The Bull  permalink

Faith = a delayed response to evidence

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 423
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    I thought of this phrase after reading the Christmas New Statesman, which was edited by Brian Cox and Robin Ince and, as you might expect, covered a lot of ground concerning science and religion.

    It should be pointed out that the amount of delay involved could well exceed the lifetime of the faith-holder, and in such a case would effectively be an infinite delay (assuming no afterlife).

    But I like the definition (however unoriginal it is) because it applies equally to religious and nonreligious faith, and whether or not the faith turns out to be justified.

    If justified, then what was once faith is replaced by knowledge, so a response has taken place.

    If more (or any) evidence makes the faith impossible to maintain, then just increase the delay time before finally responding with apostasy, capitulation, disillusionment, call it what you will.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Surely more accurate to say "Faith: a 'holding action' pending real evidence"

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Surely more accurate to say "Faith: a 'holding action' pending real evidence"  

    Doesn't that mean the same thing? After all, evidence that isn't "real evidence" simply isn't evidence. And a holding action, whatever else it might be, is inevitably a delay.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Alsdouble (U524298) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Faith = a delayed response to evidence..


    er...like sorta NO!

    faith maketh the evidence, and it doesn't have to be religious faith.

    ( < der > )

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    See the thing a lot of people fail to see is that the path of faith is not only trod by the "religious", everyone has and uses faith. Its a priceless gift that humanity have received, from whatever quarter. It allows us to project and predict the future, to imagine what may be and to maintain hope in the absence of reality.

    "Faith" is not a religious thing, its a human thing.

    Scientists (today's wonder mortals) use faith every single day. They produce hypothesis on what they dont know based on what they do know and test those hypothesis to see if their "faith" in the hypothesis was correct. If its not they change their hypothesis or theory and then test again, thats how science works, there's nothing wrong with that.

    Faith is tantamount to a dirty word in some circles but for the most part those that despise it advocate the very same thing in their own belief systems, they may call it something else but a belief or faith held in the absence of evidence is still a faith. Faith that life started by purely natural processes in the absence of those same processes IS a "faith" position. Like it or lump it, it clearly is.

    So .... Faith = a delayed response to evidence..?

    I prefer,

    "Faith - a position held, informed by facts that awaits conclusive evidence.







    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Faith = a delayed response to evidence..


    er...like sorta NO!

    faith maketh the evidence, and it doesn't have to be religious faith.

    ( < der > ) 


    Could you unpack this a little? At the moment I don't understand your claim that "faith maketh the evidence". And I already said it didn't have to be religious faith.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Alsdouble (U524298) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Tricky aint it.

    A chicken and egg problem.

    You waiy for the the 3,15 bus/train because you have faith in the schedule, that a bus will come at 3.15...

    Mmm, mind made matter becomes reality.

    Mmm, oh dear.....

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    See the thing a lot of people fail to see is that the path of faith is not only trod by the "religious", everyone has and uses faith.[...]"Faith" is not a religious thing, its a human thing.

     


    I already implied this in my opening post


    Scientists (today's wonder mortals) use faith every single day. They produce hypothesis on what they dont know based on what they do know and test those hypothesis to see if their "faith" in the hypothesis was correct. If its not they change their hypothesis or theory and then test again, thats how science works, there's nothing wrong with that. 

    Of course there isn't. But in principle, their response to evidence ISN'T delayed (whatever actually happens in practice): they alter their hypotheses in the light of new evidence straight away.

    I prefer,

    "Faith - a position held, informed by facts that awaits conclusive evidence.
     


    How can a fact be a fact if it needs conclusive evidence? It obviously ISN'T a fact at that stage, it's merely a claim. I don't see why your definition is preferable.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Tricky aint it.

    A chicken and egg problem.

    You waiy for the the 3,15 bus/train because you have faith in the schedule, that a bus will come at 3.15...

    Mmm, mind made matter becomes reality.

    Mmm, oh dear..... 


    Sorry, Als: I still don't get what you're trying to say. TBH, it comes across as nonsense, which I'm sure wasn't your intention.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Borsetshire Blue (U2260326) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Scientists (today's wonder mortals) use faith every single day. They produce hypothesis on what they dont know based on what they do know and test those hypothesis to see if their "faith" in the hypothesis was correct. 

    No Beece, a scientific hypothesis isn't something scientists have 'faith' in.

    A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation, based on previous observations, which is then tested to see if the proposal was correct ... or not.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Mr Lightening.

    How can a fact be a fact if it needs conclusive evidence? It obviously ISN'T a fact at that stage, it's merely a claim. I don't see why your definition is preferable. 

    Perhaps I should explain.

    I believe we can look at the observable, testable "facts" and from them establish a view about an unanswered question, that view though based on observable testable facts cannot initially be demonstrated as accurate therefore the view itself is held in "faith".

    Faith then is- a position held, (informed by facts) that awaits conclusive evidence.

    It is not the facts that await conclusive evidence it is the conclusion drawn from the facts thats awaits further conclusive evidence.

    Hope that helps.


    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    No Beece, a scientific hypothesis isn't something scientists have 'faith' in.

    A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation, based on previous observations, which is then tested to see if the proposal was correct ... or not. 


    Thats what I said, to explain.

    If a scientist could prove their theory to be correct they would not need "faith", they would simply demonstrate their theory to be true.

    However, if a scientist could not immediately demonstrate their theory to be correct they require faith that it is correct in order to test to see if it is.

    If they didnt believe their theory to be correct they wouldn't bother testing it.

    Nor do I believe the tests themselves are just random stabs at determining the truth of a thing, they are specifically designed to test the validity of an informed "belief".

    Holding a belief in the absence of conclusive evidence IS a faith position.

    Its clearly true, I do not see how many think admitting such is some great concession to the religious.


    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Alsdouble (U524298) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Tricky aint it.

    A chicken and egg problem.

    You waiy for the the 3,15 bus/train because you have faith in the schedule, that a bus will come at 3.15...

    Mmm, mind made matter becomes reality.

    Mmm, oh dear..... 


    Sorry, Als: I still don't get what you're trying to say. TBH, it comes across as nonsense, which I'm sure wasn't your intention. 
    Nonsense sums it up fine.

    A belief in a course of action will come good because of the faith that it will...come good.

    Nonsense.

    Yep.

    Powerfull tool though aint it. BLIND faith even...Phew!

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Doesn't that mean the same thing? 
    No, because saying "a delayed response to evidence" simply means that the evidence has been established and that the response to that evidence is delayed. You are implying a delayed response to something that has happened.

    Whereas what I expressed was that faith was what one has pending any evidence actually occurring. Expecting a train to arrive is not faith, but a logical deduction from the existence of a time-table and influenced by one's knowledge of the evidence of countless passengers for whom the advertised service did not arrive.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Borsetshire Blue (U2260326) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Thats what I said, to explain.

    If a scientist could prove their theory to be correct they would not need "faith", they would simply demonstrate their theory to be true. 


    No Beece, that isn't what you said. In your earlier post you said "They produce hypothesis on what they dont know based on what they do know and test those hypothesis to see if their "faith" in the hypothesis was correct."

    Now you are talking about scientific theories. A hpothesis is not the same thing as a theory.

    If they didnt believe their theory to be correct they wouldn't bother testing it. 

    Scientific theories are not based on 'faith', they are theories precisely because they were once hypotheses but have since been tested and demonstrated to be correct.

    Scientific hpotheses are proposed explanations (as I said previously) and those are tested to see whether they are correct or not.

    Holding a belief in the absence of conclusive evidence IS a faith position. 

    Yes it is but it is not science.



    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    The faith that there is a supernatural god does not, change, unlike scientific 'faith'. Scientific ideas evolve and change all of the time. They are not fixed. The idea of a supernatural god does not. Even though the tenets of this god are altered by man. The unchanging idea of a supernatural god and unchanging lack of correlation of this with any evidence is what makes religious faith quite different to scientific faith.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Tricky aint it.

    A chicken and egg problem.

    You waiy for the the 3,15 bus/train because you have faith in the schedule, that a bus will come at 3.15...

    Mmm, mind made matter becomes reality.

    Mmm, oh dear..... 


    Sorry, Als: I still don't get what you're trying to say. TBH, it comes across as nonsense, which I'm sure wasn't your intention. 
    Nonsense sums it up fine.

    A belief in a course of action will come good because of the faith that it will...come good.

    Nonsense.

    Yep.

    Powerfull tool though aint it. BLIND faith even...Phew! 


    Er...okay...

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by RichTeabiscuit (U2000482) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    I prefer,

    "Faith - a position held, informed by facts that awaits conclusive evidence.
     

    i prefer a dictionary definition:
    "Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".
    The whole point of 'faith' is that it does *not* depend on factual backup.
    When faith is proven with facts, it becomes 'knowledge'.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    It is not the facts that await conclusive evidence it is the conclusion drawn from the facts thats awaits further conclusive evidence.

    Hope that helps. 


    It certainly does: thank you.

    However, I think that there can be positions held that are not reasonably supported by the available facts. (As you pointed out, these aren't always religious.) If no new facts come along to justify the position, and they lose faith, then they're finally responding to the same old set of facts that the faithless had been responding to from the very beginning.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Word-Lover - BBC MBs are dead - long live ML (U1160777) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Mr_Lightning: >Faith = a delayed response to evidence

    If justified, then what was once faith is replaced by knowledge, so a response has taken place.<

    No. "A delayed response to evidence" implies that, first, there was evidence, then, after a delay, there was a response. That is not faith. Perhaps you mean something like "an idea formed in default of evidence"?

    Locki: >The faith that there is a supernatural god does not, change, unlike scientific 'faith'. Scientific ideas evolve and change all of the time. They are not fixed. The idea of a supernatural god does not. Even though the tenets of this god are altered by man. The unchanging idea of a supernatural god and unchanging lack of correlation of this with any evidence is what makes religious faith quite different to scientific faith.<

    I don't think you've hit the nail on the head there. Religious faith can change in that churches can drop or alter some of their tenets or create new ones. And these tenets are not tenets of a god, they are the tenets of the church as imposed by its clergy. What makes something a religious faith isn't that it is unchanging, but that it is a tenet the clergy tell the people to believe.

    That is different from science, and I agree with you there. What I find more objectionable is when someone equates religious "faith" with the sort of faith that Alsdouble mentioned (as in faith that the train company will enable the trains to run on time, a boss's faith that the employees will do their jobs etc.) They are totally different, too.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Joy. I did point out that, although tenets of religion change, the idea of a supernatural god does not. It is rigid in a way science is not. That is religion's appeal to some.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Expecting a train to arrive is not faith, but a logical deduction from the existence of a time-table and influenced by one's knowledge of the evidence of countless passengers for whom the advertised service did not arrive. 

    But surely the "evidence of countless passengers for whom the advertised service did not arrive" would WEAKEN the reliability of the timetable or the service. It would, in fact, demand more faith to maintain that a train was coming.

    And if no evidence (i.e., no train) came along to back up your faith, then eventually you would have to capitulate and respond as less faithful people had already done.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Holding a belief in the absence of conclusive evidence IS a faith position.


    Yes it is but it is not science. 


    Interesting.


    Then is the belief that life started by purely natural processes unscientific?

    There is certainly not conclusive evidence that it did nor can the required conditions or processes themselves be even envisaged enough to test. Therefore "belief" that life did start by natural processes IS held in faith and according to your statement above....not science.

    No?

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Sorry: not very clear here. I should have written:

    If no new facts come along to justify the position held by the faithful, and they lose faith, then they're finally responding to the same old set of facts that the faithless had been responding to from the very beginning.

    This is why I called it a delayed response to evidence. Obviously that means "whatever evidence is around at the time". If new evidence comes along that vindicates the faithful, they will abandon their faith for the excellent reason that it's no longer necessary. Now they KNOW. Knowledge has replaced faith.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by auldhairy (U14258268) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Adam, the first man asked a question, did he have Faith?

    www.youtube.com/watc...

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Borsetshire Blue (U2260326) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Then is the belief that life started by purely natural processes unscientific? 

    If someone says they have 'belief' or 'faith' in that explanation then that is unscientific.


    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Then is the belief that life started by purely natural processes unscientific?


    If someone says they have 'belief' or 'faith' in that explanation then that is unscientific. 



    See this is what I mean about the term "faith" becoming a dirty word.

    Why is it so hard to admit the obvious. I only used the example of life to illustrate my point.

    Many, many people DO "believe" that life started by natural processes yet there are no known processes or conditions under which life starts, in other words there is no evidence that it did, therefore "believing" that it did IS a "faith" position.

    In the absence of demonstrable evidence that life started by natural processes concluding that it did is an act of faith.


    Theres nothing wrong with that, science makes predictions and tests those predictions everyday, as I said above thats what its about so why is it so difficult to accept that it is a form of "faith" to accept those predictions as accurate in the absence of demonstrable evidence?

    Faith is an excellent characteristic of the human being, it is interlinked with our ability to predict likely outcomes and gives rise to our imagination. Why reel when ones belief in likely answer to a question is described as faith?


    I think the pendulum has swung too far.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    I think that perhaps a better definition would be "Faith = a delayed acceptance of evidence".

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    In fairness Mr lightning I see were you were coming from earlier.

    How about...

    Faith- the belief (based on facts) that the required evidence its there....its just been delayed.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    No, because again you are implying that the evidence exists, but that acceptance of it is being delayed.

    How about, 'Faith = confidence in something for which there is no evidence"?


    Other: your posting style is very familiar. Have you posted on these boards in the past under a different name & number?

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Borsetshire Blue (U2260326) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Many, many people DO "believe" that life started by natural processes yet there are no known processes or conditions under which life starts, in other words there is no evidence that it did, therefore "believing" that it did IS a "faith" position.  

    If someone simply believes that to be so then yes, it is a 'faith position'.

    If you believe that that is what cosmologists do, then you are wrong.

    Cosmologists take observational data and come up with various models which might describe how the universe was formed. At present the Big Bang theory seems to many to be the best current model.

    Cosmologists and other scientists are constantly experimenting to see if this model stands up to scientific scrutiny. This is not a 'faith position'.

    Faith is an excellent characteristic of the human being, it is interlinked with our ability to predict likely outcomes and gives rise to our imagination.  

    Our ability to predict likely outcomes is based on our observation of past actions and the results obtained. And I have no idea what you mean by faith giving rise to human imagination.


    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    How about, 'Faith = confidence in something for which there is no evidence"? 

    No because that would require faith to be an all or nothing thing, "faith"
    in its normal usage is a term used to describe an unverified conclusion based on facts.

    ie I may have faith that life began by natural processes and use certain facts to support that view but I cannot demonstrate that view to be correct, I therefore base my faith that it is correct on facts and await further facts that i can interpret as evidence to support my conclusion.

    Again, treating "faith" as an all or nothing standpoint is not really relevant to normal practice, doing so makes it simply to easy to put a label on a person because they have "faith". We all have and use faith everyday, it is part of what makes us human.


    Other: your posting style is very familiar. Have you posted on these boards in the past under a different name & number? 

    Not sure if that was for me but no, I have always been Beece.


    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Our ability to predict likely outcomes is based on our observation of past actions and the results obtained. And I have no idea what you mean by faith giving rise to human imagination.  

    Imagination is required to predict any outcome, faith is the belief that the imagined outcome is an accurate explanation. The more supporting facts that imagined outcome is based on the better, until its demonstrated to be correct the imagined outcome is held in "faith".

    Why is it so difficult to admit that scientists use faith?

    You/they are just as human as every other specimen.

    Cosmologists take observational data and come up with various models which might describe how the universe was formed. At present the Big Bang theory seems to many to be the best current model.

    Cosmologists and other scientists are constantly experimenting to see if this model stands up to scientific scrutiny. This is not a 'faith position'. 


    If you believe the Big Bang model is an accurate explanation of how our universe came into existence then in the absence of conclusive evidence that it did YOU hold that position in "faith".

    Why oh why should that be offensive? You may claim "Well actually I dont believe it one way or the other, I merely change my conclusion as new facts come forth". That sounds great BUT in actual practice the unverified view is treated as actual fact. To demonstrate, ask anyone how the universe got here and they will tell you "The big Bang" or God did it". Both views cannot be demonstrated or verified yet both are held as "fact". If only scientific "truth" were just that.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    No, Beece, not you - I was replying to 'Mr Lightning', however my post appeared below yours.

    To me, Faith & Belief are inextricably linked with superstitions such as "belief" in god(s). I don't have 'faith' that a train will arrive on time, or that a friend will be where they they say they will be when we meet, instead I /trust/ in my /informed/ judgement that it will do so, or that they will be there.

    Going back to the train analogy, based on the evidence of a timetable and the evidence of experience that sometimes a train does not arrive (let alone on time), I have a logical /expectation/ that the train will arrive on time, and should the train not arrive, that itself is further evidence which I can weigh in the balance next time. But my expectation is emphatically not faith.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    <quote>No, Beece, not you - I was replying to 'Mr Lightning', however my post appeared below yours.</quote>

    Sorry MG.
    To me, Faith & Belief are inextricably linked with superstitions such as "belief" in god(s). I don't have 'faith' that a train will arrive on time, or that a friend will be where they they say they will be when we meet, instead I /trust/ in my /informed/ judgement that it will do so, or that they will be there.</quote>

    Why can a belief in God not be based on the same observational style? Do you believe it impossible that a thinking man could conclude God exists?


    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Going back to the train analogy, based on the evidence of a timetable and the evidence of experience that sometimes a train does not arrive (let alone on time), I have a logical /expectation/ that the train will arrive on time, and should the train not arrive, that itself is further evidence which I can weigh in the balance next time. But my expectation is emphatically not faith. 

    Actually MG, going by the dictionaries explanation of the word your belief that the train will come IS a faith based position, see points 1 & 2.

    Faith denotes "confidence or trust". You have confidence in the equipment and trust that the driver will get it there on time, that is an act of faith.




    faith [feyth] Show IPA
    noun
    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. 



    I believe that because the word "faith" is at times linked with religion many simply interpret the word only in that context and dismiss and ridicule it, even to the point of blinding themselves to the fact that they exercise it everyday.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    IMO the only conclusion one can draw from observation of the world is that something 'happened'. That does not have to have anything to do with a supernatural god. There is nothing to specifically indicate that.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by auldhairy (U14258268) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Research has suggested "spiritual" people may suffer worse mental health than conventionally religious, agnostic or atheist people. But what exactly do people mean when they describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious"?

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/m...

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Borsetshire Blue (U2260326) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Faith denotes "confidence or trust". You have confidence in the equipment and trust that the driver will get it there on time, that is an act of faith. 

    No Beece, people 'expect' that a train will come when the timetable says it will because they have prior experience of catching trains and because the train operator has led them to 'expect' that a train will arrive when they say it will.

    And, of course, they will have observed that sometimes the train will not arrive when expected ... however much faith they have!

    ex·pect
    /ikˈspekt/
    Verb

    1. Regard (something) as likely to happen.
    2. Regard (someone) as likely to do or be something. 


    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Tomatoes- tamatas B

    Anyway, I expect/ believe/ have faith that my car will start so I can drive home so I'm off.

    Nighty night boys and girls!

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Do you believe it impossible that a thinking man could conclude God exists? 
    No, of course not. Some wonderful thinking men (and indeed women!) have concluded that God exists, despite a complete lack of evidence. But just because some great thinkers, let alone an average Joe/Jo in the street, have reached that conclusion, does not mean that they are right.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    //....However, I think that there can be positions held that are not reasonably supported by the available facts.....//

    Personally, that reads to me like a position of faith.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    I would want to know what the 'thinking' person based his conclusion on.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Presumably stuff that you do not consider to be evidence.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Oops, based their conclusion.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Yes Beece, I personally think it is indisputable that both positions, i.e., 'God did it' or big-bang totally random, in and of itself, no ID, are faith-based positions. No amount of dressing up what constitutes as 'evidence' can reverse the fact that in the absence of fact, demonstrable fact supporting either position, there has to be some element of faith in 'evidence', however minor that might be.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by Lizabelle (U14354408) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Oops, based their conclusion.  Pedantry alert!

    In my politically incorrect opinion you were right the first time. How can the thinking person (singular) possibly reach their (plural) conclusion? It drives me mad every time I see plurals mixed with singulars.

    I know that what some of us consider to be the correct use (his) is offensive to others, but I do wish those others would construct sentences that make sense: "I would want to know on what the 'thinking' people based their conclusions".

    Nothing to do with the thread topic, of course ...

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Farewell Fieldpenguin (U2266391) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    My first reaction was that faith is belief without evidence. After consideration, I 'm inclined to say it's belief without evidence sufficient to establish the probability of the thing believed in.

    But does this mean that if you had strong enough evidence for God, then your belief wouldn't count as faith?

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by idontbelieveit (U14276798) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013



    Evidence matters not a jot to leftists.
    Yet still their faith is maintained.
    The response is not delayed.
    It is simply absent.


    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Faith can certainly be misplaced, in a religious or irreligious setting. The other point or question that immediately springs to my mind is how or on what basis does one decide what is "sufficient evidence"?

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.