your post is once again biased.

Robbie Carrobie. I should get that right.

Of course I'm biased. I have an opinion. What's your point? Should I emulate your model of cold reason and unruffled objectivity? Or just aspire to one day agree with everything you say?