Furthermore, it's impossible to prove objectively that empirical reasoning is superior to faith. Ironically, we take a leap of faith when we commit ourselves to evidence-based knowledge. We don't know if what we understand through experience, is the truest experience of reality.
The difference between evidence and faith is that there are things to back up evidence, numbers, observations, etc. I can have faith that 2 + 2=5 but that is still wrong according to all that we have held true. And according to BLOB_CASTLE below that my thought of 2 + 2=5 would be held as equally as 2 + 2=4. And unfortunately, its the truest form of reality we have, we can say that the Hubble telescope is not the best way to view space (which is probably true, there are always better ways to do something) however that does not mean we should hold the Hubble telescope, and my do-it-yourself telescope to the same standard. Just because we have two ways of viewing/ something does not mean that one cannot be better than the other.
I might need to explain my meaning a little more clearly. Firstly, 2 + 2=4 is a logical principle. It's a bad example to use since it's not exactly related to evidence-based knowledge. We don't get to the conclusion that 2 + 2=4 by collecting statistics and examining evidence: we don't try putting together two pairs of bricks, two pairs of horses etc. just to ensure that the principle remains invariably firm. Due to our understanding of number, when two and two are placed together, it logically follows that the sum total is four, and anything to the contrary is simply inconceivable. My comment was based upon how we interact with reality, and how these interactions can contribute to the all-important goal of human happiness. (Because, really, what're we doing if not pursuing happiness?) I think it's indisputable that humankind has advanced tremendously, from a technological perspective, over the past few centuries. But it can still be argued that, spiritually, morally, and psychologically, we're still very primitive. Many of us follow religions that were first adapted to the deserts of ancient Palestine. The reason why we perform a leap of faith in embracing evidence-based knowledge is this: we assume that a certain arrangement of objects, under the same circumstances, will always behave in the same way. We believe that the Earth will continue orbiting the sun. We believe that our hand will continue to respond to gravity. However, we don't know if these universal laws will continue unwaveringly into the future. I don't know for certain if the sun will rise tomorrow. The sun could have its movement intercepted by some other stellar object; the sun could explode; but, more interestingly, the laws of motion could cease entirely, and the universe could descend into a state where the rising of the sun is as unintelligible as 2 + 2=5. Some amount of faith and superstition is necessary in order to harbour some form of knowledge. What we need to determine, is how much faith and superstition can result in the best form of knowledge; that is, knowledge which best advances our happiness and tranquility.
What ultra-musketeer is saying, if I interpret correctly, is that you have faith that 22 will always equal 4. How do you know there aren't scenarios when it doesn't?
Say we're rounding. 2.42.4=5.8 thus, 2+2=5. And I'm not saying one's better than the other as a whole. The Hubble is better in outer space, your DIY telescope is better for close up. It all depends on the circumstances I suppose.
Well yeah, I agree with that. But I'm saying faith is as good as truth.I can hold something proven to be true over something with little/ no proof.
I would say that faith is vastly inferior to truth. Anyone can have faith, it requires literally nothing, and frankly does not impress me one little bit (no offense intended). Truth, whatever that may be, at least should be correct, if nothing else. But faith and truth are apples and oranges, and not really comparable, also.
How so? Preschool kids can have plenty of faith in Jesus (or Santa, for that matter), with no courage at all.
But kids still have their innocence and aren't aware of all the hardships the "real world" brings. One we've aged and know of the maladies the world contains, then it takes courage to hold steadfast in your faith when the world around you is bombarding you with contradictions.
Sounds like you're saying faith is easy for them because their faith is blind. "When I was a child, I thought as a child..." It would take a lot of courage for a grown-up to have faith in Santa, I'll give you that :-) But I'm not sure it would be a virtue.
Right exactly. They haven't had enough experiences to contest their faith.
Hahaha, yes, yes it would.
I would say it is virtuosic to be so convicted of something so much so that it's walls can deflect any attack. There's something deep to admire there. And while I say all this, it should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm nearly 21, I know I'm still a little kid and my thoughts haven't had time to fully age yet either. But I feel like there's some truth to what I'm saying. So, take of it what you will.
I have to give you a lot of credit for keeping this discussion civil - I can be a real ass sometimes, I know. Sorry about that. What I'm going to say next may test that... To me, faith is what you demand, when you want people to stop asking questions and just believe what you're told. I don't see it as virtuous in any way.
Haha, well thank you. A discussion is exponentially more fun than an argument. Something I learned in church a while ago is that if you're a Christian, you will doubt and ask questions about your belief at some point or another. If you're truly convicted of your faith, you'll find the answers lead you right back to where you started.
Asking questions is essential for growth in any regard, and spirituality is no exception.
I was reminded of this thread by something my wife just posted on FB. I'm interested in what you think of it. " I believe that anyone who actually examines their belief in a god, will come to the logical conclusion that there is no support for that belief, that in fact, it is nothing more than wishful thinking and fear of death."
Can I ask why you say "must exist" and not "does exist" ? Use of "must" implies to me that you think there is evidence of god, and I'm pretty sure there is not. I'm not trying to be combative here, or convert you to atheism, really. It's just that if we are going to discuss this, I do take a firm atheist view. We don't have to continue the discussion if you don't want to; I wouldn't be bothered.
mk, I can't seem to reply in the leaf comments of this thread. Is that because it is nested too deeply? On comments deeper in this tree, I have no reply link any more.
I was able to reply to tng's posting from my "notifications" page, but still can't from the original post.
no, you've just been cut off. Like when you've had too much to drink.. jk. Are you on a mobile device or computer? Just curious, this is definitely an mk question.
Oh no I don't get offended very easily. The reason I use "must" does come from myself having a romantic mindset. From what I've seen of the natural beautiful Earth:
And from what I've learned about the inner-connectivity of everthing in the known universe, my logic is that it had to have been created by God with an incredible plan in mind that we have no way of comprehension besides awe.
(my girlfriend and myself in Eagle, CO)
(Arches National Park)
I'll sum up our positions from my POV, and you can point out if I'm incorrect or being unfair. You: The universe is awesome! I assume something must have built it. I assume that something wouldn't have gone to the trouble, unless it had a master plan in mind. Me: The universe is awesome! Let's use our brains, skepticism, and the scientific method to figure out how it all works as best we can (you probably agree with this). The primary difference in our stances is that you make two assumptions that I don't see any justification for.
I agree completely this. I do agree with you about figuring out how to be the most effective we can be. The primary difference is not our stances, but our outlooks, is that I'm willing to do the leap of faith to convict myself of a belief I know will bring me ridicule.
Understood. I guess we just disagree. I DO agree, that the universe is wondrous, and I think it is miraculous that we humans have developed the capacity to appreciate all this, but I still feel no compulsion to believe that a magical being, who insists on remaining anonymous, built it all. Maybe that's the case, but I really doubt it. This is just the wondrous universe in which we happen to find ourselves. There's not an overarching plan, no angels or demons, no magic. Plenty of mysteries, sure, but (sadly) no magic. At least none I've seen.
Haha I guess we honestly do just disagree. I cannot convince myself that it isn't a superior being who created all of the wonder around us.
Do you believe this creator is the god of Abraham?
Well, there is where my own doubting comes in. That's what I've always grown up believing. As of late, I can't shake the notion that possibly we all worship the same God and over time our interpretations of his doctrine has become so skewed we've convinced ourselves there are a million different ones. But I don't know.
Oh my goodness this is genius. You're so right! Here are people, who base their lives on this evidence. But who knows if it's the truest experience?? No one! I'm not saying that one is better than the other. But since we can't know which is the 'truest experience of reality,' why don't we just hold faith and evidence equally?? You've really got me riled up here.
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer." From a material perspective, yes. But there is not a single human being in all existence who concerns themselves purely with using their hands for work. And I think that illustrates the precise degree of value that can be associated with our material aims.
I think a lot of people have a misconstrued view of the purpose of prayer/meditation. The purpose is to get oneself in the right mindset to achieve a certain goal. Say I pray to be more kind toward a certain person. God isn't going to instill kindness in me with a spiritual syringe. Rather, I've realized the nature of my actions much change and so I take time to meditate on that.
Prayer is (seems to me) for the one praying, not for the deity. I don't know why more Christians don't see this. If you pray for God to do something he wasn't going to do, surely that's futile.
If you pray for God to do something he was already going to do, surely that's useless. Therefore, if prayer is useful at all, then it is useful for the pray-er, not the pray-ee.
Is there really evidence? Or is it just blind faith in what your elementary school teacher once told you? ;) What about the whole concept of relativity and frame of reference? Should your driver's license be revoked if the police officer can provide evidence that your car was traveling 108,000 km/h above the speed limit? Because that's the speed it was traveling relative to the sun. Sure, if you're approximating planetary orbits, this is much easier to work with than this. But neither it technically wrong. Can you disprove that the sun "rises" each morning? No, because it's just a matter for frame of reference.I can have all the faith in the world that the sun revolves around the earth however the evidence would prove me wrong.
You've compared a heliocentric orbital diagram and a geocentric orbital diagram and proclaimed neither of them to be "technically wrong". This is absurd, the geocentric view of the solar system is absolutely wrong and is not even a useful approximation. It was, at one time, a useful and somewhat convincing approximation but the real answer is much simpler, far more accurate, and easier to work with. There is overwhelming evidence that this is the case. If we were having this discussion before the launch of the first interplanetary exploration missions there would STILL be overwhelming and conclusive evidence but in the age of space exploration it is incontrovertible. There's no blind faith required here, there is real evidence.
I wasn't really clear. I am not talking about orbits or the model of the solar system. I'm talking purely about changing the frame of reference. If you want to plot the movement of planets, you set the frame of reference at the sun. That way, the orbits are nice and elliptical. If you plot the movement of the moon, it will look something like this, though. To get a nice ellipse, you have to set the frame of reference at the earth. So now you have the earth at point (0,0,0) and you have the moon revolving around it in an elliptical orbit. What happens if you plot the sun? Normally, people consider the ground not to move, and use it as a frame of reference. So if you're just standing, you're not moving. If you're driving 30 miles per hour, you're moving at that rate relative to the earth's surface, right? So, if the ground is not moving but the sun moves from one side to the other, then at this frame of reference the sun is moving around the earth. So to be clear: I'm not making an argument against the model where the earth orbits around the sun - everything behaves the same. The only thing that changes is the frame of reference.
There's tons of evidence, no blind faith requires, your argument had no grounds and no blind faith required, unlike belief in god ;). Also, we use speed as a reference, true its really much faster relative to the sun but that i not the scale I, nor any rational human being uses. I cant disprove anything, it's impossible, can you disprove that you're a serial killing rapist, no.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here now, but how do you know that in a spiritual sense of our universe in which the sun and earth revolve around something entirely different? I know I'm being ridiculous. But the point of what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't ever discredit the possibility for anything, even if there's no evidence for it.
But there's faith in facts! Faith that those facts will never change. Who knows that they won't?
Don't discredit the possibility that the earth and sun revolve around something else, because they do. Our solar system orbits the super massive black hole in the center of our galaxy. There's just nothing spiritual going on there. ;)
Haha, I knew that! It was the first thing I could think of off the top of my head!