Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:

Xar wrote:...This is where faith comes in: you either choose to believe in all this, even though there is no empirical, reproducible proof that your belief is correct, or you choose not to.

In fact, the whole point of faith is to believe in something which cannot be demonstrably true or false; scientific certainty is anathema to faith (but this doesn't mean they cannot coexist as long as neither tries to intrude upon the other).

Excellently said Xar. Makes me think of the idea that God can't prove that he exists, because then you wouldn't have to believe in him any more. The entire need for faith would be negated.

--A

It's good to keep in mind that this is one definition of faith that is used, namely "the knowledge of things that are unseen." However, there is another variation that some (including myself) use which often leads to conflict about whether or not scientists of necessity have faith. In this variation, faith is a principle of power, through which everything is accomplished. For example, I may plant some sunflowers seeds, I do this because I have faith (belief) that if I tend them, I'll be able to grow some sunflowers. Now, I do not know that the sunflower seeds will grow until they have done so, the initial force that pushed me to plant them was a belief that they would grow, not a knowledge, and this belief is defined as faith.

In this aspect, a scientist could have faith in a theory, he looks for a transitional fossil because his belief in a theory compels him to do so, though he does not know it until after he's found the transitional fossil. Now, a subset of this faith would be what we would call "dogmatic faith." In this case, unlike the previous cases, this kind of faith does not get justified (usually) in the course of everyday life... in fact, almost by the conditions it is under, it is not justified until after the moment of death, if it is even justified.

But Orlion, your sunflower seeds are also an example of science. Over the millennia, it has been observed that if seeds are planted, and certain conditions of water and sunlight are maintained, then the seeds will sprout and grow. Maybe you yourself haven't tried to plant sunflowers before, but you've seen them, and you know they come from seeds. Your scientific observations have led you to postulate a theorem that if you plant those seeds, they will grow. You can call it faith, but it's really more of an educated guess.

aliantha wrote:But Orlion, your sunflower seeds are also an example of science. Over the millennia, it has been observed that if seeds are planted, and certain conditions of water and sunlight are maintained, then the seeds will sprout and grow. Maybe you yourself haven't tried to plant sunflowers before, but you've seen them, and you know they come from seeds. Your scientific observations have led you to postulate a theorem that if you plant those seeds, they will grow. You can call it faith, but it's really more of an educated guess.

Yes, it is the type of faith that is different from dogmatic faith in that it is justified or can be justified. However, my point is that one does not know that those seeds he plants will grow until they do... it still requires some belief (faith) albeit a lot less then faith that if you obey certain commandments you'll have eternal happiness after death.

This leads to the concept that all faith is ultimately justifiable, in fact it's an integral part of faith. If there is not justifiable reason to hold onto a concept, that faith ceases to compel. So if I find that my sunflower seeds don't grow, my faith that I can do so (at least by the method I used) ceases to be. As a result, I may try to grow them another way, or I may cease to try to grow them at all.

rusmeister wrote:Hi guys!
I'm in a squeeze for posting time, esp. during the work week, but...
I don't even suggest that one should not question one's own beliefs, LM, so yes, go right ahead and question everything. But if you arrive at definitive answers, is not your question answered? Why then should I go on asking it? I have questioned my beliefs, and the ones I hold now I arrived at less than 7 years ago. I hold them precisely because I have questioned them, and found my lazy agnosticism to be the thing severely wanting.

By and large, I think most people on my side of the fence object to a religious faith that can only be embraced by saying that things that are, are not.

What if I saw a park enclosed by a fence. Inside that fence I see a strange thing. There's a pole, looks to be about three feet tall, sticking straight up out of the ground. And there's a ball, about the size of a volleyball, flying around and around that pole, maybe half a foot above the ground. The circle the ball makes has a radius of about ten feet.

How can this be? I don't see any flames or smoke coming from the ball, as though it had an engine on it. And it's just a sphere. No fins to steer it around and around.

As I look, I realize the pole is spinning. Looks to be synchronized with the ball's movement. I wonder if there's a wire holding the ball, so that the pole's spinning moves the ball... If that's the case, though, the wire is too thin to see from here. And the problem is, I can't get inside the fence for a closer look. There's people in there, but I don't know how they got in.

Hey, some kid's basketball got away from him, and rolled toward the pole. It got inside the circle's radius before the ball could hit it. But when the ball went past it, so the basketball was right between the pole and the ball, the basketball went flying - in the same direction that the ball was moving at that instant.

As it turns out, I have a basketball, too. I throw it at the pole. Fortunately, my timing is good enough that I don't hit the ball. And my basketball behaves the same way the other basketball did. And what's more, I was watching the moving ball more closely this time, and it jerked at the same moment my basketball went flying.

And look! That little girl just ran into the circle while the ball was on the other side of the pole. When the ball got to the point that put the girl between it and the pole, the girl jumped! And she's doing it again, and again, and again.

Really, I'm leaning toward the wire theory. No, I haven't proven it. (Yet?) But, seriously...

Now, along comes this guy who worships Orbis. He tells me that Orbis' will causes the ball to go around like that.
"Why's the pole spinning?"
"Coincidence."
"And the way the two basketballs went flying at those precise moments?"
"Also coincidence."
"And the little girl is..." I pause, giving him time to fill in an answer.
"Crazy."

Personally, I don't see a problem with believing Orbis intentionally made the universe in such a way that circles are possible. Praise him every time you see a circle. But why insist that every circle you see, even things moving in circles, are the direct will of Orbis, even if there's darned good reason to believe otherwise?

rusmeister wrote:I've answered your last question at least 50 times in my posting with Fist

You think I'm not gonna go count now???

rusmeister wrote:at some point everyone must accept some form of mystical dogma or other. The idea of a Big Bang requires just as mystical an acceptance of some eternally pre-existing matter, or an equally mystical eternal chain of cause and effect. My objection is when people pretend that all aspects of their beliefs are 100% rational, when in fact they are not. Everybody has bottom-line dogmas that they do not in fact question, and the worst kind is the one that is not aware of what those dogmas are. (The best, of course, have questioned them, but have arrived at definite convictions, a phenomenon I call "postjudice".)

As far as the BB goes, I believe it happened. Not as much dogma as evidence. But I don't claim to know how it came about. I don't know if it was caused or not. And if it was caused, I don't claim to know the nature of that cause.

Orlion wrote:For example, I may plant some sunflowers seeds, I do this because I have faith (belief) that if I tend them, I'll be able to grow some sunflowers. Now, I do not know that the sunflower seeds will grow until they have done so, the initial force that pushed me to plant them was a belief that they would grow, not a knowledge, and this belief is defined as faith.

I would say "expectation" rather than faith...as Ali suggests, observation has taught us that, with the correct combination of factors, the seeds will grow. They may not, but that will be as a result of some quantifiable factor...lack of water, infertile seeds, whatever.

--A

interesting
but returning to the original question: If we're only talking of a Christian type God, he is, by definition and intention, a God of the Gap. He could have made a universe where he was provable, but intentionally made one where he was not...no amount of knowledge will make us know, and it's on purpose.
I don't understand why it would be made this way, [despite having read billions of supposed reasons] but that's another topic.

Vraith wrote:interesting
but returning to the original question: If we're only talking of a Christian type God, he is, by definition and intention, a God of the Gap. He could have made a universe where he was provable, but intentionally made one where he was not...no amount of knowledge will make us know, and it's on purpose.
I don't understand why it would be made this way, [despite having read billions of supposed reasons] but that's another topic.

Good post! That gets a