Religion, it's hard to come up with a single answer.

[carlfense]

Chastised? Lol. Well it apparently made an impression. You're right and I will fix it for you.

 

Is that the gist of your argument?

 

I don't recall declaring victory but you seem to be acknowledging one. I'll take it on faith that you're correct.

[Comish]

Chastised? Lol. Well it apparently made an impression. I will fix it for you.

 

Is that the gist of your argument?

 

I don't recall declaring victory but you seem to be acknowledging one. I'll take it on faith that you're correct.

I'm not acknowledging your victory, I'm suggesting that if you think you won, fine. We won't have to subject the rest of the posters to our on-going tiff.

(by the way, I stole the idea from the old Smothers Brothers show on NBC in the middle of the Vietnam war. They were getting flack from the network for their anti-war stance (pales compared to what we see today), and their solution was for the US to declare victory and bring home the troops. Brilliant.

[JJ Husker]

I guess I have never viewed faith in that light. I question things and I rarely rely on faith alone when there is other evidence available but I do believe there are things that escape human understanding and that we are incapable of explaining. I think faith can be useful to help make sense of life when science and human observation is unable to. This doesn't mean I take anything on "blind" faith, it just means I have another tool to help explain some things when I have reached the limits of human understanding or ability.

 

But do you realize this doesn't make it a pathway to truth? Using faith to explain what science cannot. Science says "we don't know and may never know"...but that doesn't mean you can just subsitute god (and further more, a specific god like that of the Bible) and have that be the answer. A rational mind doesn't just give up reason by trying to explain natural occurances with supernatural claims.

 

In my mind, that doesn't detract from questioning or science but I'm sure it probably does for many. Heck, even much of science takes a certain level of faith; faith that the findings were actually arrived at honestly and without bias, faith that the proper procedures were followed, etc. I don't see a problem with having faith. However, I do see a problem with it if it causes you to ignore compelling evidence.

 

No, this I have to disagree with (as I have many times before). Science is NOT just taken on faith. At least not by my definition of faith...meaning accepting something without evidence. We have a rational justification to believe what scientists say are true. The entire definition of the scientific method is the reason why we do accept science as the best method to explaining the world around us. Biasness, proper procedures, etc. can all be restested and verified through peer review to ensure that the correct conclusions were made about a hypothesis. If something is found to be askew and questions are brought up, they are addressed before the scientific community even considers to accept it as fact.

 

I realize it does not provide a pathway to a truth in the sense that I do not expect others have to believe the same things I do. However, for me personally, I have concluded many truths that some others have not. There is a distinction there. I accept some things as truth but I do not necessarily expect others to. Hate to mention it again but I have evidence that convinces me whereas it is merely antecdotal to others. I can accept that. The problem that arises is not that others don't accept some of the same things but when they won't accept that my level of proof has been satisfied by occurances that they cannot witness.

 

I can't speak for others but I do not simply substitute God and have that be the answer for everything. I have not given up reason nor do I solely rely on supernatural claims to explain what could be natural occurances. I simply do not rule out supernatural things as being impossible. Improbable in most cases? Yes. But not impossible.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on some level of faith being required to accept some scientific evidence as absolute truth. I realize that there are safeguards in place in the scientific method but, unless you have done the experiments and witnessed it yourself, you are still putting some level of faith in that system. And curiously, if you have to rely on doing it all yourself, others can still call it merely anecdotal evidence unless and until they do it themselves. I don't think saying science requires some faith is as preposterous as some here think it is. Just think of all the things that have, at some point in time, been accepted as scientific fact that have later been revised to not have been true. And for the record, I stil have not seen any scientific evidence that refutes or disproves what I believe. My mind is still open if you've got some silver bullet that will convince me otherwise. It has been my experience that the people with the closed minds are the ones that cannot accept that there may be things that escape human understanding. I don't think we're that extraordinarily gifted.

[carlfense]

Chastised? Lol. Well it apparently made an impression. I will fix it for you.

 

Is that the gist of your argument?

 

I don't recall declaring victory but you seem to be acknowledging one. I'll take it on faith that you're correct.

I'm not acknowledging your victory, I'm suggesting that if you think you won, fine. We won't have to subject the rest of the posters to our on-going tiff.

(by the way, I stole the idea from the old Smothers Brothers show on NBC in the middle of the Vietnam war. They were getting flack from the network for their anti-war stance (pales compared to what we see today), and their solution was for the US to declare victory and bring home the troops. Brilliant.

So . . . you don't have an argument regarding your splitting atoms example and faith?

[Comish]

Chastised? Lol. Well it apparently made an impression. I will fix it for you.

 

Is that the gist of your argument?

 

I don't recall declaring victory but you seem to be acknowledging one. I'll take it on faith that you're correct.

I'm not acknowledging your victory, I'm suggesting that if you think you won, fine. We won't have to subject the rest of the posters to our on-going tiff.

(by the way, I stole the idea from the old Smothers Brothers show on NBC in the middle of the Vietnam war. They were getting flack from the network for their anti-war stance (pales compared to what we see today), and their solution was for the US to declare victory and bring home the troops. Brilliant.

So . . . you don't have an argument regarding your splitting atoms example and faith?

You're making my point. The tediousness of a discussion with you is you answer questions with questions, repeat the same tired mantra, and refuse to accept either a loss or a victory. You don't want a dialogue or a solution. You want an issue.

Have a good night.

[carlfense]

You're making my point. The tediousness of a discussion with you is you answer questions with questions, repeat the same tired mantra, and refuse to accept either a loss or a victory. You don't want a dialogue or a solution. You want an issue.

Have a good night.

Soooo . . . you don't have an argument regarding your splitting atoms example and faith?

 

"You're making my point."

 

I'm sorry if explaining the reasons behind your beliefs is tedious. I suppose that's why you're more likely than I am to take things on faith.

[Yossarian]

Here is proof that there is a God. Lady Gaga gets hit by pole. Proof that Satan still has power - she survived.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P8n5rthes3U

[zoogs]

Just to hop on to one of the page 1 mini-discussions going on here...

 

Requiring personal proof = using unreliable, single-unit-sample-size anecdotal observation

Accepting repeatedly verified scientific consensus =/= faith. Belief in the rigor of the scientific method does not amount to faith. You're free to challenge any belief you wish, the tools are all there. In fact, it is a good exploration of your curiosity to do so, even if the belief is well-held. It's the fundamental spirit of science to do so. You will either add to the collective scientific knowledge or learn that you are wrong, and both are positive results.

 

The gist of what you are saying is simply wrong, Comish. And so is the line that you are responding to:

 

Heck, even much of science takes a certain level of faith; faith that the findings were actually arrived at honestly and without bias, faith that the proper procedures were followed, etc. I don't see a problem with having faith. However, I do see a problem with it if it causes you to ignore compelling evidence.

 

This is absolutely not what science takes. In fact, it fundamentally goes against the soundest principles of science. Every finding should be held up to the most rigorous scrutiny, it is exceedingly inappropriate to simply "have faith" that proper procedure was followed. That's the very definition of bad science, or you might accurately say, "trashing the scientific method." Thankfully science is founded on honest skepticism and not faith, or we might still today be faithfully believing in things like N-rays.

 

The grayed out part of JJ's quote wasn't the part I was responding to, so I grayed it out, but I wanted to add that that's something I agree with.

[JJ Husker]

Just to hop on to one of the page 1 mini-discussions going on here...

 

Requiring personal proof = using unreliable, single-unit-sample-size anecdotal observation

Accepting repeatedly verified scientific consensus =/= faith. Belief in the rigor of the scientific method does not amount to faith. You're free to challenge any belief you wish, the tools are all there. In fact, it is a good exploration of your curiosity to do so, even if the belief is well-held. It's the fundamental spirit of science to do so. You will either add to the collective scientific knowledge or learn that you are wrong, and both are positive results.

 

The gist of what you are saying is simply wrong, Comish. And so is the line that you are responding to:

 

Heck, even much of science takes a certain level of faith; faith that the findings were actually arrived at honestly and without bias, faith that the proper procedures were followed, etc. I don't see a problem with having faith. However, I do see a problem with it if it causes you to ignore compelling evidence.

 

This is absolutely not what science takes. In fact, it fundamentally goes against the soundest principles of science. Every finding should be held up to the most rigorous scrutiny, it is exceedingly inappropriate to simply "have faith" that proper procedure was followed. That's the very definition of bad science, or you might accurately say, "trashing the scientific method." Thankfully science is founded on honest skepticism and not faith, or we might still today be faithfully believing in things like N-rays.

 

The grayed out part of JJ's quote wasn't the part I was responding to, so I grayed it out, but I wanted to add that that's something I agree with.

I understand that within science itself that faith is a rather useless item. For those that have the tools available and the skill, they can subject these things to rigorous scrutiny. Now for the rest of us; An article comes out in a scientific journal or medical journal or whatnot claiming that we should eat x amount of y compound daily because it is good for us. (I realize this is rather generic but follow along). They have all kinds of scientific studies and experiments to back it up. We have faith that they did their job correctly and that their findings are true. Lo and behold, 1 or 2 or 6 years later another study comes out disputing the first study. I can't count the number of times this very scenario has occurred. Are you going to claim it did not/does not take some level of faith for the public to believe these scientific studies? We don't have the equipment or expertise to conduct the studies ourselves. It is apparent that even those who do, many times have their findings subsequently over turned. I don't see where, in real life practice for most of us, that it does not take some faith to trust in scientific findings.

[The Dude]

I call it credulity, or gullibility if you will. And yeah, the majority of the public are gullible buffoons. This is why so many people believe in poppycock like astrology and ghosts. There's nothing wrong with skepticism when it comes to scientific studies. You don't have to be an expert in a certain field to understand what the scientific consensus of a certain subject is.

[zoogs]

They have all kinds of scientific studies and experiments to back it up. We have faith that they did their job correctly and that their findings are true. Lo and behold, 1 or 2 or 6 years later another study comes out disputing the first study. I can't count the number of times this very scenario has occurred.

 

Your mistake is the bold part, though.

 

As Dude said, the public does not need expertise in the given field in order to find out how strong the consensus in a particular claim is. There are certain claims - superlightspeed neutrinos come to mind - that one does not simply trust because of the mountain of skepticism. However, there are other ideas such as evolution that serve as the bedrock of an entire field, and the consensus there is so strong that contrary evidence would spark a revolution in our knowledge.

 

To draw an analogy, 1) the shady-looking guy next door hands you a .EXE file and says "Dude, it's totally legit. Run it, man." 2) You download an .EXE file from Microsoft.com. Clearly, you should not regard both files with the same amount of skepticism and suspicion.

 

Note that there are also a great many models that have been replaced in the sense that they have been refined and superseded. For instance, the model of an atom. The plum pudding model clearly isn't what is going on, but it also was clearly on the right track and led to things like the Bohr model, and so on, until we got to the current quantum model. If you're talking about the big ideas of science today, if they get replaced, this is the kind of track it will follow. It was not wrong for the world to accept the Bohr model as the best way of understanding the behavior of an atom with the tools we had at the time. It would have been wrong to say, "Human scientists are sometimes in error. We may be made up of earth, wind, water, and fire for all we know."

[bhamHusker]

...

As Dude said, the public does not need expertise in the given field in order to find out how strong the consensus in a particular claim is. There are certain claims - superlightspeed neutrinos come to mind - that one does not simply trust because of the mountain of skepticism. However, there are other ideas such as evolution that serve as the bedrock of an entire field, and the consensus there is so strong that contrary evidence would spark a revolution in our knowledge.

...

An important point about the FTL neutrinos: The scientists whose data appeared to indicate FTL speeds were themselves extremely skeptical of their own result, but they could not immediately identify a flaw with their measurements. They released their data specifically so that the flaw (which they fully believed existed) could be found, and FTL neutrinos could be debunked. That is a powerful illustration of the stark differences between scientific pursuit and faith in superstition and myth.