Faith and Reason.

[Neosutra]

Fallacy: A fallacy is an argument which may convince others but is not logically sound. Note that the truth of the conclusions of an argument does not determine whether the argument is a fallacy - it is the argument which is incorrect.


According to my experiment, the last 10 pages prove that I exist, and can't be ignored.

It also proves that we all exist and that everything you've been saying is rediculous pandering.

Also @recuperi: I was looking for specific beliefs per person, not any specific dogmas interpretation.

[Kaylia]

It also proves that we all exist and that everything you've been saying is rediculous pandering.

It doesn't prove that we all exists,it shows that we are all working under the assumption that we all exist in the same reality.

[meson]

Ok, for this debate, we can all assume Kaylia doesnt exist since we cant prove it, and go back to more important discussions.

I had a question I wanted to ask the theists:

What are your specific perceptions of whatever "afterlife" you believe in? Do you think you will be in a paradise? another world? another reality? What effect do you think your current living actions will have on that afterlife?

I'm no theist, but I'll still answer.
I imagine "afterlife" will be very much like regular life but without the limitations inherent in our physical beings. Put another way, I've never experienced a moment when I did not exist and I can only assume that I never will have such an experience. From my point view, I have lived forever.

Neo, I can understand your frustration when people base their world view on what other people and/or books tell them. For lack of a better word, it's simply lazy. It's lazy to accept things without questioning them. It's also cowardly to harbor doubts about your beliefs and yet cling to them. But clinging to beliefs despite doubts is not faith, its stupidity. Choosing to ignore evidence is not faith, its a willingness to remain ignorant.
Faith, as I see it, is acting without knowing the outcome. And I think you said it yourself, you try to find the answer even though you know you may never will. Well, that takes faith.

My point earlier, that faith is an essential tool, ties into this. No one knows why we are really here. No one knows what the outcome of their individual lives will be let alone what the outcome of humanity will be. Yet we all get up everyday despite the uncertainty. In my opinion, we all do this on faith.

[meson]

It doesn't prove that we all exists,it shows that we are all working under the assumption that we all exist in the same reality.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

[Bearsan]

I had a question I wanted to ask the theists:

What are your specific perceptions of whatever "afterlife" you believe in? Do you think you will be in a paradise? another world? another reality? What effect do you think your current living actions will have on that afterlife?

To me, heaven is beyond the realm of human interpretation. You would have a breakdown of the normal familial relationships, and I can't imagine how I would view my parents who would no longer be my parents. If I had to put it into words, I think that everyone would have a fraternal relationship. In terms of what it looks like, nobody knows. However, the Christian community (of which I am a part) is sure that it is not a return to the Edenic paradise of prelapsarian man, which was presumably destroyed by the flood. I don't think my current actions will have any effect on what heaven is, but I believe they sure as hell will affect whether or not I end up there.

Biblical descriptions of the New Jerusalem:

Revelation 21:1-2 "[1] Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. [2] I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

Revelation 21:15-27 "[15]The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. [16]The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia[a]in length, and as wide and high as it is long. [17]He measured its wall and it was 144 cubits[b] thick,[c] by man's measurement, which the angel was using. [18]The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. [19]The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, [20]the fifth sardonyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.[d] [21]The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of pure gold, like transparent glass.

[22]I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. [23]The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. [24]The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. [25]On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. [26]The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. [27]Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."

Make what you will of it. 1500 years of Biblical scholarship has not been able to define the afterlife.

[Kaylia]

No, you obtain empirical evidence through experiments, sure. That doesn't mean that you can *only* obtain empirical evidence through experiments.

Are you saying you can obain empirical evidence without experiment, or that you can obtain non empirical evidence through experiments?

Either way, empirical evidence is one that is obained through experiments, and you assure it's validity by following the scientific method. Is this definition fine with you?

You don't need beliefs about old men in the sky to do science. You need some of the epistemology I was talking about before though, such as justified true beliefs ("facts") or similar, depending on how you like to argue about these things. Just because it uses the word "belief" in there doesn't mean it's religious though. Read through the epistemology stuff I posted before

Of course you don't this kind of belief, this is exactly why I said you only need "1" belief in my original statement. Any other belief would lead to something completely different then the scientific methods.


There is nothing religious about the word "belief". The word religion is defined after you defined the word belief (and a few other concept).

Religion: set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Almost every definition you will find will include "set of beliefs", and a few other elements. A belief doesn't imply religion, but a religion certainly require beliefs.

[Linliel]

Are you saying you can obain empirical evidence without experiment, or that you can obtain non empirical evidence through experiments?

The former.

Either way, empirical evidence is one that is obained through experiments, and you assure it's validity by following the scientific method. Is this definition fine with you?

No, you've got it slightly around the wrong way. It's a very subtle semantic difference I am arguing here. Empirical evidence for a hypothesis is obtained through experiment. That does not mean that all empirical evidence needs to be within an experimental context.

If you know that the sky is blue: you see it as blue, when you ask other people what colour it is, they say it's blue, photographs also show it as blue, you can say that the sky is blue and that is probably enough evidence to you for the sky being blue. That evidence is empirical, because you are observing, but it's not experimental.

If you want to, though, you could go further, and you might say "I see that the sky is blue, but I have a hypothesis that the sky is green, and my eyesight just sucks, so I want to test it" and take measurements of the density of light, the electromagnetic spectrum, a bunch of other things that I'm not really an expert in, but something that physicists, chemists, etc. can do to *further* prove that your observations were correct, that is, that the sky is blue. Then you can go further to explain why the sky is blue, because of the angle of the light filtering through the atmosphere, etc. etc. (I don't know all the specifics, etc.). What you are doing here is obtaining *more* empirical evidence that the sky is blue. Eventually even the most skeptical of disbelievers about the blueness of the sky would have to agree that the great amount of empirical evidence available would justify the belief that the sky is actually blue, making it a justified true belief, which makes it to some (those who disagree are usually philosophers arguing semantics) a fact (or "knowledge").

So what you are doing here is looking at the validity of your hypothesis, not the validity of the empirical evidence. Because empirical evidence is just that. Empirical. And now, after your experiments, your 'fact' that the sky is blue could be used as a constant in further experiments to validate other hypotheses. So it's quite a separate entity from the experimental context.

See the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying?

Religion: set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Almost every definition you will find will include "set of beliefs", and a few other elements. A belief doesn't imply religion, but a religion require certain beliefs.

Um, that's what I said, thanks for repeating it back to me ^_^

I don't actually really know what your overall point is supposed to be though. I'm just nitpicking, really.

[Kaylia]

No, you've got it slightly around the wrong way. It's a very subtle semantic difference I am arguing here. Empirical evidence for a hypothesis is obtained through experiment. That does not mean that all empirical evidence needs to be within an experimental context.

I'm fine with any definitions, I just want both of us to use the same one to prevent avoidable confusion. I looked in 4 dictionary (2 online, 2 offline) and wikipedia, but the definition change a lot, and doesn't keep the subtlety that is needed for our argument.

Could you just (re)define those 3 words for the sake of the argument, I will stick with your definition.
Observation= ?
Empirical evidence = ?
Experiment = ?

Wiki's definition is:
In scientific inquiry, an experiment (Latin: ex- periri, "to try out") is a method of investigating causal relationships among variables. An experiment is a cornerstone of the empirical approach to acquiring data about the world and is used in both natural sciences and social sciences. An experiment can be used to help solve practical problems and to support or negate theoretical assumptions.


In both case you mentioned, you will need to define blue in relation to something else (assuming the sky isn't the reference, because it would be blue by definition). It could be the wavelength between 475 and 510 mHz like you said, or the range between between 2 color defined somewhere else.

Once you have your definition of "blue", your eyes are a perfectly valid (but less accurate) tool to determine the color of the sky. Certain eyes (color blind) are even less accurate than other, but it would still be considered an experiment.

If this experiment was done correctly, it should lead to repeatable result. Using techology just allow you to increase the accuracy of your reading, and make sure you're closer to your definition.

Um, that's what I said, thanks for repeating it back to me ^_^

I don't actually really know what your overall point is supposed to be though. I'm just nitpicking, really.

I understand, but I was under the impression you believed I was saying the opposite from your wording. That's why I repeated my stance, which is similar to your I suppose.

It's just nitpicking on my side as well, but this nitpicking is important. 99.9% of the time, people argue because their definition are different, or they are using different premice/axioms without noticing it.

[Neosutra]

I'm no theist, but I'll still answer.
I imagine "afterlife" will be very much like regular life but without the limitations inherent in our physical beings. Put another way, I've never experienced a moment when I did not exist and I can only assume that I never will have such an experience. From my point view, I have lived forever.

Neo, I can understand your frustration when people base their world view on what other people and/or books tell them. For lack of a better word, it's simply lazy. It's lazy to accept things without questioning them. It's also cowardly to harbor doubts about your beliefs and yet cling to them. But clinging to beliefs despite doubts is not faith, its stupidity. Choosing to ignore evidence is not faith, its a willingness to remain ignorant.
Faith, as I see it, is acting without knowing the outcome. And I think you said it yourself, you try to find the answer even though you know you may never will. Well, that takes faith.

My point earlier, that faith is an essential tool, ties into this. No one knows why we are really here. No one knows what the outcome of their individual lives will be let alone what the outcome of humanity will be. Yet we all get up everyday despite the uncertainty. In my opinion, we all do this on faith.

I am here for the same reason you are here: to consume and propogate. To most efficiently contribute to the lowest state of entropy.

You and I continue getting up in the morning because you/I determine it is more pleasurable to live than to die, or at least more pleasurable than the act of dying. This is one reason why many theists dont commit suicide, when their afterlife is supposed to be 100000 times better than their current life (that and catch 22.1 -b, the "i wont kill myself clause" in every major religion, to keep them from losing too many followers).

As for the outcome of my life, that is entirely unknown, but as up to me as it can be. I for one enjoy that.

Also, @ Baelorn: Are you stating you dont know? Surely you have some minimum expectations. From what I can gather from your post, you expect:

1. A paradise (island paradise? utopian world? gold streets? Hookers?)
2. All friends/family as their young selves.
3. Possibly a new form of jerusalem? (kinda weird, but most accurate biblically)

Is this correct?

[meson]

I am here for the same reason you are here: to consume and propogate. To most efficiently contribute to the lowest state of entropy.

You and I continue getting up in the morning because you/I determine it is more pleasurable to live than to die, or at least more pleasurable than the act of dying. This is one reason why many theists dont commit suicide, when their afterlife is supposed to be 100000 times better than their current life (that and catch 22.1 -b, the "i wont kill myself clause" in every major religion, to keep them from losing too many followers).

As for the outcome of my life, that is entirely unknown, but as up to me as it can be. I for one enjoy that.
?

Ok, you win, you have faith in nothing.

[Bearsan]

Also, @ Baelorn: Are you stating you dont know? Surely you have some minimum expectations. From what I can gather from your post, you expect:

1. A paradise (island paradise? utopian world? gold streets? Hookers?)
2. All friends/family as their young selves.
3. Possibly a new form of jerusalem? (kinda weird, but most accurate biblically)

Is this correct?

If by Baelorn you mean me, then:

1. My personal view of heaven would be how it's depicted in What Dreams May Come. Each person is no longer confined to the physical appearance they had on Earth, and they can choose however they want to appear (within reason of course, no dragons, faeries etc.)

2. Somewhat explained by #1

3. This is what tends to trip people up. The Bible does discuss various aspects of heaven, such as the new Jerusalem, but I doubt that heaven would be confined to the limits of that city.

[kareface]

Ok, you win, you have faith in nothing.

When did having faith become a good thing. I don't understand how believing something with out some aspect of evidence in support is viewed as a virtue. We'd all be better off in our lives to reduce the number of things we must believe, or make sure that our beliefs are based on content from somewhat creditable sources.

[Linliel]

Could you just (re)define those 3 words for the sake of the argument, I will stick with your definition.
Observation= ?
Empirical evidence = ?
Experiment = ?

There's a lot of discussion as to what these mean exactly, as you said. The general common terminology I have seen in philosophy of science is something along the lines of the following (these are of course controversial in the details, but the details don't really matter for our purpose).

Observation: a measurement with a direct relationship between evidence of senses and logical consistency of the statement (or truth of the statement). Uses reliable techniques of measurement that have consistent rational underpinnings.

Empirical evidence: an observation that can be used to test the validity of a hypothesis (note: does not *have* to be used to test the validity of a hypothesis, but it has the potential to be used this way)

Experiment: a set of procedures that determine the validity of a hypothesis. These procedures follow some sort of method, involving formation of a hypothesis, gathering of evidence through observations, and verification of the hypothesis through examining of the evidence.

Sound reasonable? [1]

Now Kaylia can work on how this relates to the "Faith and Reason" topic

[1] Any philosophers of science who want to discuss these topics with me in PM are welcome to, since it's been a while since I did any philosophy of science and then it was more realism/antirealism which is even more meta than this more definitional discussion

[meson]

When did having faith become a good thing. I don't understand how believing something with out some aspect of evidence in support is viewed as a virtue. We'd all be better off in our lives to reduce the number of things we must believe, or make sure that our beliefs are based on content from somewhat creditable sources.

Do you have faith in yourself?

[Blubbartron]

Anybody else ready to have an aneurysm from the blatant, profound, and continued misuse of words like faith and belief in this thread? How is it so hard to recognize the difference between faith (religious), and faith (trust). The two are worlds apart, and need appropriate differentiation when trying to have a discussion on things like this.

[Kaylia]

There's a lot of discussion as to what these mean exactly, as you said. The general common terminology I have seen in philosophy of science is something along the lines of the following (these are of course controversial in the details, but the details don't really matter for our purpose).

Observation: a measurement with a direct relationship between evidence of senses and logical consistency of the statement (or truth of the statement). Uses reliable techniques of measurement that have consistent rational underpinnings.

Empirical evidence: an observation that can be used to test the validity of a hypothesis (note: does not *have* to be used to test the validity of a hypothesis, but it has the potential to be used this way)

Experiment: a set of procedures that determine the validity of a hypothesis. These procedures follow some sort of method, involving formation of a hypothesis, gathering of evidence through observations, and verification of the hypothesis through examining of the evidence.

Sound reasonable? [1]

Now Kaylia can work on how this relates to the "Faith and Reason" topic

[1] Any philosophers of science who want to discuss these topics with me in PM are welcome to, since it's been a while since I did any philosophy of science and then it was more realism/antirealism which is even more meta than this more definitional discussion

I wouldn't mind those definitions in every day discussion, but I'm not sure I can do anything in this discussion if they are defined like this. What I wanted was their relation with the scientific methods, logic and reality (natural phenomenon), which is at the source of the debate. Right now, we would have to define a few more words to use them.


For "observation", "reliable technique of measurement" mean it can be reproduced and lead to the same result? Also, what are the implication of "evidence of sense"?

What's the difference between "observation" and "empirical evidence" here? Is there any observations that is not an empirical evidence if they all come from "reliable measurement". I don't mind if they are synonym, but we could simplify the talk and stick to "observations".


Now, I need to go reread the sequence of reply, because I'm not even sure how it started with you. :S Something tell me we are saying the same thing since the beginning.

And we can do it in pm/aim if you prefer. I don't really care where the argument is, arguing is fun.

[Neosutra]

Do you trust that you dont have faith Blubbar?

(sorry had too).

And Kareface said it best: I know you didnt mean the "you have faith in nothing" as a compliment, but to me that is the greatest aspiration of a rational animal. I appreciate your observation that I am not bound by the falacies of superstition.

[Kaylia]

Ok, I remember how it started now, sorry

I thought empirical evidence were based on the scientific method

Evidence is outside of any method to deal with that evidence. You observe something, you don't need a scientific method for that. I don't know why you're persisting with this silly argument

Basically, you said an evidence is something outside the method, however, you defined it with "observation", and any valid observation has to follow the scientific methods (if I understood your "uses reliable technique of measurement" correctly). If your definition of "observation" doesn't involve the method at all, how do you determine it's validity.

[Linliel]

If your definition of "observation" doesn't involve the method at all, how do you determine it's validity.

Um, I wrote that out above. I think you're kinda confused ^^;

Anybody else ready to have an aneurysm from the blatant, profound, and continued misuse of words like faith and belief in this thread? How is it so hard to recognize the difference between faith (religious), and faith (trust). The two are worlds apart, and need appropriate differentiation when trying to have a discussion on things like this.

Absolutely. They are extremely different things. That's why I went into the epistemology thing back a few pages but noone read it I suspect :~(

[Max™]

Empirical evidence: that which can be taken for granted.

NOT experimental evidence.

People breathe, the earth is in orbit around the sun, seasonal variations in weather are cyclical, an object will tend to remain in any state, unless acted upon, etc.

These are things which anyone can go and pick up on, and thus taken for granted.

Empirical is a nice way of saying "all the obvious shit you dumbfucks should know by now", last I checked.