Faith and Reason.

[0ni0n]

I think what he's saying is fairly absolute. He said:

He did not say that they were different, though he can post right now and correct himself.

1+2=3 can be demonstrated, a unicorn cannot. The former can be verified via empiricism, the latter, seemingly, cannot. There are two assumptions here, one is that the numbers themselves and what they represent cannot be questioned, they are self evident, which is in on itself tautological, but the assumption must be made, and second, that if something is not empirical, then it does not exist. In other words, that because you haven't seen a unicorn, it can't exist, even though there's a possibility that you just haven't seen it. That argument is logical and valid, but it is worth nothing to someone who values empiricism.

Because if you define faith and belief as in religious faith and belief, reality does not require it. You don't need to take the leap of faith for 1+1=2 or for the lunch that you are about to enjoy. I can see where Neostru is coming from, and I think I have made myself clear that all faith and belief are based on assumptions, but some assumptions are much more fact based than others. This distinction is where we draw the line between reality and fantasy, I am sure you would agree. I would suggest against the idea of justifying a religious belief by making the argument that everything's based on faith.

[Eratosthenes]

So I think Kaylia is confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism and saying it's a position of faith. Methodological naturalism is the rule which limits science to natural explanations of natural phenomena, not an assumption of truth.

[Kuya]

Because if you define faith and belief as in religious faith and belief, reality does not require it. You don't need to take the leap of faith for 1+1=2 or for the lunch that you are about to enjoy.

You're trying to stress the importance of the difference between the two, and i agree, there is some difference, however the issue remains that they are still beliefs, and Neosutra denies this, and he is wrong.

You don't need to make that leap of faith, because you don't think about it at all. You have to accept a belief in some angel because there is no proof of it, but 1+1=2 is not only rational, but it can also be empirically demonstrated, though only through reproduction. Which is the same thing with the unicorn, you cannot see a unicorn unless someone draws it for you, and you can't see 1+1=2 unless someone reproduces an image for you. Same goes for the lunch, you never question that, and why would you need to? So another issue that is implicit here is, utility. What is the use of accepting 1+1=2? A lot of utility. What is the point of accepting that the lunch is enjoyable? Nothing, you just want to enjoy it, why would you ruin it with logic? What is the point in believing in a religion? I believe this is a more debatable issue than whether or not a god exists.

I would suggest against the idea of justifying a religious belief by making the argument that everything's based on faith.

Yes, but then you can also say that you can't dismiss it on the basis that it is faith based and not empirical. You can't say that you can't justify a religion because it uses faith while other things that we find true use faith as well. What you can say is, that you can't justify faith that way, neither can you reject it. So once again, i favour the issue return to a more utilitarian point of view.

[Kuya]

So I think Kaylia is confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism and saying it's a position of faith. Methodological naturalism is the rule which limits science to natural explanations of natural phenomena, not an assumption of truth.

I don't completely understand what you're saying. Methodological naturalism stems from empiricism, meaning, that natural phenomena is worth controlling and predicting because it can be observed. The assumption is in empiricism, which is the epistemology. The issue of the assumption of Methodological naturalism only really enters into play when you enter an argument of whether the best method for social science is a naturalist method or an antinaturalist method, because here, if you are an antinaturalist you have to reject the assumption that the naturalist methodology is the best method for social science.

edit: in other words, it is an issue of faith if you think that methodological naturalism is the best method for social science, while it may seem redundant to say the same for natural science. In this argument, the issue with methodological naturalism in natural science comes about because of the epistemological point of view of empiricism, which is the one that possess the assumption, not the methodology itself as the methodology logically follows the assumption of empiricism.

[Kaylia]

Onion, Finesse, prove me that you're not accepting anything as true, and prove me that the truth you're speaking about is "better", instead of using fallacies. I don't care how obvious it is to you, if you can't expain your argument through mathematics, it's because your argument hold no ground logically.

Your definition of "better truth" will have to include my initial statement about believing that the world can be explained.

If you can't see the subtlety in this, it's because you have a blind faith in sciences, and never wonderered about the mathematical concept of "truth". If you accept it, then everyone here agree.

According to Kaylia if I put my hand on the wall I have to believe in physics so my hand won't pass through it, or at some point an assumption or belief has to be made for me to realize the physics that the wall will go all Gandolf on me and tell me I shall not pass.

No, but you need a beliefs to tell this "truth" is better than another. You need the beliefs that this experiment can be repeated if you repeat it in the same circumstance.

[Melchiah]

No, but you need a beliefs to tell this "truth" is better than another. You need the beliefs that this experiment can be repeated if you repeat it in the same circumstance.

No, I don't. In fact quite the opposite is true. We conduct experiments in such a manner as to induce failure for the purpose of proving falsehood. We don't discard anything based on a belief, we discard faulty arguments when we demonstrate them to be false. We experiment because we don't believe.

[Kaylia]

No, I don't. In fact quite the opposite is true. We conduct experiments in such a manner as to induce failure for the purpose of proving falsehood. We don't discard anything based on a belief, we discard faulty arguments when we demonstrate them to be false. We experiment because we don't believe.

And how do you conduct an experiment about your current argument? Are you actually telling me you don't believe in your argument because you never proved it?

Again, if you're so convinced, write the mathematical implication of the process you go through when you do sciences, and show me where you discard faulty argument.

[meson]

"We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified–how can you live and not know? It is not odd at all. You can think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge and you really don't know what it is all about, or what the purpose of the world is, or know a great deal of other things. It is possible to live and not know."
-Feynman

"Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Faith is not a word copyrighted by religions. It's an everyday idea and it's an essential tool for living. Without faith, you would exhaust your resources with incredulity.


Believing in god is an act of faith.
Believing the earth is 6000 years old is an act of insanity.

[Neosutra]

"We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified–how can you live and not know? It is not odd at all. You can think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge and you really don't know what it is all about, or what the purpose of the world is, or know a great deal of other things. It is possible to live and not know."
-Feynman

"Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Faith is not a word copyrighted by religions. It's an everyday idea and it's an essential tool for living. Without faith, you would exhaust your resources with incredulity.


Believing in god is an act of faith.
Believing the earth is 6000 years old is an act of insanity.

Faith isnt an essential tool for living. In fact your first Feyman quote would counter that very statement. Faith procludes doubt. We are stating here that the scientific method (i.e. the application of standards to theorycrafting) requires no faith because it is build specifically on doubt. Believing in god requires faith, using the scientific method does not.

[Gtype954]

People forget about scientific racism and how science was also used to guide and direct our beliefs--to give a specific and recent example, for the justification of slavery. Craniology was the study of human skulls to determine intelligence, evolution was used to suggest black people were the missing link to apes (Look up Ota Benga, he was also featured in Ben Button--for almost no reason it seems). Science changes overtime, and so does religion. People point out that the bible says we should kill homosexuals, but we obviously don't do that anymore. The problem here is man.

I really like how Seraph put it. No need for me to repeat everything else.

only read the first page of this thread. The bible doesn't say to kill homosexuals, it doesn't condone killing in any of his stories. I do not know where you seen this.

remember that the bible was written by mortal sinning humans which is no more different then what we are, except in different times and ages.

[meson]

Mustn't you have a certain degree of faith that our scientific curiosity is beneficial? Without which, we would lack motivation to apply standards.

[Kuya]

Faith isnt an essential tool for living. In fact your first Feyman quote would counter that very statement. Faith procludes doubt. We are stating here that the scientific method (i.e. the application of standards to theorycrafting) requires no faith because it is build specifically on doubt. Believing in god requires faith, using the scientific method does not.

Does anyone still think that Neosutra is not denying the obvious?

The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. The term is almost exclusively used in a pejorative context, most commonly in christian apologetics[1], but also by social scientists like Hayek[2] or Popper to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists. They tend to use the term in either of two equally pejorative[3][4] directions:

To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[5] as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply,[6] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[4] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience".[7][8] It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.[9][10] (Compare: scientific imperialism.[11])

Reviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars, Gregory R. Peterson[12] detects two main broad themes:

It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;

It is used to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. Examples of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics), or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

According to Mikael Stenmark in the Encyclopedia of science and religion,[13] while the doctrines that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension). In its most extreme form, scientism is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone. This idea is also called the Myth of Progress.[14] Stenmark proposes the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism. E. F. Schumacher critiqued this form of scientism as an impoverished world view that not only leaves unanswered, but denies the validity of all questions of fundamental importance to human existence.[15]

An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.[21]

[Kaylia]

Faith isnt an essential tool for living. In fact your first Feyman quote would counter that very statement. Faith procludes doubt. We are stating here that the scientific method (i.e. the application of standards to theorycrafting) requires no faith because it is build specifically on doubt. Believing in god requires faith, using the scientific method does not.

Welcome back Neo. Mind addressing the "truth" issue?


Oh wait, i forgot winning an argument for you mean to avoid it and say you won in the next thread.

[Melchiah]

And how do you conduct an experiment about your current argument? Are you actually telling me you don't believe in your argument because you never proved it?

Again, if you're so convinced, write the mathematical implication of the process you go through when you do sciences, and show me where you discard faulty argument.

I do not have to prove to myself the validity of every scientific argument that is accepted currently by the community. I do not have enough days in my life to accomplish this, nor would I be doing anything worthwhile by reinventing the wheel. Those experiments have been run into the ground, documented and peer reviewed enough to satisfy any scrutiny at this point.

Now, I do see where you might take the position that I am showing faith in someone else's experiment and hypothesis, but for anything that is accepted as true by the community, the documentation is there, the peer review is there, and it is reproducible. This is where the similarities in faith diverge. One can only survive because it is self-regulatory, and the other is subject to no regulation and is absolutely unreproducible.

Example:

It is accepted throughout the world that acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s. If I do choose to call this into question because I do not believe it to be true, I may gather together some equipment and measure this value with a free-falling object and I will find, discarding human error in measurement, that my results approach the accepted value every time. Thus, I have called a position into question, due to disbelief, and proven through demonstration that the position was indeed valid.

On the other hand, it is accepted among certain communities that our universe was willed into being in 7 days, and that humanity was descended from two and only two original humans. These claims are not verifiable under any circumstances, their documentation is flimsy at best, and the claims made are absolutely unreproducible.

Faith and proof are mutually exclusive. Proof renders faith null and void. Thus, faith extends to the point of observation in science, and is rendered irrelevant once the experiment proves the hypothesis.

Edit: In fact, any hypothesis is tested *because* it is called into doubt. It isn't accepted as truth or believed in until it has been proven.

[Neosutra]

Welcome back Neo. Mind addressing the "truth" issue?


Oh wait, i forgot winning an argument for you mean to avoid it and say you won in the next thread.

Was dealt with by me and 3 others on the previous page. Im not arguing semantics with you. Youre entire goal here is to move this argument away from a legitimate discussion on faith and reason, and shift it to an argument on the definition of each word.

@ Kuya, which obvious point am I ignoring?

[Kuya]

Was dealt with by me and 3 others on the previous page. Im not arguing semantics with you. Youre entire goal here is to move this argument away from a legitimate discussion on faith and reason, and shift it to an argument on the definition of each word.

@ Kuya, which obvious point am I ignoring?

The scientific method emanates from an empiricist epistemology; do you deny that that empiricism assumes the validity of observation?

[Melchiah]

only read the first page of this thread. The bible doesn't say to kill homosexuals, it doesn't condone killing in any of his stories. I do not know where you seen this.

remember that the bible was written by mortal sinning humans which is no more different then what we are, except in different times and ages.

Leviticus 18:22 my good sir. Kill faggots and furries, it's their own fault for being faggots and furries, blood is on their own hands etc.

[Kaylia]

I do not have to prove to myself the validity of every scientific argument that is accepted currently by the community.

Now, I do see where you might take the position that I am showing faith in someone else's experiment and hypothesis, but for anything that is accepted as true by the community, the documentation is there, the peer review is there, and it is reproducible. This is where the similarities in faith diverge. One can only survive because it is self-regulatory, and the other is subject to no regulation and is absolutely unreproducible.

Example:

It is accepted throughout the world that acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s. If I do choose to call this into question because I do not believe it to be true, I may gather together some equipment and measure this value with a free-falling object and I will find, discarding human error in measurement, that my results approach the accepted value every time. Thus, I have called a position into question, due to disbelief, and proven through demonstration that the position was indeed valid.

On the other hand, it is accepted among certain communities that our universe was willed into being in 7 days, and that humanity was descended from two and only two original humans. These claims are not verifiable under any circumstances, their documentation is flimsy at best, and the claims made are absolutely unreproducible.

Faith and proof are mutually exclusive. Proof renders faith null and void. Thus, faith extends to the point of observation in science, and is rendered irrelevant once the experiment proves the hypothesis.

I'm asking you for a mathematical models, and all you do is repeat the same bullshit that is missing the point. Your reasoning is stuck in a loop, except you don't realize it. Again, draw me a graph of your complete reasoning that justify that validity of the scientific model, otherwise, shut up and admit you don't know what an argument is.

What you're saying is

-My argument are valids because scientic method is valid
-Scientific method is valid because my argument are valid

Is this really how you define "validity"? I'm telling since the beginning you need something else to define what "validity" is, otherwise, you have a circular argument that is refering to itself.


Validity is something you accept in reference to the reality, and reality is what you accept. It's your axiom, it's your belief.

Was dealt with by me and 3 others on the previous page.

HAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHA.AHHHH.
Thanks for the laugh.

[Eratosthenes]

only read the first page of this thread. The bible doesn't say to kill homosexuals, it doesn't condone killing in any of his stories. I do not know where you seen this.

Yes it does. Leviticus 20:13 reads: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

[Kuya]

Yes it does. Leviticus 20:13 reads: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

As someone who understands little of Christian theology, i feel i must ask these questions. What exactly do we understand as lie with a woman in the context of the time and era this was written? Are we to assume that these things mean the same to us as they meant to them with a difference of two thousand years? Not that any of that matters, as regardless of the interpretation, i'd doubt we'd put anyone to death over it considering the way we see things.