The Bull  permalink

Faith = a delayed response to evidence

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 401 - 423 of 423
  • Message 401

    , in reply to message 399.

    Posted by Cucumber (U2440869) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    In reply to sweet-rocket

    The more I think about that message the more puzzling it becomes...are they saying that people of faith shouldn't take note of facts? 
    I find it hard to believe that any religion would take the nuclear option when it comes to facts. After all, you'd have to believe it a fact that there is a God and such and such claims in the Holy Scripture are factually correct, in order to be a subscriber.

    I think I would interpret the sign as just playing on the obvious truth that the less facts there are that verify X, then the more faith is required in order to believe X. And so if you are a person of strong faith you should be unfazed by the lack of tangible supporting evidence.

    Though of course it could mean that if your faith is big enough then the facts that appear to contradict your beliefs don't count. That may sound like burying your head in the sand territory but then I suppose that pretty much all evidence is relative to certain assumptions, so the evidence that appears contradictory can be explained away by the notion that the assumptions are wrong.

    Report message1

  • Message 402

    , in reply to message 401.

    Posted by Taff Agent of kaos-solitary man (U9229223) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    In reply to sweet-rocket

    The more I think about that message the more puzzling it becomes...are they saying that people of faith shouldn't take note of facts? 
    I find it hard to believe that any religion would take the nuclear option when it comes to facts. After all, you'd have to believe it a fact that there is a God and such and such claims in the Holy Scripture are factually correct, in order to be a subscriber.

    I think I would interpret the sign as just playing on the obvious truth that the less facts there are that verify X, then the more faith is required in order to believe X. And so if you are a person of strong faith you should be unfazed by the lack of tangible supporting evidence.

    Though of course it could mean that if your faith is big enough then the facts that appear to contradict your beliefs don't count. That may sound like burying your head in the sand territory but then I suppose that pretty much all evidence is relative to certain assumptions, so the evidence that appears contradictory can be explained away by the notion that the assumptions are wrong.  
    this anti-intellectualism seems to stem from the US

    historically religion was the bastion of science, but since the two have split and headed in different directions, science is now seen as a direct attack on religion when it contradicts scripture and wrongly held beliefs

    the american "creationist" movment is a loud voice in religious circles and offers a "simple" well known set of answers to those who don't understand complex systems within science

    a lot of people do not want to apear ignorant so will accept a simple explination they understand over a complex one they don't

    saying "i don't know" is a trai to be admired as it open doors for understanding, but the fear of apearing ignorant actually highlights someones ignorance

    Report message2

  • Message 403

    , in reply to message 402.

    Posted by auldhairy (U14258268) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    The European Court of Human Rights is due to deliver a landmark ruling in the cases of four British Christians who claim they suffered religious discrimination at work.
    They include an airline worker stopped from wearing a cross and a registrar who did not want to marry gay people.
    The four insist their right to express their religious beliefs was infringed.
    The government, which is contesting the claims, argues their rights are protected only in private.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/u...

    Report message3

  • Message 404

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    Some interesting contributions from the usual suspects, good thread.

    Report message4

  • Message 405

    , in reply to message 350.

    Posted by Cucumber (U2440869) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    In reply to Beecefromsuff:

    "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

    Is this the sort of thing your referring to CC 

    Well I took another look and it is still not really what I was talking about.

    I was talking about a situation where there is nothing, not even any 'rules'. Once the universe began to exist there would have been rules that began to exist with it, including (possibly) those that govern matter.

    Not sure why he would assume that there must be 'intelligent holding' going on. But not overly familiar with this 'force' he mentions.

    Report message5

  • Message 406

    , in reply to message 405.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    In reply to Beecefromsuff:

    "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

    Is this the sort of thing your referring to CC

    Well I took another look and it is still not really what I was talking about.

    I was talking about a situation where there is nothing, not even any 'rules'. Once the universe began to exist there would have been rules that began to exist with it, including (possibly) those that govern matter.

    Not sure why he would assume that there must be 'intelligent holding' going on. But not overly familiar with this 'force' he mentions. 


    Hi CC,

    Thanks for taking the time to look at this again. I just came across it in a conversation with my eldest and thought it was very interesting, partly of course because he ascribes existence to a creator but also because he is the physicist who came up with quantum physics.

    I'm intrigued by what appears to be his view that ....."All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together" ...... Regardless whether you do as he does and ascribes this force to intelligence that is very, very interesting.

    Also, his views on science and faith are very similar to my own...

    Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and faith, "faith" interpreted as being similar to "having a working hypothesis". For example the causality principle isn't true or false, it is an act of faith. Thereby Planck may have indicated a view that points toward Imre Lakatos' research programs process descriptions, where falsification is mostly tolerable, in faith of its future removal.[24] He also said: "Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view" 

    Again very interesting given his status among modern scientists. The rest of the article states that he wasn't all one sided or the other. I dont know enough about him or his theories and writings yet but would like to study it some more.




    Re the theory you mentioned, again dont know enough about it to give an intelligent answer (like you could anyway say some lol)> on the surface its got to be correct in that the rules which govern matter must have come into existence when matter appeared as there was no "before", I suppose that can be described as the "physical laws". A question to be considered then is was the physical brought into existence by the spiritual? Anyway thats a deep question for those greater than I, you BX4 and PSi should give that a go.

    Cheers mate

    Beece

    Report message6

  • Message 407

    , in reply to message 406.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    Surely that is the central mystery of the universe - why should there be something rather than nothing? Whether that something is a force or laws of physics or matter/energy it doesn't matter. I don't think science can ever come up with an answer to that, since science itself is founded on the assumption that those laws exist. It can explain what the universe is like, but not why it is here. Likewise philosophers can chop logic and argue about the meanings of words and concepts etc. until they are blue in the face, they will never be able to tell you why it is here.

    Report message7

  • Message 408

    , in reply to message 407.

    Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    Surely that is the central mystery of the universe - why should there be something rather than nothing? 

    That may only be because, since we are 'something', we find it particularly interesting and feel it needs a special explanation. But maybe it no more needs a special explanation than 'positive' needs a separate explanation to 'negative' i.e. something and nothing are just two manifestations of the same thing.

    Report message8

  • Message 409

    , in reply to message 408.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    Surely that is the central mystery of the universe - why should there be something rather than nothing? 

    That may only be because, since we are 'something', we find it particularly interesting and feel it needs a special explanation. But maybe it no more needs a special explanation than 'positive' needs a separate explanation to 'negative' i.e. something and nothing are just two manifestations of the same thing.  
    I think that is a clever evasion of the question, one that many philosophers and even some scientists (to their shame) indulge in. Scientists in particular have always sought explanations for phenomena that they observe, rather than just accepting passively that it does not need an explanation, and yet it when it comes to the question of why a universe, why anything rather than nothing, they retreat into the same sort of evasion and smokescreen that philosophers routinely indulge in. It seems to me to be simple human reluctance to admit that they don't know, there may be an answer but it will never be available to us while we are in this universe. And all the methods of science and philosophy can never provide an explanation.

    Report message9

  • Message 410

    , in reply to message 409.

    Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    ...they retreat into the same sort of evasion and smokescreen that philosophers routinely indulge in 

    Surely a bit harsh. Where is the substance in your response? You denounce my suggestion as 'evasion' etc. but don't explain why or make any argument of your own.

    It seems to me to be simple human reluctance to admit that they don't know, there may be an answer but it will never be available to us while we are in this universe. 

    If somebody asks a question - but has no idea how it could be answered or even what would constitute a satisfactory answer - then we should consider the possibility that it isn't a real question!

    So let's avoid any suggestion that I am the one indulging in evasion, smokescreens etc. by asking you directly; What is it that you don't know? Is it 'The Great Question of Life, the Universe and Everything?' Or something more specific?

    Report message10

  • Message 411

    , in reply to message 410.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    >If somebody asks a question - but has no idea how it could be answered or even what would constitute a satisfactory answer - then we should consider the possibility that it isn't a real question!<

    Of course the question why there should be something rather than nothing, and why we have an orderly rather than chaotic universe are real questions. Logically they should have an answer, even if it's not available to human beings and probably never will be. But I have heard the old putdown of arguing that it isn't a valid question from teachers and philosophers many times, and I always start to smell bovine manure when I hear it. I think it comes from their mindset, they're in love with the scientistic (not scientific) idea that everything should be explicable, and when confronted with the reality that everything is not, and that some things might never be, instead of simply acknowledging that, they angrily withdraw into the solipsistic argument that because we don't have access to an answer, that one cannot possibly exist. It's illogical and irrational in my opinion.

    Report message11

  • Message 412

    , in reply to message 411.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 17th January 2013



    and religion isn't? Ha ha.

    You don't acknowledge that somethings may be inexplicable. You explain it by ideas of a supernatural god.

    Report message12

  • Message 413

    , in reply to message 412.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    'you explain them by ideas of a supernatural god'.

    Report message13

  • Message 414

    , in reply to message 384.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    I'm still waiting for Beece to reply to my message 384, which was a request that he explained why he had concluded that an intelligent creator is the most likely explanation for our existence.

    Report message14

  • Message 415

    , in reply to message 411.

    Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Friday, 18th January 2013

    Poorgrass:
    Of course the question why there should be something rather than nothing, and why we have an orderly rather than chaotic universe are real questions. 


    Two questions then.

    In answer to the first, actually there is both - something and nothing - in the universe. One defines the other. If I say 'Elizabeth Windsor is the Queen' then I am also saying 'Tanya isn't the Queen' and 'Elizabeth Windsor is not a tree' etc. These facts have one and the same explanation. In maths, it is like addition and subtraction - they are two sides of the same coin.

    In answer to the second...outside my window I see the snowflakes madly swirling. In what sense are they 'orderly'? I could give various levels of explanation for their movements, from the weather forecast, to the law of gravity, to the molecular explanation of the way ice crystals form, the way the wind swirls around my house...yet all these explanations do not make them orderly. All they really say is that every effect has a cause...

    But I have heard the old putdown of arguing that it isn't a valid question from teachers and philosophers many times, and I always start to smell bovine manure when I hear it. 

    ...if instead you had paid attention you would find that Aristotle anticipated your argument centuries ago.

    Your question is just a confusion of some very old arguments; first the need for a 'designer' but second the need for a 'first cause'. That the complicated series of cause and effects I see in the snowstorm must have originated with some 'orderly' beginning, an event that first put order into the universe. (And because we rightly see orderliness seeking as a human thing, that cunningly smuggles in the notion of this first cause being a human-like God)

    We want this first cause, because we see there are problems with 'infinity' To suggest that we can trace cause-effect backwards forever creates the sort of mathematical paradox that our orderliness-seeking brains don't like. Yet any 'first cause' must either also incorporate infinity, so it solves nothing...or it must say that you can step outside this picture - that a cause-effect chain operating in time is the way we humans order things in our minds, but this is only a reflection of our own perception.

    To put it all another way, you are not comfortable with these philosophical/scientific responses, but that doesn't make them wrong. And since you refuse to attempt any answer of your own...

    Report message15

  • Message 416

    , in reply to message 414.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Friday, 18th January 2013

    <quote>I'm still waiting for Beece to reply to my message 384, which was a request that he explained why he had concluded that an intelligent creator is the most likely explanation for our existence.</quote?


    Why do you want to know?

    Report message16

  • Message 417

    , in reply to message 416.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Friday, 18th January 2013

    <quote postid='115014228'><quote>I'm still waiting for Beece to reply to my message 384, which was a request that he explained why he had concluded that an intelligent creator is the most likely explanation for our existence.</quote?


    Why do you want to know?</quote>

    Because you have asserted it and yet it doesn't seem to me to be any more tenable a theory than one that says that Wotan is the most likely explanation for our existence.

    Report message17

  • Message 418

    , in reply to message 417.

    Posted by Beecefromsuff (U9767223) on Friday, 18th January 2013

    Ive explained why in dozens of posts on this thread alone MrL, everything form DNA to the Dodo lol

    In my last contribution I refereed to the physicist who came up with Quantum Mechanics, he has no problem accepting the relationship faith has with science and vice versa, he even concludes that..

    All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter 

    This is Mr Quantum Mechanics himself Mr L, not some bloke on a MB.
    Dozens and dozens of the founding fathers of science including Sir Issac Newton believed in God and had no problem incorporating this into their reasoning, its not just me Mr L.


    Do you doubt that intelligent men, greater even than you or I (; can not reasonably conclude God exists?

    Until you accept that as true you can never understand why they do.






    Report message18

  • Message 419

    , in reply to message 418.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Friday, 18th January 2013

    Ive explained why in dozens of posts on this thread alone MrL, everything form DNA to the Dodo lol

    In my last contribution I refereed to the physicist who came up with Quantum Mechanics, he has no problem accepting the relationship faith has with science and vice versa, he even concludes that..

    All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter 

    This is Mr Quantum Mechanics himself Mr L, not some bloke on a MB.
    Dozens and dozens of the founding fathers of science including Sir Issac Newton believed in God and had no problem incorporating this into their reasoning, its not just me Mr L.


    Do you doubt that intelligent men, greater even than you or I (; can not reasonably conclude God exists?

    Until you accept that as true you can never understand why they do.


     


    That's just an argument from authority. If you're going down that route, why not mention all the eminent scientists who haven't concluded that God exists?

    The reason I asked if you could summarise why you believe God kicked everything off was so that I could appreciate why your theory is better than one that says that Thor (or any other entity whose existence is entirely unsupported by evidence) kicked everything off. This thread is very long, with many of the arguments spread over several posts, but I imagine that your basic argument can be stated more concisely than that.

    Report message19

  • Message 420

    , in reply to message 415.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Friday, 18th January 2013

    >Your question is just a confusion of some very old arguments; first the need for a 'designer' but second the need for a 'first cause'.<

    You're just using diversionary tactics here. Nowhere in my posts 407, 409 or 411 did I even mention the concept of first cause. I was merely attacking the idea that science and logic can reveal everything, and sustaining the argument that some things may be beyond investigation or explanation to us. It is you that have tried to divert the argument onto your familiar ground, although even then I think your arguments against the first cause are well dodgy, but that is not my point of attack. I just find it curious that you cannot accept that there are limits to science and rationality and what it tells us. In fact the foundation of science and logic as from the time of Socrates is "I do not know" and yet you are trying to assert that anything you cannot reason or explain by logic is not worth knowing or simply doesn't exist, and that any question you cannot answer is invalid. There is element of the dreadful solipsistic postmodernism about that - I've come across it too many times. I'm more interested in the psychology behind it. I think some people cannot live with the thought of genuine mystery or things that are forever beyond our explanation. And I believe as science progresses we will run up into more and more barriers, either of our own inability to understand or because some things (like what happened before the big bang) may never be open to scientific inquiry, being in a different universe. The days when it looked as if everything could be explained by science are long gone. We may never be able to deduce from reason alone why we are here, but the question remains. I think you'll just have to get used to it.

    Report message20

  • Message 421

    , in reply to message 420.

    Posted by Mr_Lightning (U15450350) on Friday, 18th January 2013

    I was merely attacking the idea that science and logic can reveal everything, and sustaining the argument that some things may be beyond investigation or explanation to us. 

    But why is it necessary to establish, in what can only be a speculative way, either that science and logic can reveal everything or that some things may be beyond investigation or explanation to us? Scientists are never going to give up trying, so the argument is unlikely ever to be settled, because they'll refuse to accept that something is inexplicable. It will be an article of faith for them. And God will seek ever-dwindling gaps.

    Report message21

  • Message 422

    , in reply to message 420.

    Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Saturday, 19th January 2013

    Poorgrass,

    I just find it curious that you cannot accept that there are limits to science and rationality and what it tells us. In fact the foundation of science and logic as from the time of Socrates is "I do not know" and yet you are trying to assert that anything you cannot reason or explain by logic is not worth knowing or simply doesn't exist, and that any question you cannot answer is invalid.  
    I have not seen anybody claim that any question that cannot be answered is invalid. Instead, I've seen a more reasonable point put forward: that being able to grammatically construct a question is no guarantee of its validity. I wonder sometimes whether you have argued these lines so long that you assume you know what your opponent is saying rather than taking the trouble to understand the detail offered.

    I think some people cannot live with the thought of genuine mystery or things that are forever beyond our explanation.  
    Oh the irony...

    Report message22

  • Message 423

    , in reply to message 420.

    Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Saturday, 19th January 2013

    Poorgrass:
    Nowhere in my posts 407, 409 or 411 did I even mention the concept of first cause. I was merely attacking the idea that science and logic can reveal everything, and sustaining the argument that some things may be beyond investigation or explanation to us. 


    And I asked 'what things' and you said 'why' the universe was ordered and not chaotic.

    Now I could respond to that; 'it just is' However, if you are not happy with that and think there must be a reason, a 'why', then what else is that but asking for a cause?

    I just find it curious that you cannot accept that there are limits to science and rationality and what it tells us. 

    Certainly, but that is not what you are asserting.

    Science and logic and maths are systems. They are internally consistent. One plus one equals two - by definition. Maybe tomorrow the sun will start to orbit the earth, but within the system known as science the evidence that the earth orbits the sun is sufficient for us to say it is true.

    Yes, there will always be some things we do not know in science, but they are all potentially knowable. If a question in science wasn't potentially solvable through science (or maths), it wouldn't be a scientific question. In other words, all scientific questions are solvable through science.

    (It is also true that some questions that fall outside science, maths etc. For example examination of our own internal feelings.)

    But your 'mystery' claims to be within science - but also unknowable.

    It is the theists dilemma; if God exists in the material world, then he would be subject to the scientific method. But if he is so completely beyond the material world that science, reason etc. can't touch Him, then He can't touch us either. 'God' just becomes a misleadingly anthropomorphic alternative word for abstractions like 'infinity', or 'first cause'..or, in this case, some undefined 'mystery'.

    There is element of the dreadful solipsistic postmodernism about that - I've come across it too many times. I'm more interested in the psychology behind it. 

    Because that enables you to make ad hominem attacks on your opponent rather than engage with the substance?

    We may never be able to deduce from reason alone why we are here, but the question remains.  

    In your last sentence you introduce an entirely new question, nothing to do with the ones you gave previously!

    And I have no problem with this one; as I said above: 'It is also true that some questions that fall outside science, maths etc. For example examination of our own internal feelings.'

    What would constitute a satisfactory answer to a question about our own purpose? It would be one that gave us a purpose; one that we found satisfactory. It would be correct because we were contented by it.

    And that is what religions are about; they are not about science, they are about people. Attempting to insert religion into physics is a sort of 'dreadful solipsistic postmodernism'. It won't fit. Forget it.




    Report message23

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

BBC © 2014 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.