I am Joe and I am a Christian.....WTF!

[carve]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Love for instance is something that the majority of the people on the planet will agree to have felt, done, received or experienced at some point in their lives. Weather it be romantically, paternally, brotherly or even through a deep friendship, nearly all humans have experienced this. Never the less, love can not be scientifically proved or disproved by humans.

You can even forget about love and ask science to define a rational thought, how it happens within our brain. Outside of neurons and other measurable items, it can't be done. Humans can't measure the difference between to very similar thoughts. How is this possible? To have thoughts and feelings that are inexplicable through science?

Love only exists in our minds is a neurological process, one that has been useful for perpetuating our species. If you're saying God(s) only exist in our minds, I suppose I can agree with you there. However, I think most believers think God is more than just an abstract concept or a way to describe an emotion.

Faith is and integral part of life, it's an integral part of scientific life as well. If you believe a scientific theory you are placing faith in that theory. Because theoretically, we all have brains, but as defined by science, until we pop open Shah's head, we won't know with absolute certainty that he does in fact have a brain. As described before, that's how science works. It's always evolving as things are learned. But there are very few, if any, things that science has proven to be conclusive 100% of the time. Science is a collection of theories. Some of which have been accepted as truth, by means of faith.

I disagree- we can put a limited amount of trust in science based on the evidence that it works. This is not faith. If it never provided any results, you'd be foolish to have "faith" in it anyway.

We can be reasonably sure Shah has a brain without looking inside his head because we know what brains do. With modern technology, we can even take a look inside his head without actually opening it up and get a good approximation of what it looks like inside. When we've actually opened up heads to verify what the technology is showing, it has a good record of validation, so we trust it within its limitations. If we could never verify it, or it had little to no corelation when we could, we'd be called gulliable fools to have faith in it anyway.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Science and faith occupy opposite ends of the (same) spectrum, some people prefer to reside on one side and some on the other..

Oops I left out the word 'same' in front of spectrum.
I mean they are actually the same thing, just different points on the same line..



It just occurred to me, could 'faith' is what we do when we sense a truth, but cannot justify it rationally? (=cognitive dissonance)

As we live daily our minds are taking note of the world, making inferences and connections where it is able, casting aside information that is too remote (too few occurrences to establish correlation/causality) as fuzzy noise - what we call "random".

But let's say something weird happens, you have a feeling something about something, saying that the current default labeling/understanding of something is not quite right.
For example, a creepy person. He smiles, is friendly, says all the right things.. yet when you contemplate your sense you feel unease -he is creepy. Why?
With more interaction, the initial perfect facade is pockmarked by inconsistencies - this person seems to show no fear, he seems to have a motive, he has failed to deliver at least twice - something is not quite right.
Then, after time, you learn this person fits the psychological profile of a sociopath (psychopath), and in future interactions you quickly established this fits. Mystery solved.

In other words, is faith the product of existential dissonance?
That is, deep in our being, our spirit, we can sense something.. and it does not agree with our current conceptual picture of the world.

Perhaps we believed doing X,Y,Z will result in us having a good life, and that is about as far as we think.. but feedback from life may not concur, or we see something else that makes us question these established beliefs, which we may not even be aware of as they are passed covertly from our upbringing and society.

Truth = faith +current knowledge

or

Faith = (the)Truth - what we know now

Faith exists because there is a Truth, and what we know is limited and less than that of the Truth.

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Oops I left out the word 'same' in front of spectrum.
I mean they are actually the same thing, just different points on the same line..



It just occurred to me, could 'faith' is what we do when we sense a truth, but cannot justify it rationally? (=cognitive dissonance)

As we live daily our minds are taking note of the world, making inferences and connections where it is able, casting aside information that is too remote (too few occurrences to establish correlation/causality) as fuzzy noise - what we call "random".

But let's say something weird happens, you have a feeling something about something, saying that the current default labeling/understanding of something is not quite right.
For example, a creepy person. He smiles, is friendly, says all the right things.. yet when you contemplate your sense you feel unease -he is creepy. Why?
With more interaction, the initial perfect facade is pockmarked by inconsistencies - this person seems to show no fear, he seems to have a motive, he has failed to deliver at least twice - something is not quite right.
Then, after time, you learn this person fits the psychological profile of a sociopath (psychopath), and in future interactions you quickly established this fits. Mystery solved.

In other words, is faith the product of existential dissonance?
That is, deep in our being, our spirit, we can sense something.. and it does not agree with our current conceptual picture of the world.

Perhaps we believed doing X,Y,Z will result in us having a good life, and that is about as far as we think.. but feedback from life may not concur, or we see something else that makes us question these established beliefs, which we may not even be aware of as they are passed covertly from our upbringing and society.

Truth = faith +current knowledge

or

Faith = (the)Truth - what we know now

Faith exists because there is a Truth, and what we know is limited and less than that of the Truth.

You are correct in saying that faith can't be justified rationally. Faith can't be approached logically because it's a belief in something incomprehensible to the human brain. It's something that's way beyond our understanding and can't be understood, i.e. supernatural.

Science and faith don't occupy spectrum. They're not mutually exclusive. Science is figuring out and unraveling the structure of the physical world. Religious faith is believing in something existing outside our perceivable universe that gives reason and meaning to that structure. Since religion is a belief in something beyond our physical world, it's something that falls out of the scope of the physical sciences. The existence of an omnipotent deity is not a question science seeks to answer. It's perfectly reasonable to approach life scientifically and still have faith in an all powerful creator.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by i dunno

You are correct in saying that faith can't be justified rationally. Faith can't be approached logically because it's a belief in something incomprehensible to the human brain. It's something that's way beyond our understanding and can't be understood, i.e. supernatural.

I AM saying faith can be justified rationally. This is an attempt.
It appears illogical because it is too complex, if you can figure out all the steps, it is logical.

Originally Posted by i dunno

Science and faith don't occupy spectrum. They're not mutually exclusive.

Are you saying they overall lap then? You have said this before but I do not get what you are saying.
(mutually exclusive = different things, no overlap)

Originally Posted by i dunno

Science is figuring out and unraveling the structure of the physical world. Religious faith is believing in something existing outside our perceivable universe that gives reason and meaning to that structure. Since religion is a belief in something beyond our physical world, it's something that falls out of the scope of the physical sciences. The existence of an omnipotent deity is not a question science seeks to answer.

That is where I am trying to bring faith INTO the physical world. Do you understand the formula I gave?

Originally Posted by i dunno

It's perfectly reasonable to approach life scientifically and still have faith in an all powerful creator.

You mean treat science and faith as mutually exclusive?
Okay, I think I get what you are saying..
You compartmentalize science and faith..

What I am saying is that they are the same thing. So you would disagree then..

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by i dunno

Science and faith don't occupy spectrum. They're not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by i dunno

It's perfectly reasonable to approach life scientifically and still have faith in an all powerful creator.

pls explain the (to me) contradiction between these two statements (if they are not taken out of context)

First statement: I suppose you are saying science and faith have some overlap (=not mutually exclusive)
Second statement: it is not contradictory to approach life logically whilst still having an illogical faith ??!

sorry my logic goes haywire at this point, I cannot get through what you are saying!

[grimlock]

The only explanation I can come up with at this point, based on my reading, your statements are contradictory, if they have been expressed accurately, you must be living your life in a logically contradictory way! ..

Meaning, you hold these two truths true, but from a logical point of view, they do not allow the existence of the other, as it contravenes logic.
Thus, your initial conditions (life/experience) contains (a) flaw(s) ... because logic.

You cannot rely on logic, and call it that, and still profess to faith.
But I guess that what everybody does so no big deal.
(We are all logically flawed, just how prevelent that flaw is, some people's are very damn obvious.. people's 'logic' are like small islands unconnected to each other .. but in the pure form (or absolute truth /perfect logic) there can only be one 'land mass', the existence of separate islands (=contradictions) is just flawed logic.

But what else is spirituality but improvement in logic? So is spirituality a logically pursuit after all?

Questions... as far as the eye can see

[scorcherjf]

Wow either some people are terribly uneducated with regards to the scientific method or are just trying to be difficult.

Science is a method to attempt to humbly explain the world around us through observation, and repeatable experimentation that can be done by anyone. There are no unfounded assumptions - you start from nothing and work your way up, building upon previous work. Just because one abides by this method and understands it does not mean they cannot believe in a deity or deities. The question here was whether or not they could be proven to exist.

Thousands of years ago the Greeks thought thunder and lightning were a result of the Gods. Through science, we now know how this is caused (for the most part). The same was thought about earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, etc. There are people today who still claim these are acts of a higher power, and obviously we cannot prove them wrong, but they also cannot prove themselves correct. However, science can provide an explanation (whether it is right or wrong) that is based on repeatable, verifiable evidence, observation, and experimentation. Meanwhile, people claiming a religious power behind them still offer nothing but their faith and a book that is popular today. Thousands of years ago I'm sure the Greeks would have dismissed other religions as heresy in favor of their Gods. It's just the times we live in and a passing phase.

[carve]

Faith is believing in something with no good reason, or even in spite of good reasons not to. Religion has done a wonderful job marketing it as a virtue...but for some reason we call it "gulliability" for non-religious fantastical claims. What a double standard.

[Mr Tonka]

I'm surprised by the people who think faith is only a viable word for religious context. It's not. And that's part of the point i was trying to make. Faith and trust in the english language are synonyms. Someone posted this before:

faith |fāTH| noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

It's not exclusive to religious context yet some of you can't release it from that secondary religious definition. Faith or trust, is experienced every day by every person on this planet in some way shape or form.

I had expounded on previous comments TWICE, when some networking issues froze up my browser, so here is the condensed version.

Faith in science - Someone on a random forum posts a link that points to an article titled "Sea Star Eyes, Missing link to evolution of the eye?" Average person regards the OP as being a smart person, clicks the link and skims the article. Later that day he tells coworkers about how science found the missing link in evolution. A few coworkers leave work and tell their spouses or friends about this ground breaking scientific discovery. Some of those spouses and friends share this scientific proof of humans evolving from space dust with their coworkers. A few days later there are now people walking around who believe this to be a proven truth and will argue this point as if they themselves proved it. All because an average guy had faith in or trusted someone they hold in high esteem.

This is an example of blind faith in science as well as propagation of false information outside of religion. This scenario can play out because of a few reasons. One, they heard of this scientific discovery from someone they trust is a smart guy. Two, they believe that if it's science, it's true. Three, because the media sensationalizes everything. What ever the reason, there ARE people out there who not only won't look into what science is claiming but don't care to look into it. Especially if it supports their current chosen belief system. The average person doesn't really care if it's plausible, true or false. Because if it's something that can support their chosen lifestyle they will cling to it as truth and justification to continue doing so. Of course the same can be said for a religious person, they'll read something in the bible that supports their desires or actions and cling to those for justification.

This is the other part of the point i attempted to make earlier. Non religious people have faith in science, some times as much as religious people have faith in the bible. It seems it's difficult to illustrate this point because of others failing to separate the word faith from religion. The word faith is not sacred, it's just another word, synonymous with trust. Something that all of us do in all aspects of life.


If you find yourself in the OR, you're not just having faith in the surgeon's training and or experience or that some governing board has agreed that he's qualified. You're also trusting that he's not having a horrible day, that he's not going through a divorce, going bankrupt, had a few shots of tequila that morning or has almost kicked his coke habit. At the very least your trusting that those personal factors don't affect his abilities in the OR. Your trust in the operating room extends far beyond the surgeons knowledge of your body and the procedure. And for every instance of trust you display you can substitute the word trust with faith and it means the same thing.

We also can't compartmentalize trust and faith in the way it has been in many of the examples here. Our universe, planet, country, strangers, doctors, police, neighbors are all things or people we must have faith in or trust, in order to live a productive life. However a small or insignificant level you view your trust or faith in these things and people, it would be impossible to function without it.

[carve]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I'm surprised by the people who think faith is only a viable word for religious context. It's not. And that's part of the point i was trying to make. Faith and trust in the english language are synonyms. Someone posted this before:

faith |fāTH| noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

It's not exclusive to religious context yet some of you can't release it from that secondary religious definition. Faith or trust, is experienced every day by every person on this planet in some way shape or form.

I had expounded on previous comments TWICE, when some networking issues froze up my browser, so here is the condensed version.

Faith in science - Someone on a random forum posts a link that points to an article titled "Sea Star Eyes, Missing link to evolution of the eye?" Average person regards the OP as being a smart person, clicks the link and skims the article. Later that day he tells coworkers about how science found the missing link in evolution. A few coworkers leave work and tell their spouses or friends about this ground breaking scientific discovery. Some of those spouses and friends share this scientific proof of humans evolving from space dust with their coworkers. A few days later there are now people walking around who believe this to be a proven truth and will argue this point as if they themselves proved it. All because an average guy had faith in or trusted someone they hold in high esteem.

This is an example of blind faith in science as well as propagation of false information outside of religion. This scenario can play out because of a few reasons. One, they heard of this scientific discovery from someone they trust is a smart guy. Two, they believe that if it's science, it's true. Three, because the media sensationalizes everything. What ever the reason, there ARE people out there who not only won't look into what science is claiming but don't care to look into it. Especially if it supports their current chosen belief system. The average person doesn't really care if it's plausible, true or false. Because if it's something that can support their chosen lifestyle they will cling to it as truth and justification to continue doing so. Of course the same can be said for a religious person, they'll read something in the bible that supports their desires or actions and cling to those for justification.

This is the other part of the point i attempted to make earlier. Non religious people have faith in science, some times as much as religious people have faith in the bible. It seems it's difficult to illustrate this point because of others failing to separate the word faith from religion. The word faith is not sacred, it's just another word, synonymous with trust. Something that all of us do in all aspects of life.


If you find yourself in the OR, you're not just having faith in the surgeon's training and or experience or that some governing board has agreed that he's qualified. You're also trusting that he's not having a horrible day, that he's not going through a divorce, going bankrupt, had a few shots of tequila that morning or has almost kicked his coke habit. At the very least your trusting that those personal factors don't affect his abilities in the OR. Your trust in the operating room extends far beyond the surgeons knowledge of your body and the procedure. And for every instance of trust you display you can substitute the word trust with faith and it means the same thing.

We also can't compartmentalize trust and faith in the way it has been in many of the examples here. Our universe, planet, country, strangers, doctors, police, neighbors are all things or people we must have faith in or trust, in order to live a productive life. However a small or insignificant level you view your trust or faith in these things and people, it would be impossible to function without it.

We're talking about the religious context- not something based upon evidence.

Poplular opinion based on sensationalized and poorly written stories is not how science works.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by scorcherjf

Science is a method to attempt to humbly explain the world around us through observation, and repeatable experimentation that can be done by anyone. There are no unfounded assumptions - you start from nothing and work your way up, building upon previous work. Just because one abides by this method and understands it does not mean they cannot believe in a deity or deities. The question here was whether or not they could be proven to exist.

Is not believing deities 'without proof' not scientific?
So how can you compartmentalize science and faith?
Thats saying logic is king in science - except I get to have these silly unproven beliefs.
Where does your belief in deities come from?
My point is it must come from somewhere.
You think science is science, and faith -well I can't explain it so it doesn't count ()
But that is just trashing all the logic you used in science and robs you of any logical weight.
Faith can be approached in the same way as science - the status quo approach on this is due for change.

Originally Posted by scorcherjf

Thousands of years ago the Greeks thought thunder and lightning were a result of the Gods. Through science, we now know how this is caused (for the most part). The same was thought about earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, etc. There are people today who still claim these are acts of a higher power, and obviously we cannot prove them wrong, but they also cannot prove themselves correct. However, science can provide an explanation (whether it is right or wrong) that is based on repeatable, verifiable evidence, observation, and experimentation. Meanwhile, people claiming a religious power behind them still offer nothing but their faith and a book that is popular today. Thousands of years ago I'm sure the Greeks would have dismissed other religions as heresy in favor of their Gods. It's just the times we live in and a passing phase.

Exactly you have demonstrated my point.
Science will show what faith purports. (in time)

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I'm surprised by the people who think faith is only a viable word for religious context. It's not. And that's part of the point i was trying to make. Faith and trust in the english language are synonyms. Someone posted this before:

faith |fāTH| noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
.
.
We also can't compartmentalize trust and faith in the way it has been in many of the examples here. Our universe, planet, country, strangers, doctors, police, neighbors are all things or people we must have faith in or trust, in order to live a productive life. However a small or insignificant level you view your trust or faith in these things and people, it would be impossible to function without it.

If you are saying faith and science and faith in other people and what you can't see/comprehend are the same, I fully agree.

On the 2nd point, the difference between religious faith and 'just' faith, I don't know if you would call it God, a universal 'rule', or just something you can't describe .. just something that contains a property that exists outside the physical world (to me a universal law that everything is subject to, fits this bill, regardless whether it is inside or outside the physical world).

The point is God (or the 'thing') is something you suspect is there but do not have complete proof.
It is an unanswered question.. but you have reason to believe it so.
Something incomplete but you cannot deny it is there.

[Templar]

I still can't believe shah was successful in his trolling and got a thread to this many pages.

Maybe he does have some potential...

[scorcherjf]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Is not believing deities 'without proof' not scientific?
So how can you compartmentalize science and faith?
Thats saying logic is king in science - except I get to have these silly unproven beliefs.
Where does your belief in deities come from?
My point is it must come from somewhere.
You think science is science, and faith -well I can't explain it so it doesn't count ()
But that is just trashing all the logic you used in science and robs you of any logical weight.
Faith can be approached in the same way as science - the status quo approach on this is due for change.

I really have no idea what you're on about anymore. The belief in anything does not necessarily affect one's ability to apply the scientific method. If one likes to eat pizza or play computer games, it has no impact on one's work in science. Just the same as believing in God should not affect one's search for proof in that God. If this is the case, then there is clearly a bias, and one has created a hypothesis based on no evidence and is searching to prove it. This is simply called confirmation bias.

Your "point" that the belief in a deity has to come from somewhere... isn't that obvious? It's ingrained in most cultures before they even have a chance to think about it themselves. It's in our pledge of allegiance (for the Americans), and swearing in any oath from a civil court to the highest offices such as the presidency. I've always heard the saying "if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him" and it's applicable to a lot of cultures and countries today and in the past. The proof of God's existence is not important because it's meaningless, as I said earlier. Those who believe in it will do so regardless of what anyone else says (faith) and those who don't simply shouldn't care until one day there may actually be some evidence of note.

[carve]

Here's a video on the null hypothesis, or on burden of proof...why it's reasonable to not believe in something until it has sufficient evidence.

Here's a good video on why just intuitively believing in or feeling God is insufficient

[grimlock]

^
Carve, you're being too rational. Ofcourse we can never prove God..
But there are other faculties than conceptual thought - ever felt God?
Me neither.. however as I get older I am starting to see this as a possibility.
Not feeling that there is a bearded white dude - but the final bit of logic that makes the tiny island of logic we as logical people hold so dear all coalesce together and for the ENTIRETY to make sense, not just pockets, and not riddled with inconsistences like some of the above supposed 'scientists'.
I did not watch beyond the when the guy started speaking because of his condenscending tone, I trust he gave the typical athethist arguments..
But they miss out one thing - logic itself.
How is it that the world make sense? (rather than not)
Is that God?

[carve]

That whole video is trying to explain why "feeling god" is insufficient. Even if you did REALLY feel God, that revelation is personal in nature and does nothing to convince others, nor should it.

The videos really were quite good and not what I'd consider condescending.

Does the world make sense because of God? I don't know, but I have absolutely no reason to think that's the case until I see some compelling evidence.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by carve

That whole video is trying to explain why "feeling god" is insufficient. Even if you did REALLY feel God, that revelation is personal in nature and does nothing to convince others, nor should it.

The videos really were quite good and not what I'd consider condescending.

Does the world make sense because of God? I don't know, but I have absolutely no reason to think that's the case until I see some compelling evidence.

I realize I have been condesenceding when talking about my viewpoints.. I am trying to work on a way not to.

I have not felt God so far .. but I feel logic. Does that make sense?
I feel the unity of all logics (as they should, how can logic be seperate or in some cases contradictory?)

What would happen if you thought about logic itself? Like why does logic exist?
To me, this is the existential.. where logic starts to consider itself .. and voila there is God!
(I am aware I sound like I have lost my mind.. )

[grimlock]

Put another way,
I think, and there is God (!)

I thought this would sound less nutty, but..

Actually isn't this quite common, wasn't this what Augustine was trying to get at when we went raving about how he felt/found god in the stars, in the deer, in the trees etc.

Just appreciation of the scope and unity of simple logic.. that one order binds all different things under the sun. Everything is different but follows the same rules..
Time to pay Augustine a visit again LOL

[carve]

Logic is a method developed by humans to analyze data and arrive at conclusions. It's only as useful as the data fed into it.

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by grimlock

pls explain the (to me) contradiction between these two statements (if they are not taken out of context)

First statement: I suppose you are saying science and faith have some overlap (=not mutually exclusive)
Second statement: it is not contradictory to approach life logically whilst still having an illogical faith ??!

sorry my logic goes haywire at this point, I cannot get through what you are saying!

They don't overlap, and it's not a seesaw where you lean one way or the other. They exist separately to answer different parts of the human experience. Science is used to approach the working structure of the physical universe while faith tries to place this structure and the meaning of one's personal existence in a broader ontological context.

Logic is a human construct bound to the limits of our dimension. How can you use a tool meant only for our world to explore a higher existence beyond ours?

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by carve

Logic is a method developed by humans to analyze data and arrive at conclusions. It's only as useful as the data fed into it.

All thinking is logic .. and the whole world is data.
There is bad data, and bad processing .. but how else can you make sense of the world other than by thinking (logic)?