Dreams and Heaven

[John Cuthber]

I can't speak for iNow, but my faith that the sun will come up tomorrow is based on evidence (it has come up every morning before, and things that are repeatable tend to be repeatable)

 

 

If I was asleep at the time, my mind (and it's habits) wouldn't be affecting the break of dawn, but it would still happen.

 

That's half the difference between scientific and religious belief- the importance of evidence.

The other difference is that science wants to change, but religion wants to stay the same.

Only one of those two strategies can lead to improvement.

[iNow]

Yes and your 'faith' that the sun will come up tomorrow is merely a habit of your mind and is not supported by reason, just like all other forms of faith

Except, it's NOT the same, and one IS supported by reason and evidence. It's a conflation of terms, and you're basically using little more than a word trick in an attempt to buttress your religious position. The usages are importantly different, as one is equivalent to "justified confidence" whereas the other is equivalent to "unevidenced belief." One is about having expectations based on evidence and experience, the other is about blindly accepting something as absolutely true based on wish-thinking and worldview alone.

 

There was a good article elucidating this position just 2 weeks ago, and I've laid it out myself repeatedly here in the past. You are merely repeating a long debunked canard. You can continue posting with vitriol, condescension, and personal venomous barbs all you want, but doing so will not in any way change the simple truth of what I've shared.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html

Such statements imply that science and religion are not that different because both seek the truth and use faith to find it. Indeed, science is often described as a kind of religion.

 

But thats wrong, for the faith we have in science is completely different from the faith believers have in God and the dogmas of their creed. To see this, consider the following four statements:

• I have faith that, because I accept Jesus as my personal savior, I will join my friends and family in Heaven.
• My faith tells me that the Messiah has not yet come, but will someday.
• I have strep throat, but I have faith that this penicillin will clear it up.
• I have faith that when I martyr myself for Allah, I will receive 72 virgins in Paradise.

All of these use the word faith, but one uses it differently. The three religious claims (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, respectively) represent faith as defined by philosopher Walter Kaufmann: intense, usually confident, belief that is not based on evidence sufficient to command assent from every reasonable person. Indeed, there is no evidence beyond revelation, authority, and scripture to support the religious claims above, and most of the worlds believers would reject at least one of them. To state it bluntly, such faith involves pretending to know things you dont. Behind it is wish-thinking, as clearly expressed in Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

In contrast, the third statement relies on evidence: penicillin almost invariably kills streptococcus bacteria. In such cases the word faith doesnt mean belief without good evidence, but confidence derived from scientific tests and repeated, documented experience.

 

You have faith (i.e., confidence) that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has, and theres no evidence that the Earth has stopped rotating or the sun has burnt out. You have faith in your doctor because, presumably, she has treated you and others successfully, and you know that what she prescribes is tested scientifically. You wouldnt go to a shaman or a spiritual healer for strep throatunless you want to waste your money.

 

And finally, here:

 

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.

Edited November 27, 2013 by iNow

[Villain]

I can't speak for iNow, but my faith that the sun will come up tomorrow is based on evidence (it has come up every morning before, and things that are repeatable tend to be repeatable)

 

 

If I was asleep at the time, my mind (and it's habits) wouldn't be affecting the break of dawn, but it would still happen.

 

That's half the difference between scientific and religious belief- the importance of evidence.

The other difference is that science wants to change, but religion wants to stay the same.

Only one of those two strategies can lead to improvement.

 

Your sun example is a mistake of induction as I pointed out in the post above yours.

Except, it's NOT the same, and one IS supported by reason and evidence. It's a conflation of terms, and you're basically using little more than a word trick in an attempt to buttress your religious position. The usages are importantly different, as one is equivalent to "justified confidence" whereas the other is equivalent to "unevidenced belief." One is about having expectations based on evidence and experience, the other is about blindly accepting something as absolutely true based on wish-thinking and worldview alone.There was a good article elucidating this position just 2 weeks ago, and I've laid it out myself repeatedly here in the past. You are merely repeating a long debunked canard. You can continue posting with vitriol, condescension, and personal venomous barbs all you want, but doing so will not in any way change the simple truth of what I've shared.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.htmlAnd finally, here:http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Yip, some more induction, wrong again. Maybe you should read up on the problem of induction this time or stay ignorant, it's your choice.

[Moontanman]

 

Yes and your 'faith' that the sun will come up tomorrow is merely a habit of your mind and is not supported by reason, just like all other forms of faith, why don't you educate yourself and go look up the 'problem of induction'.

 

So knowing how the solar system works and the motions of the Earth is not enough to assume the sun will come up tomorrow?

[John Cuthber]

Your sun example is a mistake of induction as I pointed out in the post above yours.

 

Yip, some more induction, wrong again. Maybe you should read up on the problem of induction this time or stay ignorant, it's your choice.

You need to learn that induction, while not absolutely reliable, is the basis on which most human progress has been made.

Comparing it to the made up fantasy world that is religion doesn't make you look good.

 

You also need to realise that I do understand its flaws, that why I said " and things that are repeatable tend to be repeatable" rather than "and things that are repeatable are repeatable"

Your assertion of my ignorance flies in the face of the facts.

[Villain]

You need to learn that induction, while not absolutely reliable, is the basis on which most human progress has been made.

Comparing it to the made up fantasy world that is religion doesn't make you look good.

 

You also need to realise that I do understand its flaws, that why I said " and things that are repeatable tend to be repeatable" rather than "and things that are repeatable are repeatable"

Your assertion of my ignorance flies in the face of the facts.

 

In honour of the new Anchorman: 60% of the time, it works everytime .

 

 

So knowing how the solar system works and the motions of the Earth is not enough to assume the sun will come up tomorrow?

 

You can assume but that is exactly my point, it is an assumed position which is not backed through reason.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Villain

[iNow]

Perhaps the issue is that you're describing it as an assumed position, instead of a conditional conclusion. In case you aren't aware or are being intentionally obtuse, I'll spell it out for you. The idea that the sun will rise again tomorrow is a conditional conclusion rooted in evidence and reason. It's really that simple. It's a provisional acceptance of something as being likely, not a blind faith that something is absolutely correct. A scientific thinker will always stipulate that we could be wrong, only that it's unlikely given the consistency of historical observation and our understanding of the underlying dynamics of the system. That likelihood is only further strengthened by the fact that such observations are also consistent across ALL observers, regardless of worldview or ideology.

 

Compare that, however, to the position of theists who conclude with absolute certainty in the face of zero evidence whatsoever that their position is valid and accurate. Recall also that different theists have different perspectives about the nature of god(s) or heavens, and each thinks their own personal version of these ideas are absolutely correct, despite the fact that their positions are not consistent with all other theists on the planet and often the faith based beliefs of one individual directly contradict the faith based beliefs of other individuals. There is no consistency, and either one or both of them is wrong.

 

To suggest the two are equivalent (a confidence that the sun will come up again tomorrow and a bind faith that your own personally preferred version of the existence of cloud surfing sky pixies who care whether or not we wear clothes of different fibers or stone homosexuals to death) is to be disingenuous in the extreme. It suggests that perhaps you're not approaching the discussion in good faith, and instead are here solely to muddy the waters and attempt to buttress your baseless religious position by suggesting some false equivalency with science and empiricism. You're conflating the usages of the term faith, and ignoring the important differences in the application of the term across the different contexts.

Edited November 28, 2013 by iNow

[pears]

Compare that, however, to the position of theists who conclude with absolute certainty in the face of zero evidence whatsoever that their position is valid and accurate. Recall also that different theists have different perspectives about the nature of god(s) or heavens, and each thinks their own personal version of these ideas are absolutely correct

 

Warning - may contain generalizations.

[John Cuthber]

 

In honour of the new Anchorman: 60% of the time, it works everytime .

 

 

You can assume but that is exactly my point, it is an assumed position which is not backed through reason.

If you think the sun only rises 60% of the time then you have not been paying attention.

Or was that just an attempt to divert attention away from how successful science is and what a poor showing religion has when it comes to actually achieving things?

If it was the latter then I think you failed quite spectacularly. Most of us still know what evidence is and that it is the distinction between science and religion..

Also, you seem to be deliberately missing the point that it is backed by experimental evidence (in a way that religious faith is not).

[Moontanman]

 

You can assume but that is exactly my point, it is an assumed position which is not backed through reason.

 

 

 

 

How is the data obtained via scientific naturalism not reason?

[s1eep]

Death is probably not the end of life, it's the end of one life, but life continues. And if the universe was created out of nothing, what's the chances of a second consciousness being created for the same person, out of nothing? It's a great accomplishment and it seems even lesser than universe creation. It could be intertwined.

[pears]

 

 

 

How is the data obtained via scientific naturalism not reason?

 

Isn't it the assumption itself (that what has always been observed will continue to be observed) that is in question (from a pure logic pov) rather than the data itself?

[John Cuthber]

 

Isn't it the assumption itself (that what has always been observed will continue to be observed) that is in question (from a pure logic pov) rather than the data itself?

Nobody cares about the pure logic POV because all it tells you is that you don't really know anything (ask Descartes). That's no use to anyone (except those seeking to pretend that religion is as well founded as science).

 

The assumption that what has happened tends to continue to happen is indeed an assumption. It is however an assumption based on evidence.

It is self- referential to say "(that which has always been observed will continue to be observed)" but that's not a problem, because it's generally true.

 

There are still two systems here, one is based on evidence (and includes, implicitly and often explicitly) the assumption that evidence works.

There the other system which, by now, is largely based on deceipt, and contradictory assertions, is called religion.

[pears]

Nobody cares about the pure logic POV

 

Citation needed

[John Cuthber]

OK, no problem.

By pure logic, you can't prove that I'm here (or that anyone or anything else is, but you keep doing things like posting.

So you plainly don't care about the pure logic POV.

You can't prove that anyone else exists so there's no way to prove that they might have a different outlook.

So, As far as pure logic is concerned I have shown that the only person I could cite- you- doesn't follow the pure logic POV.

 

I did say it was a useless POV, didn't I.

[pears]

I find pure logic fascinating AND useful. So do a lot of philosophers, so I think plenty of people do care about it, regardless of your opinion of it.

[John Cuthber]

"I find pure logic fascinating AND useful. So do a lot of philosophers"

Citation needed.

And, in the circumstances you will need to prove that they are not just figments of my imagination.

It's really not my opinion with which you are arguing, it's Descares'.

Did you not realise that?

[pears]

And, in the circumstances you will need to prove that they are not just figments of my imagination.

 

Why?

[John Cuthber]

Because, if you can't then you are not using logic. You are relying on fallible perception.

You and I may both believe in the existence of these philosophers, but we have, as you keep pointing out, no logical reason to do so.

You have to start by proving that they exist.

Good luck with that.

Or, you could accept that I was right when I said that the pure logic POV is pointless.

 

Or, I guess you might be trolling.

[Villain]

Perhaps the issue is that you're describing it as an assumed position, instead of a conditional conclusion. In case you aren't aware or are being intentionally obtuse, I'll spell it out for you. The idea that the sun will rise again tomorrow is a conditional conclusion rooted in evidence and reason. It's really that simple. It's a provisional acceptance of something as being likely, not a blind faith that something is absolutely correct. A scientific thinker will always stipulate that we could be wrong, only that it's unlikely given the consistency of historical observation and our understanding of the underlying dynamics of the system. That likelihood is only further strengthened by the fact that such observations are also consistent across ALL observers, regardless of worldview or ideology.

 

Compare that, however, to the position of theists who conclude with absolute certainty in the face of zero evidence whatsoever that their position is valid and accurate. Recall also that different theists have different perspectives about the nature of god(s) or heavens, and each thinks their own personal version of these ideas are absolutely correct, despite the fact that their positions are not consistent with all other theists on the planet and often the faith based beliefs of one individual directly contradict the faith based beliefs of other individuals. There is no consistency, and either one or both of them is wrong.

 

To suggest the two are equivalent (a confidence that the sun will come up again tomorrow and a bind faith that your own personally preferred version of the existence of cloud surfing sky pixies who care whether or not we wear clothes of different fibers or stone homosexuals to death) is to be disingenuous in the extreme. It suggests that perhaps you're not approaching the discussion in good faith, and instead are here solely to muddy the waters and attempt to buttress your baseless religious position by suggesting some false equivalency with science and empiricism. You're conflating the usages of the term faith, and ignoring the important differences in the application of the term across the different contexts.

 

No let me spell it out for you: All observed A's have been B's, doesn't mean that all A's are B's. Using historical observation as a justification is circular reasoning.

 

I used the word faith, which doesn't mean 'absolute certainty' so the rest of your argument is a straw man. You're also suggesting that theists never change their theological viewpoint, which is also ridiculous.

 

Nowhere did I say they were equivalent, I did however mention that neither is validated through reason and that both required faith to be validated.

If you think the sun only rises 60% of the time then you have not been paying attention.

Or was that just an attempt to divert attention away from how successful science is and what a poor showing religion has when it comes to actually achieving things?

If it was the latter then I think you failed quite spectacularly. Most of us still know what evidence is and that it is the distinction between science and religion..

Also, you seem to be deliberately missing the point that it is backed by experimental evidence (in a way that religious faith is not).

 

Induction is only right when it's not wrong, but one can only tell when it's wrong. The classic example is: all swans are white, which seemed correct until a black swan was seen. You seem to be so in awe of the times that induction has served a purpose but conveniently ignore all the times that it has lead to failure.

 

 

 

 

How is the data obtained via scientific naturalism not reason?

 

As pears pointed out there is a difference between a singular piece of evidence pointing to a singular conclusion and drawing an universal conclusion from multiple events.

Nobody cares about the pure logic POV because all it tells you is that you don't really know anything (ask Descartes). That's no use to anyone (except those seeking to pretend that religion is as well founded as science).

 

The assumption that what has happened tends to continue to happen is indeed an assumption. It is however an assumption based on evidence.

It is self- referential to say "(that which has always been observed will continue to be observed)" but that's not a problem, because it's generally true.

 

There are still two systems here, one is based on evidence (and includes, implicitly and often explicitly) the assumption that evidence works.

There the other system which, by now, is largely based on deceipt, and contradictory assertions, is called religion.

 

I guess it's of no use pointing out that you're using circular reasoning, since logic is a waste of time in your point of view.

[s1eep]

What is a measure of sciences success?

[iNow]

No let me spell it out for you: All observed A's have been B's, doesn't mean that all A's are B's. Using historical observation as a justification is circular reasoning.

That wasn't my position, though, and this should be clear based on the words I actually posted. You even quoted it, so it's odd there remains such confusion. Again, here's what I said:

 

" [The idea that the sun will probably rise again tomorrow morning is not faith, but is instead] a provisional acceptance of something as being likely, not a blind faith that something is absolutely correct. A scientific thinker will always stipulate that we could be wrong, only that it's unlikely given the consistency of historical observation and our understanding of the underlying dynamics of the system."

 

You're also suggesting that theists never change their theological viewpoint, which is also ridiculous.

I did not suggest that, or, at least that is not what I intended to suggest. If I did, then let's chalk that up to me simply doing a poor job of conveying my message. I agree with you, such a stance would be plainly ridiculous and untenable. Given this, let me try to clarify...

 

My core position was that each theist inherently thinks they are correct and right (for they would not believe as they do were it otherwise), yet their positions are often unique. Their stance on the god-concept and other religious issues tends to be specific to them. While there is often a large degree of overlap with their beliefs and the beliefs of other theists, they are in ways different from and often in direct opposition to one another.

 

Their personal feelings and beliefs... their faith-based unevidenced beliefs... differ based on worldview alone. They differ based on ideology, and yet all of those beliefs rest on the exact same footing... Unevidenced belief, what I'm calling faith. I was comparing this against the idea that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning, an idea that is consistent across observers and does not change based solely on worldview or ideology, an idea that can have its likelihood demonstrated based on the massive amounts of historical evidence in its favor.

 

I was sharing with you that conflating this version of "faith" with the theist version of "faith" is disingenuous and a bit of a canard. It's roughly equivalent to arguing that seats at a pub bar are the same thing as the poop from your butt simply because we often refer to both as stools.

 

Perhaps that's not what you personally were doing, but it's not an uncommon position for theists to argue in discussions like this. We have numerous threads at this site alone where theists are making EXACTLY that argument about faith... Where they sincerely suggest that their personal faith in the existence of Zeus as the one-true-god is the same thing as my quote unquote "faith" that insulin tends to reduce blood glucose levels.

Edited December 2, 2013 by iNow

[pears]

Because, if you can't then you are not using logic. You are relying on fallible perception.

You and I may both believe in the existence of these philosophers, but we have, as you keep pointing out, no logical reason to do so.

You have to start by proving that they exist.

Good luck with that.

Or, you could accept that I was right when I said that the pure logic POV is pointless.

 

No I don't. Understanding logic is useful for dissecting the things people say and working out which bits logically follow on from somethng and which bits are assumptions. I don't have to prove the assumption to find the logic flow useful. That doesn't make sense.

 

Or, I guess you might be trolling.

 

 

How am I trolling?

[John Cuthber]

Ho hum,

For the n+1th time (which is the sort of thing that makes me think you are trolling)

"No I don't. Understanding logic is useful for dissecting the things people say and working out which bits logically follow on from somethng and which bits are assumptions."

You are making the assumption that those people exist.

You have no logical grounds to do so.

 

In order to show that logic can be used to dissect what people say, you need to prove that

1 people exist

2 they say things

Otherwise you might as well say that logic is very useful in helping unicorns cook leprechauns.

It is impossible to decide whether unicorns cook leprechauns. until you have shown that both exist.

You have yet to show the existence of people or what they say

So, from a strictly logical point of view as I have said a number of times now, you can't get far with logic.

Somewhere along the line you have to trust observation too.

 

Please actually try to understand this. Just denying it doesn't help you here.

 

Show that this statement is false

"There are no philosophers"

[pears]

Ho hum,

For the n+1th time (which is the sort of thing that makes me think you are trolling)

 

So I'm accused of trolling for defending logic on a science forum? Amazing! It seems to me you're actually accusing me of trolling for disagreeing with something you say.

 

You are making the assumption that those people exist.

You have no logical grounds to do so.

 

Yes. It's an assumption. In logic an assumption is a given. Logic is not used to prove it. Why must I prove this assumption? Asking someone to prove an assumption that has been stated as an assumption seems kind of an oxymoronic to me.

 

In order to show that logic can be used to dissect what people say, you need to prove that

1 people exist

2 they say things

Why must I prove that people exist in order to defend logic? Logic is a mathematical discipline. It is useful in determining truth relationships between statements even regardless of the value of those statements.

 

Otherwise you might as well say that logic is very useful in helping unicorns cook leprechauns.

It is impossible to decide whether unicorns cook leprechauns. until you have shown that both exist.

 

How is saying that logic is useful to help unicorns cook leprachauns ANYTHING like saying logic is useful in dissecting the things people say??

Does this help? Given that people exist and say things, logic is helpful in dissecting what they say. Can you understand this sentence now? Was the sentence supposed to have been expressed in pure mathematical logic notation or something before you could understand it? Because that kind of contradicts your previous post that you don't care about logic.

 

You have yet to show the existence of people or what they say

So, from a strictly logical point of view as I have said a number of times now, you can't get far with logic.

Somewhere along the line you have to trust observation too.

 

You have to trust observation. The observation is assumed to represent reality. I am glad we can agree.

Please actually try to understand this. Just denying it doesn't help you here.

What am I denying?

Show that this statement is false

"There are no philosophers"

 

Why are you asking me this?