• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

On Faith, Doubt, Certainty, and Uncertainty {poll added}

Your attitudes towards Faith and Doubt?

  • I like Faith, but dislike Doubt.

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • I dislike Faith, but like Doubt.

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • I like BOTH Faith and Doubt

    Votes: 7 38.9%
  • I dislike BOTH Faith and Doubt

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • I am apathetic towards BOTH Faith and Doubt

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Total voters
    18

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Planets around other stars were hypothetical until they were detected using specific observational techniques that were hypothesized to collect the correct data to show their existence. The data collected about these exoplanets, plus our observations of our own set of planets, has led to the elimination of some theoretical models about how, when and where planets form, and allowed other theoretical models to advance. Early models hypothesized that other solar systems would resemble our solar system; the data collected so far suggests that few planetary systems resemble ours, and therefore the early models were incorrect. Scientists in the field are still hypothesizing and theorizing as more and more data is collected, and newer models of planetary formation have greatly changed the theory of how our solar system formed and developed. When I was young, it was accepted that the planets formed where they are today; the latest theories suggest that the planets bounced around before finally settling down in roughly their current orbits.
 

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
There is no mathematical 'proof' of the existence of other planets. It was a theory until proved by evidence. People create theories with intelligent judgement (before 'proof' is possible). So it is not illogical (as you described it earlier) to sometimes believe things are highly likely before they are proven.

Then you are clearly ill informed.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
I'm interested in hearing about what people think about the following, including any critiques to the logic employed. Thanks.
Truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Untruths are exposed by doubt and questioning. (Truth can stand on its own--lies need to be propped up.)
If both Truth and Untruth are revealed by doubt and questioning, then Uncertainty is the way of revealing, and Certainty is the way of not revealing.
Therefore, Faith and Doubt are both necessary to arrive at Truth. Shutting down questioning and Doubt weakens Faith in that it artificially props it up like a lie instead of allowing it to stand on its own and be further revealed.​
This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that Uncertainty is strengthening and Certainty is weakening.
Please feel free to punch holes in this--to expose any errors.
Thanks.

Truth does exist irrespective one proves it or not, one has faith in Truth or not. Since Truth exists, it is for this that search and research is made. Truth is the default position and the origin , the Absolute,hence it is First and the Last. Truth does not need us, it is we who need the Truth.
Regards
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Then you are clearly ill informed.
No need to ask you to show the math as I'm sure you are familiar with the fact that there is a mathematical proof :rolleyes:. Scientists would never believe a theory is likely to be true without 'proof' because as you said that would be 'illogical'.;)
 

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
No need to ask you to show the math as I'm sure you are familiar with the fact that there is a mathematical proof :rolleyes:. Scientists would never believe a theory is likely to be true without 'proof' because as you said that would be 'illogical'.;)

So you think that blind faith is more important and valuable that logical inquiry?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Cool, then can you show me how it lead to yours?
I could, but it is too involved to fit a quick reply post. I have spent many, many hundreds of hours on my 'logical inquiry'. A synopsis would be a serious study of the paranormal shows the insufficiency of the western materialist science worldview. And the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition is superior in its understanding of what is beyond materialism.
 

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
I could, but it is too involved to fit a quick reply post. I have spent many, many hundreds of hours on my 'logical inquiry'. A synopsis would be a serious study of the paranormal shows the insufficiency of the western materialist science worldview. And the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition is superior in its understanding of what is beyond materialism.

Unless you provide proof then I will not believe you.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Unless you provide proof then I will not believe you.
I never claimed 'proof'; just beliefs based on the best 'logical inquiry'. If 'logical inquiry' on the type of issues that are not 'provable' or 'disprovable' doesn't interest you, then so be it.
 

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
I never claimed 'proof'; just beliefs based on the best 'logical inquiry'. If 'logical inquiry' on the type of issues that are not 'provable' or 'disprovable' doesn't interest you, then so be it.

If it is a logical inquiry you can easily tell me how you reached that conclusion.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
If it is a logical inquiry you can easily tell me how you reached that conclusion.
'Easily'?? Perhaps you have never looked into the paranormal, philosophy, theology or Vedic science if you think 'logical inquiry' is quick and easy. I already gave you the synapsis previously.

A synopsis would be a serious study of the paranormal shows the insufficiency of the western materialist science worldview. And the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition is superior in its understanding of what is beyond materialism.
 

McBell

Unbound
'Easily'?? Perhaps you have never looked into the paranormal, philosophy, theology or Vedic science if you think 'logical inquiry' is quick and easy. I already gave you the synapsis previously.

A synopsis would be a serious study of the paranormal shows the insufficiency of the western materialist science worldview. And the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition is superior in its understanding of what is beyond materialism.
Well...
Even though I disagree with your conclusions, I have seen you explain it enough times that I understand why you believe as you do.

And though I give you crap over it from time to time, I do not know that you are wrong.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No need to ask you to show the math as I'm sure you are familiar with the fact that there is a mathematical proof :rolleyes:. Scientists would never believe a theory is likely to be true without 'proof' because as you said that would be 'illogical'.;)
Just to pick some nits, while there is most certainly mathematic proofs, they are not what make theories 'believable.' Only some theory's major tenants have mathematical formulas but they do not encompass the entirety of a theory, which is a dynamic group of tenants. Hence why there is both law and theory of gravity. The formula doesn't encompass the whole of the application of the theory. Likewise little biological theory has mathematical proofs, as even the most simple tenants of biological theories are too dynamic to be reduced to a single mathematic formula. Yet germ theory of disease and cell theory are believed based on their real world application.

Mathematical models make a constructed representation of the natural world. Where they are applicable they are still subject to margins of error because the model must be 100% accurate to the real world. Sometimes they're not. Hence math proofs can be completely correct within the model but be inaccurate when applying to the real world. Proofs have been overturned by better constructed models.

This isn't a criticism of math, just a reminder that science skepticism isn't limited to non-math, and that there is no real world 'proofs.' So even though many math proofs and non-math evidences are believed, there is still margin for error and room for falsifiability.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Just to pick some nits, while there is most certainly mathematic proofs, they are not what make theories 'believable.' Only some theory's major tenants have mathematical formulas but they do not encompass the entirety of a theory, which is a dynamic group of tenants. Hence why there is both law and theory of gravity. The formula doesn't encompass the whole of the application of the theory. Likewise little biological theory has mathematical proofs, as even the most simple tenants of biological theories are too dynamic to be reduced to a single mathematic formula. Yet germ theory of disease and cell theory are believed based on their real world application.

Mathematical models make a constructed representation of the natural world. Where they are applicable they are still subject to margins of error because the model must be 100% accurate to the real world. Sometimes they're not. Hence math proofs can be completely correct within the model but be inaccurate when applying to the real world. Proofs have been overturned by better constructed models.

This isn't a criticism of math, just a reminder that science skepticism isn't limited to non-math, and that there is no real world 'proofs.' So even though many math proofs and non-math evidences are believed, there is still margin for error and room for falsifiability.
Actually I am fine with what you say but I think you misunderstood my post that you replied to. To understand my post you have to follow the chain of conversation I was having with that person (you will see I was being sarcastic in the post you replied to).
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually I am fine with what you say but I think you misunderstood my post that you replied to. To understand my post you have to follow the chain of conversation I was having with that person (you will see I was being sarcastic in the post you replied to).
I did read it but it's entirely possible I still misunderstood. The pick is applicable to both sides. Having a ton of evidence (like say for evolutionary theory) doesn't constitute either a mathematic or empirical proof. But it is good reason to believe. Therefore it is logical to believe without proof, because proof is being too high valued by that attitude. That's just not how empiricism works.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I did read it but it's entirely possible I still misunderstood. The pick is applicable to both sides. Having a ton of evidence (like say for evolutionary theory) doesn't constitute either a mathematic or empirical proof. But it is good reason to believe. Therefore it is logical to believe without proof, because proof is being too high valued by that attitude. That's just not how empiricism works.
Right, you are agreeing with my side of that argument. My opponent in that skirmish had said that it is illogical to believe in something without proof.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Right, you are agreeing with my side of that argument. My opponent in that skirmish had said that it is illogical to believe in something without proof.
I know. But that was also in regards to, for example, 'planets being proven.' There are math models showing planetary position and movement but that's only applicable to the real world if the math model is accurate. I believe it is, but it's by no means set in stone. As someone else pointed out, there's still lots of discovery being made about our planetary formation and what the planets do which disprove prior models.

However, large topic at hand, you already know where I stand on supernatural events as a physicalist (or philosophical materialist if you prefer), so I'm not endorsing dualism by pointing out the flaw in relying too much on the oversimplified 'prove it' style debate tactic.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
However, large topic at hand, you already know where I stand on supernatural events as a physicalist (or philosophical materialist if you prefer), so I'm not endorsing dualism by pointing out the flaw in relying too much on the oversimplified 'prove it' style debate tactic.
I know we disagree on the larger topic still; materialism or beyond materialism. I am on RF a lot so I hope we can debate all that again.:)
 
Top