The Problem with Religious Moderates

[Husker_x]

Absolute certainty is not in the purview of science. It is simply beyond its capabilities. That is in no way a commentary on the rationality or the methodology that science does employ.

 

[zoogs]

There are scientific reasons why you might think carbon dating is imperfect (and really, what methods are?). And then there's "latching on to any criticisms of anything that doesn't agree with what I faithfully believe."

But carbon dating and other scientific methods rely completely on faith that the scientists are right. How can you claim truth in dating an object as thousands of years old by a technique that is only 60-65 years old?

By that measure, carbon dating would have to be a technique that is thousands of years old to be 'truth'? Oy...

Scientific methods don't rely on faith, they rely on experimentation. We think they are right, and we have reasons to believe they are - but just like the Bohrs model of the atom, or Newton's laws of gravity, they may turn out to be either wrong, or incomplete or inaccurate models or methods. After which, newer models or laws or methods - discovered or developed on the same scientific principles - supersede them. It is not claiming truth, but rather "This is what we reasonably think to be the case." To attempt to trivialize or marginalize these as 'beliefs' based on 'faith' is simply misrepresentation.

The bottom line is, there are reasons to be skeptical of say, carbon dating processes. But 'It doesn't match with my beliefs' isn't a particularly good one. In science, when you come upon something that defies explanation, you attempt to explain it, or reconsider prior knowledge that may not be rendered outdated or incorrect. You don't dismiss it because it's not what you believe in. That's where the difference lies. To have to personally verify all the claims of science yourself is an absurd requirement.

If you "think" they're right, and you "have reasons to believe" they are. Do you have proof? Again, belief without proof is faith by definition is it not?

I'm not arguing if carbon dating is valid or not, it very well may be. But there's no way currently you can go back to the beginning and prove it, right?

Agree mostly on both points. Very few things in science are about absolute and proved.

The difference, however, is still clear.

In science, there is no wanting to believe in something or other. Sure, everything we 'know' now is arguably based on a measure of faith. But more precisely, it's based on certain papers and experiments and results, and a new find that is contradictory can throw all the old knowledge out the window. Very different kind of faith, if you want to call it that.

 

[HuskersNow]

If you "think" they're right, and you "have reasons to believe" they are. Do you have proof? Again, belief without proof is faith by definition is it not?

I'm not arguing if carbon dating is valid or not, it very well may be. But there's no way currently you can go back to the beginning and prove it, right?

Do you know how you can tell that an object is approximately a certain amount of years old without actually being there when it was created? Something called exponential decay allows scientists to, through the use of logarithms, determine the approximate age of an object. Because the halflife is known, this process works well.

I don't have proof that the theory of gravity is true. So far, though, every object with mass that has been tested on this has been demonstrated to have gravity.

 

[HuskerNMO]

If you "think" they're right, and you "have reasons to believe" they are. Do you have proof? Again, belief without proof is faith by definition is it not?

I'm not arguing if carbon dating is valid or not, it very well may be. But there's no way currently you can go back to the beginning and prove it, right?

Do you know how you can tell that an object is approximately a certain amount of years old without actually being there when it was created? Something called exponential decay allows scientists to, through the use of logarithms, determine the approximate age of an object. Because the halflife is known, this process works well.

I don't have proof that the theory of gravity is true. So far, though, every object with mass that has been tested on this has been demonstrated to have gravity.

I never claimed it didn't work well. It just can't be proved on objects that pre-date the methods. Agreed? Even if it works on objects that are known, there's still the possiblity that it is just a coincidence, right? There will be methods developed, or refinement in the future that are more accurate, but absolute proof is elusive at best, if not completely unattainable. My other point is that all reality, supernatural ideas and observation relies on human reasoning or interpretation. As others have introduced in this thread, that is able to be manipulated or fooled.

The point I am trying to make, obviously not very well, is that by definition anything we believe in requires some measure of faith, even if the "evidence" is overwhelming, one can always raise doubt or find flaw in any theory, concept or object if they try hard enough. If we wait for absolute proof before believing something, we will die before believing anything.

 

[HuskerNMO]

The majority of science isn't defined by personal experience. It's defined by repeatable experimentation, data gathering, and peer review. There's nothing personal about that. You seem to be equating the scientific method with faith in the human experience to understand such concepts. You fail to realize that it's not faith. It's calculated risk. You would call me trusting my car's brakes not to fail, faith. I would call it calculated risk. I have observed brakes work to it's intended purposes time and time again and because I have observed and basically tested brakes for myself, I understand the probability of success or failure.

Where that differentiates with faith in a god is that there is no observable phenomena of your god or any gods that can't already attributed to the natural world. No proof. None.

You have faith. I take calculated risk. That's the difference.

It's just so very insulting that you would say that I don't believe something exists based on faith. Yes none of us know that unicorns and the boogeyman don't exist, but the probability is so incredibly low, based on the fact that nobody has concrete evidence, why should I believe it exists?

All things are done through the human mind and perception, our perception and world view clouds everything we do and believe.

You are basing your calculations on your experiences, from your brain which is self admittedly easily fooled. What makes your calculation any more valid than mine? You base your risk on experience, as do I. What makes your experiences more valid than mine other than your own perception? Nothing. And I know that the reverse is true as well. Have I ever argued that you should believe it exists? So you're saying your own existence has no faith attributed to it? You can honostly say that every single belief you have is rooted in concrete evidence? Is the very definition of faith not the belief in something without proof? If science cannot ever completely prove itself, then what can (including religion)?

My calculations are more valid than yours because you choose to believe in something without proof. Your god experience also isn't repeatable so it's not valid scientifically, which makes them less valid as well.

I'm not saying that every single belief I have is rooted in concrete evidence. I'm saying that I won't have a staunch belief until the proofs for it are legitimate and based in logic. The god of the bible is illegitimate and illogical.

Science can validate itself, but my experiences can't? You have an awful lot of faith in science

Your final statement is a belief or opinion, it holds no factual basis.

 

[huskerjack23]

The majority of science isn't defined by personal experience. It's defined by repeatable experimentation, data gathering, and peer review. There's nothing personal about that. You seem to be equating the scientific method with faith in the human experience to understand such concepts. You fail to realize that it's not faith. It's calculated risk. You would call me trusting my car's brakes not to fail, faith. I would call it calculated risk. I have observed brakes work to it's intended purposes time and time again and because I have observed and basically tested brakes for myself, I understand the probability of success or failure.

Where that differentiates with faith in a god is that there is no observable phenomena of your god or any gods that can't already attributed to the natural world. No proof. None.

You have faith. I take calculated risk. That's the difference.

It's just so very insulting that you would say that I don't believe something exists based on faith. Yes none of us know that unicorns and the boogeyman don't exist, but the probability is so incredibly low, based on the fact that nobody has concrete evidence, why should I believe it exists?

All things are done through the human mind and perception, our perception and world view clouds everything we do and believe.

You are basing your calculations on your experiences, from your brain which is self admittedly easily fooled. What makes your calculation any more valid than mine? You base your risk on experience, as do I. What makes your experiences more valid than mine other than your own perception? Nothing. And I know that the reverse is true as well. Have I ever argued that you should believe it exists? So you're saying your own existence has no faith attributed to it? You can honostly say that every single belief you have is rooted in concrete evidence? Is the very definition of faith not the belief in something without proof? If science cannot ever completely prove itself, then what can (including religion)?

My calculations are more valid than yours because you choose to believe in something without proof. Your god experience also isn't repeatable so it's not valid scientifically, which makes them less valid as well.

I'm not saying that every single belief I have is rooted in concrete evidence. I'm saying that I won't have a staunch belief until the proofs for it are legitimate and based in logic. The god of the bible is illegitimate and illogical.

Science can validate itself, but my experiences can't? You have an awful lot of faith in science

Your final statement is a belief or opinion, it holds no factual basis.

ARE YOU FOR REAL?!?!?!?! Do you understand what the scientific method even is? Yes it validates itself. If a hypothesis ever tests out wrong then it's re-worked until it comes out sound. Testing and re-testing. Theories that have been around for generations are tested constantly and reworked and reworded until perfect accuracy, or as close as possible, is reached.

My last statement may not be fact, but the evidence is damning against making a positive claim for it.

 

[HuskersNow]

Anecdotal evidence has never proven anything. Faith in science? I have faith, founded on evidence, that science can provide explanations for natural phenomena. That is a far cry from the faith that you adhere to. I once thought like you when I was a Christian. I thought that the truths of my religion were self-evident. But critical reasoning has taught me that this is not the case.

I have seen so-called "evidence" that your God is real, but none of it has ever stood up to scrutiny. What you're doing now is trying to convince us that our beliefs our founded on absolutely nothing but blind faith and nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[knapplc]

I think if we debate this whole god/religion thing for another week or two we should have it hammered out once and for all. HuskerBoard will be famous for having solved this little pickle that has bothered Man for thousands of years.

 

[HuskerNMO]

Anecdotal evidence has never proven anything. Faith in science? I have faith, founded on evidence, that science can provide explanations for natural phenomena. That is a far cry from the faith that you adhere to. I once thought like you when I was a Christian. I thought that the truths of my religion were self-evident. But critical reasoning has taught me that this is not the case.

I have seen so-called "evidence" that your God is real, but none of it has ever stood up to scrutiny. What you're doing now is trying to convince us that our beliefs our founded on absolutely nothing but blind faith and nothing could be further from the truth.

You admit you have faith, I have never called it blind faith, I have never "made a positive" claim as to your level of faith, just that it does exist in some level. It doesn't matter if the gap that faith covers is a foot wide, or a mile wide, you still rely on faith to cover it. And since all that consists of is human perception, 2 people can be presented with the exact same arguments and come to different conclusions. That is what makes humans both great, and imperfect at the same time in my opinion.

You are making the "positive" claims that my faith is "blind", you are asserting that my belief is founded on absolutely nothing. That's your assertion, you may not believe in my experiences, and I may not have evidence to back them up that is acceptable to you, but that does not "prove" that my beliefs are invalid or blind, you just don't accept them.

The claim has been made that believing in God is "ignorant", but yet the assumption that my, or other experiences are invalid is in itself ignorant. I don't choose to believe that other religions are correct, but I don't tell people they are wrong for what they believe. If I disagree, I present my opinion based on my experiences, it's up to them to decide what works for them.

 

[HuskerNMO]

I think if we debate this whole god/religion thing for another week or two we should have it hammered out once and for all. HuskerBoard will be famous for having solved this little pickle that has bothered Man for thousands of years.

The funny thing is we're really not debating God\Religion so much as human perception and the role of faith in human existence and reasoning. At least i'm not anyway

 

[knapplc]

True. But it's all pretty much wrapped up together, isn't it?

 

[AR Husker Fan]

Sorry for the interruption, but I just had to say that not only has this been an excellent discussion, it's been conducted (for the most part) without deginerating into personal attacks. Religion, like politics, tends to engender strong emotion both for and against, and to be able to debate such topics as well as has been done in this thread without letting emotion take hold is amazing. Kudos to everyone.

 

[Manhattan]

So, for all of this discussion in faith in God and what not, what of belief in Satan? Do the people in this thread who believe in God also believe that Satan is out there too? It seems like most of the religious right attributes things to God that would be reserved for Satan. "Religious Moderates" may tolerate other people believing in God - allegedly a benevolent being - but do they also tolerate believing in Satan? On another note, why is devil-worship not more credible than the worship of God? At least devil-worshipers believe in faults and vices which are actually human and observable trends and behaviors in our world.

 

[huskerjack23]

Anecdotal evidence has never proven anything. Faith in science? I have faith, founded on evidence, that science can provide explanations for natural phenomena. That is a far cry from the faith that you adhere to. I once thought like you when I was a Christian. I thought that the truths of my religion were self-evident. But critical reasoning has taught me that this is not the case.

I have seen so-called "evidence" that your God is real, but none of it has ever stood up to scrutiny. What you're doing now is trying to convince us that our beliefs our founded on absolutely nothing but blind faith and nothing could be further from the truth.

You admit you have faith, I have never called it blind faith, I have never "made a positive" claim as to your level of faith, just that it does exist in some level. It doesn't matter if the gap that faith covers is a foot wide, or a mile wide, you still rely on faith to cover it. And since all that consists of is human perception, 2 people can be presented with the exact same arguments and come to different conclusions. That is what makes humans both great, and imperfect at the same time in my opinion.

You are making the "positive" claims that my faith is "blind", you are asserting that my belief is founded on absolutely nothing. That's your assertion, you may not believe in my experiences, and I may not have evidence to back them up that is acceptable to you, but that does not "prove" that my beliefs are invalid or blind, you just don't accept them.

The claim has been made that believing in God is "ignorant", but yet the assumption that my, or other experiences are invalid is in itself ignorant. I don't choose to believe that other religions are correct, but I don't tell people they are wrong for what they believe. If I disagree, I present my opinion based on my experiences, it's up to them to decide what works for them.

I'm sorry sir but you cannot rewrite the rules. You have to bring legitimate claims to the table to convince someone that your god claim is real. You can use any criteria you want for you to believe anything, but when it comes time to bring others to your party, you need to have more than what you have considering all the evidence against said claim.

I looked a great article that explains the atheism is based in faith argument. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/faith.htm

 

[knapplc]

So, for all of this discussion in faith in God and what not, what of belief in Satan? Do the people in this thread who believe in God also believe that Satan is out there too? It seems like most of the religious right attributes things to God that would be reserved for Satan. "Religious Moderates" may tolerate other people believing in God - allegedly a benevolent being - but do they also tolerate believing in Satan? On another note, why is devil-worship not more credible than the worship of God? At least devil-worshipers believe in faults and vices which are actually human and observable trends and behaviors in our world.

I would imagine that every Christian believes in the existence of Satan. Jesus himself spoke to Satan and paid a visit to his home, so that lends quite a bit of credibility to his existence in the Christian world. Why do you ask, because I have never seen anyone doubt/deny Satan's existence in any of these discussions?

How would worshiping Satan be "more credible" than worshiping God? Wouldn't it have equal credibility? It's not as if Christianity is for those without faults and/or vices - quite the contrary. Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." - Mark 2:17 Basically, being Christian admits that you have fault, that you need help, and that you cannot save yourself of your own volition.

I think what you're getting at is the twisted mentality that Christians should be above these things - they aren't, usually dreadfully so. But this is why a lot of Christians catch well-deserved flak, and why the phrase "holier than thou" came to being. Instead of evincing humility some Christians act as though they are part of an exclusive, better club than non-Christians, which is silly because it's entirely opposite of what Christ tells them to do.