Speak Your Mind
by MikeGene
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This entry was posted on Friday, June 13th, 2008 at 4:14 pm and is filed under Random Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/speak-your-mind/trackback/
June 13th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
My pleasure.
One problem is that 'faith without evidence' really means (for the mainstream religious) 'faith with evidence, but not overwhelming', but is taken to be 'faith with no evidence whatsoever' by many. Evidence abounds for a rational believe in a deity, and quite a lot for the Western Traditional* views of deity as well.
(Though it's worth pointing out that even in 'single' branches of faith such as Catholicism, specifics on views of God, the supernatural, and otherwise vary heavily. There is agreement on basic tenets, but the discussion is deep and ongoing, and at a glance always has been.)
Comment by nullasalus — June 13, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I'm hoping all the people who want to argue about Faith and Reason will have the good manners to leave Jim Madden's thread and come over here.
My own views seem to be rather close to Bradford's. I think that Martin Buber's book, I and Thou, was really about what faith in God or people is about. We can either have an I-Thou relationship with someone, where we seem them as person we can inter-relate with, or an I-It relationship with them, where we seem them as an object.
The kind of Faith the Bible talks about is the kind we would find in an I-Thou relationship, where we have faith in a person because we know them personally, intimately, and have faith in what they tell us, because we have come to know and trust them on a very deep personal level. It was on this level that Abraham had come to know and trust God. It was on this level that he was able to obey God's command to sacrifice Isaac.
It was on this level that Thomas should have come to know and trust Jesus, but didn't.
God created us to have a personal relationship with each of us. Our faith in God grows as we come to know and trust God more each day of our lives. God doesn't start off by asking us to sacrifice our only child. God starts off by asking us to want a relationship with Him (if He is there) more than we want the things of this world, be they wealth, fame, or power. If we value those things above God, we'll never come to Him, regardless of the evidence. If we value God above those things, we will come to know Him.
Comment by Bilbo — June 13, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I think of faith as confidence. I have faith in God means "I have confidence in God" not "I believe God exists in spite of the evidence."
Faith verses reason is a false choice. True Faith can never be against reason. Because it's with your mind (reason) you decide that someone or something is worthy of your confidence.
When Materialists speak of trusting their senses or their mental facilities because they have not disappointed them so far they are speaking of exactly the same thing I mean when I say faith. Except I have faith in an individual that has never failed instead of facilities that often have.
To believe something contrary to the evidence is not faith its foolishness. To call such a belief faith is self serving deception.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 13, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Bilbo wrote:
Bilbo,
We already took care of it. That's why nullasalus posted here.
Comment by robin — June 13, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
For those just joining our discussion of faith, it began in Jim Madden's thread. Salvador brought up the topic of faith here. I replied here, and from that point the conversation continued mostly unbroken until we made the jump to this thread.
Please post any new comments here.
Comment by robin — June 13, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Bradford wrote:
Luther tells us precisely what he means by faith in that passage: believing something that his reason absolutely rejects as false.
Luther didn't think so either, but the only way he could get himself to believe that God was "merciful and just" was to reject reason and embrace faith. Look at his quote again; he makes it quite explicit.
No, the impact of a belief does not have to be large in order for the belief to be irrational. In any case, I would say that Luther's belief in God had a pretty huge impact on his life, not to mention the history of the world, wouldn't you?
Think of it: Luther spent his life worshipping a God whom his reason told him was "more deserving of hate than of love." He essentially sold his soul to an evil God. Talk about an impact!
Nor have I. That's why I wrote this to nullasalus:
Bradford again:
Let me change one word in your statement:
Do you still find it compelling? Do you have faith in Odin?
If persuaded by reason and evidence that some promises attributed to God were actually His, and could be trusted, then the most rational thing a person could do would be to seek out opposing arguments. If the opposing arguments didn't survive scrutiny, then he could tentatively follow the path laid out by God, continuing to question his beliefs in light of any new evidence (and any new opposing arguments) that came to his attention.
Believing (or not believing) in God can have a big impact on your life. It's important to be right about it, and to catch your error if you make a mistake. That in turn means it's important to continue questioning your beliefs to see if they continue to hold up.
Faith is the last thing you need.
Comment by robin — June 13, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
nullasalus wrote:
Yes, to their detriment. I am not defending "self-declared 'rational people'" — I am defending the primacy of reason and evidence over faith.
Yes, and if Einstein had to (re)learn that lesson, surely it's one we should take to heart.
Some faith is necessary for everyone. The example I gave was that we all seem to have faith that a correspondence is possible between thought and reality (although even that can be assumed tentatively). In any case, there's a huge difference between a skeptic who minimizes the beliefs taken on faith versus a person who believes on faith that God impregnated a virgin some 2,000 years ago.
Yes, which only strengthens the case for continually re-examining our beliefs in the harsh light of evidence and reason.
No. My response is to say 'we see faith as a necessary evil, to be minimized. This works out really well if you care about truth, as we do, for example, in science.'
Really? You're the one who claims that this…
… really means this:
Who's doing the twisting here?
Of course. The question isn't whether it's right to demand over-the-top evidence in order to believe something — it's whether we should demand sufficient evidence before believing.
I'm glad to hear it. I think he (and the millions who share his views on faith) are utterly wrong, too, and that we should discourage that kind of irrationality.
But I also think that you need to come to grips with the fact that your views do not cohere with the teachings of the Bible on this issue. But cheer up! That's a good thing!
Comment by robin — June 13, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
fifth monarchy man wrote:
No. Materialists don't continue to trust their senses simply because they've worked so far. If I look up and see a pink rhinoceros in my living room, I'm not going to immediately assume that my vision is trustworthy. You'd better believe I'm going to test it!
The interesting thing is that none of us are born believers. You have to use your senses and your mental faculties to learn about Christianity and make the decision to become a believer. So all of us, materialist or not, have to trust that we are not being systematically deceived by our senses or our minds.
It's just that Christians make lots of additional leaps of faith, like believing that the Bible is the word of God, that God impregnated a virgin named Mary, or that it was appropriate in God's eyes, once upon a time, to stone your own son to death for disobedience.
As I told nullasalus, I'm glad to hear that you disagree with Martin Luther, millions of Christians, and the Bible on this issue. That's a wise move.
Comment by robin — June 13, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
robin,
It's already been shown that your use of biblical quotes regarding faith is unwarranted - in each case, evidence and reason either is explicitly in play, or is implicitly assumed. You're down to Luther right now - and frankly, all one has to say is that Luther's view of faith, even God, is flawed. Meanwhile you say..
Catch your error if you make a mistake, on a subject which all parties agree cannot be settled purely on evidence in either direction, and which some faith (however minimized) is involved in? How does one demonstrate an error in believing God exists, or doesn't exist? The error would at best be in a tertiary philosophical or specific argument.
Where are these dictates of what 'the rational thing to do is' coming from? If the religious person must always act as if it's very possible they are wrong about God's existence, shouldn't the irreligious person always act as if it's very possible they're wrong about same? And this point you're basically ceding that someone can, in light of evidence, reason, and faith (some of which 'is necessary') believe in God. And also that someone can be an atheist in defiance of reason, at the very least.
Believes on faith, reason, and evidence - all three are in play. That there's 'a difference', even one of proportion, isn't enough to indicate the latter person has an unreasonable belief.
Or indicates that 'evidence and reason' are only going to get you so far no matter how much you apply it - hence your admission that some faith is always necessary.
In science? You mean that subject where Einstein demonstrated people were taking things on faith for a very long time? Where Einstein was shown to be taking things on faith unto his deathbed (with regards to QM)?
You are, especially at this point. Do not use quotes when you're paraphrasing me. It's dishonest.
I said:
'Being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see' does not become faith without evidence either; it's not being sure BECAUSE we hope or BECAUSE we do not see. Reason, evidence, and rationality still enter into the picture.
And further, at the start of this thread: One problem is that 'faith without evidence' really means (for the mainstream religious) 'faith with evidence, but not overwhelming', but is taken to be 'faith with no evidence whatsoever' by many. Evidence abounds for a rational believe in a deity, and quite a lot for the Western Traditional* views of deity as well.
I could paraphrase you as interpreting the verse as 'Now faith is being sure of what we hope for (and having absolutely not evidence or reason to do so) and certain of what we do not see (and there is zero reason or evidence to believe it does exist)'. And I'd maintain that is a horrible, opportunistic abuse of the verse - doubly demonstrable in the case of Thomas, who clearly DID have both reason and evidence.
And religious people often have very sufficient evidence to believe in a God, and in many claims of their religion. Whereas strong atheists have next to no evidence to rally in their declared lack of belief, and agnostics (if they're being honest about their stance) admit that deciding in either way requires faith.
That's interesting. Can you give me evidence - polls and statistics, for example - that indicate 'millions share' Luther's view on faith? And keep in mind that statistics about the number of people who pledge to be Lutheran won't do the trick.
After all, I'm sure you wouldn't be making a claim without evidence and reason here, would you?
Comment by nullasalus — June 13, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Luther was wrong.
The quote supplied does not accurately reflect the character of God.
Luther was confused about mercy and justice.
The real issue though is whether Luther's belief, as indicated by that quote, impacted his life in any significant way that could be defined as irrational.
That's a separate issue unless everything about Christianity is irrational to your way of thinking which might be where you are headed.
Makes no sense to me either.
Critical scrutiny is needed but at some point we adopt belief systems that are based in part on faith. Either that or we become intellectual simpletons. That's reality.
Jesus Christ was a historic figure about whom much was written in both biblical an secular sources. You need to jettison stereotypes. This was not a superficial thing with me. I was raised by an atheist.
If the promises of God are true, the most rational thing a human being could do would be to step out in faith and follow the path set out by the creator.
I'm familiar with opposing arguments. Adversarial issues are of interest to me.
You're decieving yourself Robin. Take this to another issue and I'll show you where your facts end and your faith begins. That applies to politics, morals, the origin of life, your philosophical and metaphysical beliefs and almost any subject matter not completely driven by sensory data i.e. most of life.
Comment by Bradford — June 13, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Bradford, nullasalus, Bilbo, kornbelt888, fifth monarchy man:
All of you seem to be claiming that faith does not amount to believing something on insufficient evidence. I'm glad to hear it, as that sets you apart from the many Christians, like Martin Luther, who believe that it's actually a virtue to accept Christianity based on insufficient evidence — to make Kierkegaard's 'leap of faith', in other words.
Let me ask a few questions to get an a more precise idea of where each of you stands:
1. Do you think that believers should be encouraged to doubt and to question their faith, so that those who remain believers are doing so for the right reasons (i.e. sufficient evidence)?
2. If you have children, do you (or did you, or will you) encourage them to expose themselves to the full spectrum of religious ideas (including atheism), evaluate them all critically, and choose one that makes sense to them when they are able to do so?
3. Do you agree that religious beliefs should be subject to the same standards of evidence and reason as other beliefs, such as scientific beliefs, political beliefs, etc.?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Comment by robin — June 13, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
robin,
Encourage to doubt and question? Absolutely not. Encourage to understand, consider, and explore? Yes.
Atheism is a religious belief? Funny how that one changes so often.
I would expose them to all faiths happily, while making it clear that I believe my own to be correct. And I'd add that even deism makes scores more sense than atheism. Reason and evidence indicates to me it's irrational.
That's a non-question, since the standards of evidence (as well as reason) for scientific beliefs and political beliefs are themselves unequal, before even getting to what 'etc' would cover.
Comment by nullasalus — June 13, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Hey Robin
All you are doing is comparing your mental faculties against your senses. But why trust one over the other? the answer is faith. You trust your mental faculties more than you trust your senses.
This is no different than me trusting God because God has shone himself to be more trustworthy than my senses and my mental faculties which have both deceived me many times.
Sure we are. Everyone is born with an innate trust in our mothers and our senses and our mental faculties. As we grow the things we trust change depending on our experience. You might trust your government or your spouse or Christ. But you will always trust something.
What?
Martin Luther's definition of faith
quote
Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures.
End quote
The Bible's definition of faith
Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction (confidence) of things not seen. For therein the elders had witness borne to them
Isn't that what I said?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 13, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I asked:
nullasalus replied:
Wow. Let that sink in.
Now imagine someone saying to a believer in phlogiston theory:
Not such a great strategy if truth matters to you, is it?
Comment by robin — June 13, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
robin,
Actually, it's a fantastic measure. Notice that only one of us gave explicitly biased advice: You encourage doubt, a negative stance with regards to the belief. I countered with 'understand, consider, and explore'.
Further..
That's yet another twist of language. I did not say I would say 'do not doubt or question'. I also did not say 'Believe and accept wholeheartedly'. I gave a neutral reply, one that encouraged education, exploration, and development of the idea on a personal level. Doubting and questioning are open possibilities under my advice.
I'm getting the feeling you don't have a firm handle on these subjects, Robin. Or at least, the primacy of 'reason' isn't your concern here.
Still waiting on that 'Millions of people believe Luther's rendition of faith' evidence, by the way.
Comment by nullasalus — June 13, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Robin
I come from a tradition that endeavors not to accept you as a believer until you demonstrate that you are coming for the right reasons. The doubting comes before the faith.
One of the most important things that I try and teach my children is logic so that they can evaluate all ideas and make an informed choice. We also spend time discussing the presuppositions of different world views. I would expect them to be able to defend with reason and logic any choice they make.
Yes, if by "religious beliefs" you mean the historical facts of Christianity
The problem lies when folks try to subject things like the resurrection to a higher standard of evidence than other historical events.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 13, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Hi Robin,
There is some trickiness in here. On the one hand, of course they should - no robust and serious faith is gained without a time of doubt and questioning. But there is another side to the equation.
Try this statement:
When it is personal, there is a time when doubt and questioning are inappropriate, and trust and love must be the order of the day. So there is most definitely several different things going on in the life of faith.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — June 13, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Here are some questions for you Robin. Thanks in advance for you responses.
1. Do you think that atheists should be encouraged to doubt their senses and mental facilities until they have an adequate justification for trusting them, so that those who remain atheists are doing so for the right reasons (i.e. sufficient warrant for their choice)?
2. If you have children, do you (or did you, or will you) encourage them to expose themselves to the full spectrum of evidence for the claims of Christianity and not just straw man characterizations from non Christians like yourself and evaluate it critically, to decide if Christianity is true on their own when they are able to do so?
3. Do you agree that accounts of miracles should be subject to the same standards of evidence as other historical events, and not a higher standard resulting from a presupposition that miracles don't happen or are less likely to happen than any possible non miraculous explanation for an event?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 13, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Wonders,
1. If you truly think that your lover might not exist, or might be completely different from the person you believe him or her to be, then absolutely, you should be encouraged to doubt, question, and investigate your belief.
2. The relationship between God and a believer is quite asymmetric. I think a God worthy of worship would be able to handle the doubts of a believer without being offended. After all, if he really exists, and if he supplies sufficient evidence of his existence to the believer, then the belief should only be strengthened in the end. It makes you wonder what God is doing in cases like mine. In my early teens, I found my faith weakening as I learned to think critically. As my alleged creator, God should know me inside and out, and should know exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence. Such evidence was never forthcoming. For that reason, and many others, I lost my faith.
Why do you think God let that happen?
Comment by robin — June 13, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
God allows free will. (Just posted a related comment.) The longer I live the more convinced I'm becoming that in the end people believe that which they choose to believe. That does not mean all options are created equal but that you have chosen to place your faith in one place rather than another. If you put forth a positive account about what it is you believe, an analytical person could state with equal force that supporting evidence is not forthcoming.
Comment by Bradford — June 13, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Robin:
I'm not sure of your heart and I don't mean to be harsh but it's possible that Jesus had you in mind when he said this
Jhn 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Jhn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
It might be that simple
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 14, 2008 @ 12:01 am
June 14th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I can't speak to your personal case, Robin - nor am I privy to the secret purposes of God amidst the veil of tears in which we live. In my own case, I would say that there are often valuable times in which my faith must be challenged, and some things end up needing to get left behind. So I agree with you that a time of questioning is essential, especially if you've been raised with a rather simplistic faith.
But my point about the relational aspect is that sometimes incessant analysis hampers real living. One simply cannot, for instance, make love to one's wife as one should if one is also critically analyzing every bit of the process and obsessing over every little thing. There is a time for doubt and a time for faith.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — June 14, 2008 @ 12:13 am
June 14th, 2008 at 1:30 am
WFO wrote:
Sure. I'm not talking about waking up every day and asking yourself anew, "Am I still justified in believing/disbelieving in God today?"
My point is simply that it's wise to re-examine your beliefs periodically, in as objective a fashion as possible. How often to do so is a judgment call.
Failing to question your beliefs is tantamount to betting on their infallibility.
Comment by robin — June 14, 2008 @ 1:30 am
June 14th, 2008 at 4:08 am
robin
Consider that the need or otherwise for having some sort of religious belief or framework is a heritable trait. I, and perhaps many people, assume that we human beings are similar in how we think. But, thus, those who possess the religious tendency are unable to compehend those who lack it. They tend to accuse athiests of "hating God" or belonging to the "Church of Darwin".
Equally, you are appearing not to appreciate that possessing faith is innate and so it is perhaps not possible for a possessor of the religious tendency to apply your exhortation to examine themselves objectively.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2008 @ 4:08 am
June 14th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Alan Fox,
Or perhaps, as has been said here, 'those possessing faith' really do examine themselves objectively, and find their beliefs to be honestly justified. Or perhaps some (many? most?) of those who don't 'possess faith' are the ones unable to be objective about their beliefs. I mean, it's not as if the person who inherited such a disposition would be able to know, eh?
And thus reason, not achieving the desired results, is declared to not be in play. Funny how that works.
Comment by nullasalus — June 14, 2008 @ 4:43 am
June 14th, 2008 at 7:31 am
This is my point. An innate predilection for or lack of a religious belief will mean that the alternative trait is mutually incomprehensible.
Well, we could do the thought-experiment on how to establish whether a genetic trait for religiosity exists. I guess that a human breeding program to test it miught not be ethical:smile:.
Once you allow the possibility that such a predisposition exists, it does suggest debate on the matter will be fruitless. What concerns me is when a group want to control what others can believe. I am happy to allow anyone to hold whatever belief satisfies them, so long as they do not use it as an excuse to hold dominion over me.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2008 @ 7:31 am
June 14th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Alan Fox,
I believe it's not a predisposition to faith that is genetic but hostility to God. This makes man naturally unwilling to evaluate the evidence fairly. It makes folks always ask for more evidence even when the evidence is overwhelming. We see a similar trait in folks who deny that 9:11 was orchestrated by Muslims or that man actually walked on the moon. No amount of evidence is ever sufficient for folks if they have a deep enough hostility to a certain conclusion and its implications. I believe this is the default situation for mankind when it comes to the evidence for God.
The Bible talks about regeneration. A process in which hard harts are softened and corrupted minds are restored so that evidence can be weighed objectively. Until that happens I believe faith is impossible. When it happens I believe faith in God follows necessarily.
Folks I know can readly understand those who don't believe because we did not always believe ourselves. It's just that we are amazed at the silly arguments put forward and clinged to by those trying desperately to explain away clear evidence.
Amen brother and that goes for the religious as well as the antireligious
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 14, 2008 @ 8:48 am
June 14th, 2008 at 9:51 am
That lesson was realized years ago when my kids were very young. I don't have to enourage doubt. A hostile world does that very efficiently. My job is to present both sides which in this case means the side they will not see unless revealed to them by me. My kids are older now and I was right. They were exposed to a world of doubters. They are also questioners. Did not have to encourage that. It was in them.
Comment by Bradford — June 14, 2008 @ 9:51 am
June 14th, 2008 at 9:56 am
fmm,
I do not believe in Odin, Jupiter, Vishnu, etc, etc., but I feel no hostility to any of these mythical beings.
What is my genetic predisposition?
Comment by mitschlag — June 14, 2008 @ 9:56 am
June 14th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Robin asked:
And then a little later Fifth Monarchy Man asked:
Really good questions - thanks for asking! Here are my answers (as a person committed to both natural science and radical skepticism, and a long-time member of the Society of Friends/Quakers and a Zen Buddhist):
I agree with St. Augustine of Hippo, who wrote "Si enim fallor, sum" - "If I doubt, I am" (De Civitate Dei, Liber XI). The depth of our understanding is not determined by our faith, but rather by our doubt.
I have six children, and have done precisely this. The oldest (age 30) is deeply committed to a version of Celtic paganism recreated from what we know of that belief system. The rest show various degrees of skepticism (including the youngest, who at 15 months old is very, very skeptical of many of the things I tell him not to do). What versions of religion they eventually adopt (if any) will be entirely up to them, as mine was for me.
Yes. That is why, after years of "seeking", I eventually settled on a combination of Quakerism and Zen Buddhism (rinzai), both of which depend on experience, not faith.
Yes. Indeed, I would say this about anyone, regardless of their metaphysical assumptions about reality. Personally, I believe that the only way to understanding is through empirical investigation, which depends on sensory input and logical inference based on that input.
Yes, and despite the deliberate ad hominem in the question, I think that a person like myself who has spent many decades investigating various religions (including, but not limited to, Christianity) is in a better position to do this than someone who has only deeply thought about one religion (regardless of which religion that might be).
Yes. To be specific, reports of miracles should be subjected to exactly the same standards of evidence as any other claim about observable events in the natural world. Personally, I find virtually all reports of miracles to be extremely unlikely, and akin to what in science is known as "anecdotal evidence" "“ interesting, perhaps emotionally satisfying, but utterly useless as a basis for logical inference. Indeed, the very fact that most miracle stories are emotionally satisfying is a good reason for suspecting them. T. H. Huxley said this well in his letter to Charles Kingsley:
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 14, 2008 @ 10:51 am
June 14th, 2008 at 11:05 am
As to whether one needs to inculcate doubt in one's children, I completely disagree with Bradford. In my experience, children are extraordinarily dependent on the views of their parents and other (especially older) people in their social group. I have found that it is difficult to get my children (and my students) to subject to doubt the opinions they have been force-fed by other adults, especially those they perceive to be in a position of authority (such as teachers, professors, politicians, ministers, etc.)
At the same time, most of my children tend to reflexibly rebel against some of those views, probably as part of the process of becoming critically-thinking, self-actualizing adults (this was certainly true for me). Again, I agree with St. Augustine:
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 14, 2008 @ 11:05 am
June 14th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Allen MacNeill
You do realize that faith is not apposed to experience don't you. All true faith depends on experience(and reason)
You do realize that this is more of a faith position than it's opposite because it is exclusive don't you? Is it even possible that there are other ways?
You do realize that the question was about how you educate your children and not about how you yourself came to be where you are don't you?
Is such "anecdotal evidence" equivalent to "historical evidence" in your view and does your appraisal hold for reports that are extremely well attested in which the naturalistic explanations are absurd in their improbability?
Notice how you claim that miracle accounts should be treated exactly the same as other evidence yet you confidently assert that they are "utterly useless as a basis for logical inference."
That does not sound like you are treating them the same as other evidences to me.
The miracle stories that ground the Christian faith are emotionally distressing to someone bent on rebellion to God is that good reason for accepting them?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 14, 2008 @ 11:20 am
June 14th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Hi Robin,
You wrote:
Who gets to decide whether or not something is evidence? Who gets to decide whether the evidence is sufficient?
I ask because I have been continually told by scores of critics there is no, no, NO evidence for ID. In fact, that judgment is almost always made with a great sense of certainty.
Comment by MikeGene — June 14, 2008 @ 11:32 am
June 14th, 2008 at 11:44 am
All this talk about the virtues of doubt. Yet over the years, and after arguing with hundreds of critics, I have seen very little evidence of doubt on the part of the critics. There is plenty of evidence of complete and total denial, evidence of closed-mindedness, evidence of hate, and evidence of fear. But where or where is the evidence of doubt? When all ID proponents are viewed as being either stupid, dishonest, or
delusionalmisguided, where is the doubt in one's own judgments and ability to pass fair judgments?I myself have said many times that I harbor doubt about the design of life and acknowledge the evidence in support of such a hypothesis is weak. But where are the critics who can reciprocate?
Is there any critic who is willing to meet me in this place of doubt and publicly express doubt about the Earth spawning life or the belief that evolution is completely devoid of teleology?
Comment by MikeGene — June 14, 2008 @ 11:44 am
June 14th, 2008 at 11:48 am
In response to Mr MacNeill
Mike Gene asks
Surely, everyone decides for themself (in a free society, at least) what they believe and whether evidence is important or necessary as a prerequisite. Evidence is only important if you wish to convince someone else of the validity of your belief.
If you have evidence of the validity of ID as science, then bring it on. If it is currently at the philosophical stage, then alert me when there is progress. But by all means continue to believe in the concept.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2008 @ 11:48 am
June 14th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Hey Allen:
By sensory input do you mean just the five senses? Or could this this include senses like the "sixth sense" or the sensus divinatis?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 14, 2008 @ 11:49 am
June 14th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Hi Alan,
Yes, this is because the notion of "sufficient evidence" is a subjective notion "“ we "know" it when we "see" it. As for convincing other people, the level of evidence needed will be dependent on the person being convinced.
I never claimed to have evidence of the validity of ID as science, as that is not important (well, it's only important to the culture warriors). Do you have evidence that science is capable of judging the validity of ID? Has science ever come up with such a method?
Comment by MikeGene — June 14, 2008 @ 11:54 am
June 14th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I don't think any person should demand belief. Experience has shown demands for belief tend to inspire doubt, not faith….
However, there will always be insufficient evidence for the most important truths. That was the result of Godel's theorem….
Nevertheless, we can avoid paths which are clearly in error. Mathematics is ultimately based on unprovable statements, however, mathematicians avoid obviously illogical statements like:
E = not-E
When something is clearly wrong either because of a self-contradiction or empirical evidence, perhaps it's time for a falsehood to be dismissed. For example here is a well-accepted falsehood:
witness the truth:
Why is it "It is often tacitly assumed that every advantageous mutation that appears in the population is inevitably incorporated." Whatever the cause the Darwinian mindset, it is a demonstratably false mindset.
I'd say there clearly sufficient evidence for rejecting this mindset. Do I demand the Darwinian mindset be rejected in favor of the truth (the truth being that Darwin was wrong, not necessarily that ID is true). I suppose I could make those demands, but experience shows demanding belief tends to inspire more doubt, not faith…..
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 14, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
That would not be objective or scientific evidence. (Nor has spectral evidence been allowed in most courts since Salem.)
People often share similar subjective experiences and can reasonably discuss those aspects of consciousness"”even if those feelings have no clear objective basis, e.g. aesthetics and ethics.
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Fifth Monarchy Man wrote:
On the contrary, IMO every report of everything that I have not personally experienced must be treated with the same skepticism that one brings to questions of inductive validity in the natural sciences. This means that anecdotal evidence doesn't count as evidence at all, and this is precisely the kind of evidence provided by "miracles".
That is, reports of single (i.e. unique) events must be discounted unless they are supported by multiple reports of similar (i.e. analogous) events. Then the problem becomes the quality of "similarity", but this has been exhaustively addressed in the natural sciences (and in mathematical statistics as well).
Notice that this standard of validation also tends to rule out multiple reports of the same unique event, unless such reports come from multiple observers. Even then, such evidence is much weaker than multiple reports of multiple, similar events.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 14, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Absolutely, yes.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Fifth Monarch Man asked:
No. It doesn't matter whether a story is emotionally satisfying or emotionally distressing. The point is that the modifier "emotionally" is the problem here. Logical and rational statements are not validated by whether they are emotionally satisfying or distressing. On the contrary, they are validated or falsified on the basis of empirical evidence (either direct or via logical inference), and the emotional response one has to them should be completely irrelevant.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 14, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I doubt any assertion of either teleological or non-teleological origin or evolution of life on Earth in the absence of empirical evidence. Since there is immense amounts of empirical evidence for the evolution of life on Earth, I tend to accept the assertion that this has happened, but that conclusion is only as good as that evidence. If sufficient empirical evidence to the contrary is obtained and published and discussed by the scientific community, I will "“ indeed, I must "“ change my mind. But not until then.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 14, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Zachariel wrote:
About aesthetics I tend to agree with the old Latin aphorism: De gustibus non disputandem. "About taste one cannot argue."
Ethics, on the other hand, appear to me to be both socially constructed and socially enforced, and so the only way to the formulation and implementation of a genuinely useful ethics is via what Mark Sagoff has called "muddling through": that is, the social construction and implementation of ethics via dispute and compromise.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 14, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Mike Gene asked:
Right here, Mike!
"Doubt thou the stars are fire,
Doubt that the sun doth move,
Doubt truth to be a liar,
But never doubt…"
Well, never doubt the intellectual value of doubt itself, I guess
(my apologies to Shakespeare and Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2)
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 14, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Alan Fox:
What is considered evidence and non-evidence is currency able to obtain or maintain power. Power is expressed through dominant ideas which in turn are ways of thinking. That's why the pen is mightier than the sword. Those able to fashion policies that govern do so through rules expressing underlying philosophical convictions. Formulating tax policies and energy regulations to make the planet "greener" are based on values emphasizing environmental responsibility. Environmental responsibility is seen in light of evidence for and against factors which bring about environmental harm. That brings us to evidence.
Moral relativism is a philosophy with behavioral implications. Effects of behavior fall within the gambit of evidence for and against particular societal norms. The fight over sufficiency of evidence impacts the debate over values. If a value system is pointed to as fostering deleterious social effects the evidence for this will be downplayed by supporters of the value system and touted by opponents of it.
Persuading others of the importance of something can be critical to attaining social, political, business, academic and other goals. In the end evidence is inextricabally linked to the success or failure of goal realization. The sufficiency of evidence is a critical battleground.
Comment by Bradford — June 14, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
A reasonable reading of the text shows that Darwin understood that this was a tendency and that there are aspects of chance and contingency involved. Snippets from the same chapter (with emphasis added):
As I can't imagine you would purposefully misrepresent Darwin's position, I can only assume you never read his seminal work.
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Furthermore, i wouldn't say that there is no evidence for ID. Rather, I would say that what would count for evidence for ID is very difficult to determine. As my students all discover, we all know what we mean by "purpose", but it is very difficult to verify or falsify its operation it in ways that can be empirically verified. The imputation of teleology, IOW, is only possible via inference, and such inference is notoriously difficult to make.
In a previous thread I said that I would provide proposed operational definitions for three terms that seem essential to our investigations: "intelligence", "design", and "consciousness". Unfortunately, I will be somewhat delayed in this endeavor, as I am about to have major surgery for long-standing kidney problems (which may include renal cell cardinoma "“ I won't know until after the surgery). If you are so inclined, you may (in the spirit of Friends) "hold me in the light". Not that this will necessarily have any effect on the outcome of the surgery or the biopsy of the suspected tumor…:wink:
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 14, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
People tend to argue over their differences, but they generally share far more. There is a great deal of scholarship concerning why (most people find) Shakespeare's plays or Beethoven's symphonies to be more beautiful than, say, the tax code or the sound of a dehumidifier.
Sure. What happens is that people share many behavioral aspects. For instance, parents tend to love their children, and people seek the respect of their neighbors. Knowing that they share these and other basic values, they can discuss and reason about them. Public ethics do not evolve in a vacuum, but tend to reflect the basic nature of people. Insects would probably evolve a far different ethical system.
(Technically, what happens is that people agree tacitly or otherwise to certain axioms, then develop a system of philosophy based on these axioms, which can be modified over time, or even held with slightly different meanings by different people.)
I think it is incorrect"”even for you"”to say that "the only way to understanding is through empirical investigation". There is understanding of yourself, of others, of your community, much of which is not objective or scientific. A poet can understand and express much.
Beauty is Truth.
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Most people have always seemed to instinctively reject materialism. Religion has been common to nearly all cultures. However theism is not the only alternative to materialism. ID is compatible with theism, but it is also compatible with other non materialistic concepts, such as purposeful creativity as an innate aspect of living systems. Natural selection doing something mechanical to genetic accidents (Random mutation and natural selection) is the only materialistic theory of biological adaption ever articulated in detail. Materialists are losing their ability to impose RM&NS upon society as "established truth". Many non materialistic concepts will be explored, and if one theory becomes widely accepted, I suppose it's supporters will try to intimidate everyone into accepting it. However at the moment we are fortunate to live in a time of great intellectual freedom, where everhone is free to express their own speculations about the nature of reality. Enjoy it while it lasts
http://20145.myauthorsite.com/
Questions about Materialism
Comment by Bert — June 14, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
On the contrary Zach:
Darwin shows he is quite capable of making contradictory statements of the form:
He argues that ALL the good will be preserved, and justifies it by appealing to tendencies.
But appeals to tendencies to support claims of inevitability leads to a contradiction, becuase if it is only a tendency, then it is not an inevitability, and thus ALL the good and all the bad will not happen.
Furthermore, "Natural Selection" is double speak since Darwin's conception of what happens in the wild is not what really happens in the wild.
If lots more bad enter the genome, we really don't know if we can say the "fittest survive" in the Darwinian sense. If Muller's ratchet is true for linkage blocks in sexually reproducing species, the fittest (meaning the architecture of the healthiest) are the less diseased ancestors. Thus the fittest die, and the sickest survive…..
I won't demand you believe this line of argumentation, but I hope some people on the fence will reconsider their position…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 14, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Hi Mike,
I think there are going to be more and more people willing to express doubt about Earth being the birth place of life.
IMO, exogenesis and/or panspermia have become serious possibilities with the discovery of evidence of complex cells existing while the Earth was being bombarded by asteroids.
As relatively simple the life in the RNA World would have been, it is considered to still be too complex to be the original source of life. OOL researchers are now hypothesizing about pre-RNA World life.
The time-line is becoming rather condensed by the hard boundary of the know origin of Earth. The 10 Billion years available for space borne life is becoming attractive.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 14, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Hi Allen,
Sure, and this is a major reason why ID is not science. This is a topic and question that is too big for science and its needs. To detect design necessarily entails a subjective element. This is also why I ask critics, who proclaim there is no evidence for ID, to lay their cards on the table and tell us what they would count as evidence for ID. It's the only way to assess another brain's judgment.
I do wish you well and hope everything turns out okay.
Comment by MikeGene — June 14, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Sal,
Quote-mining a 150-year-old book is not going to bring you fame.
Comment by olegt — June 14, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Allen,
Though I can't offer you my prayers, I do hope that your surgery is successful, that the news is good, and that you'll soon be back stirring up discussion in class and on the Internet.
Comment by robin — June 14, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Allen:
Are you saying is it impossible to know anything that you did not personally experience? Are historical accounts of say an eclipse from the middle ages not evidence at all?
Zach:
Why is evidence from sight considered objective and evidence from the sensus divinatis considered subjective?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 14, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Zachriel to Salvador:
Salavador's misrepresentation of Darwin was pointed out to him a month ago in this thread at PT, but still he persists.
His dishonesty is deliberate, as is well-known to those on both sides of the ID debate.
What he thinks he's accomplishing by lying to his readers is anyone's guess.
Comment by robin — June 14, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Pretty interesting thread. My 2 cents.
Although I admire Luther for his incredible courage against the religious oppression of his day and initiating the reformation he is just a man and is subject to error. As far as I can tell he was anti semitic which is incrediblly illogical for a Chrstian. If Robin's representation of Luthers view of faith is accurate he contradicted the Bibilical view of faith as well. BTW I am not convinced that Luther was a fideist based on a "quote mine"
As for faith itself I think it has been redefined over the last several hundred years to mean fideism. I am a man of faith and I totally reject fideism.
Faith and reason are not antithetical. I am a believer because of the proponderance of evidence and reason. My fath is not irrational, just the opposite ,I think I am being entirely rational.
I struggle mightily with doubt and I thnk it has strengthened my faith.
I have come to the same concluson as Bradford in the end we all believe what we want to believe.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 14, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
@ Allen MacNeill
Being in remission from cancer myself, I hope I can appreciate to an extent your situation and I wish you the best possible outcome.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
You're reducing our palatable choices.
First of all, you didn't even quote the whole sentence, which is prefaced with either "It may be said that …" or "It may metaphorically be said …" (depending on the edition).
Any clear reading of the text indicates that you are misreading Darwin's intent. You may disagree with Darwin's argument, but you shouldn't misrepresent it.
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Well, no. But I really think that ID proponents (at least those that claim that ID is more than a philosophical viewpoint) need to firm up on a defintion of ID to enable any kind of meaningful evaluation. A little background: I am 58, grew up in England, now live in France, and, until a chance encounter in a forum about learning a foreign language in August , 2005, was blissfully unaware of ID. Naiïvely, I then registered at Uncommon descent and filed a comment asking Dr Dembski for a definition of ID. My comment never appeared and my account was deleted. Interestingly, Sal Cordova was at the same time boasting in comments at UD about having defeated Darwinists at the Pandas Thumb. I read the thread referred to and , well, let's just say Sal's interpretation of events did not match my reading of the thread.
It has been my perception since, that some proponents of ID as science seem to have an agenda other than the simple pursuit of knowledge.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Um, because that's what the words mean.
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
In other words its a metaphysical claim.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 14, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
It's not a claim. It's a definition. It's an utterance with an agreed meaning. An objective observation is a phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 6:13 pm