The wisest man in the world is the one who realizes he knows nothing.

[leibowde84]

A very interesting post with a great deal in it to consider. I'd like to take a moment to focus on the last of your questions.

"What do we gain by jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality rather than allowing evidence to direct us?"

To my mind, the larger point underneath the inquiry is contextual. That is, we will make moral decisions. They're inescapable. Those decisions will be founded in something, serve some particular idea. So we can't live out our existence, outside of the contemplative, in any real sense as moral agnostics. Agnosticism fails the moment we make those moral choices. We cease to be outside of the question then and become agents. So faith, as I see it, is about acknowledging our agency and choosing the path of our conviction.

But, agnosticism is the belief that "knowledge of God is not possible". It doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in God or, necessarily, doesn't hold a believe either way. Nevertheless, though, why is God necessary for beliefs in morality. I am a moral person, but I don't think that morality is absolute. It is subjective and contextual in that immorality is not black and white, and circumstances change everything. So, I fail to see how belief in God or faith would have to be considered for moral decision making.

 

[leibowde84]

others understand my retort to you
I'm not surprised you are coming up short

So, can you point out specifically what you are having issues understanding? I am happy to help, but I can't clarify anything in the OP unless you point out what you are having trouble with.

 

[leibowde84]

which one acknowledges personal faith?

and which one claims indisputable facts?



so which is it?!

Which one acknowledges personal faith? Neither, really. Some religious adherents understand that their religious beliefs are, in fact, beliefs. But, many religions accept unverified, supernatural beliefs (the resurrection of Jesus, revelation to Muhammad, story of the birth of Jesus, etc.) as fact, explicitly referring to them as such. Sometimes you even get hesitation to refer to them as beliefs due to fear of upsetting God (never really understood the logic behind that). As for science, some scientists explicitly recognize the "faith" required for scientific discoveries. For example, without reliance on scientific interpretations, we wouldn't be able to get anywhere. Some other scientists refuse to acknowledge this, even though it becomes apparent when reading their assumptions. So, all in all, neither religion nor science recognizes or doesn't recognize personal faith absolutely.

Which one acknowledges indisputable facts? Both, of course. Time and time again, we hear that the existence of a designer or a first-cause is "indisputable", but that is certainly not the case. All we have to look to is the infancy of scientific understanding in general. Our endeavors in this area are far too young, and our current lack of scientific understanding is far too undeveloped for any claim like this to be valid. In the realm of science, the term "scientific fact" has a very different meaning than "fact" in general. Just because something is considered to be "scientific fact" doesn't mean that it is absolutely the case. It merely means that, according to the available evidence, it is supported and no viable/verifiable alternative is available. In other words, it simply means "all the evidence points to this being the case, and no alternative theory that accounts for all evidence is available".

All in all, I get your point with this comment. Religious adherents and scientists alike need to do a better job acknowledging that absolutes don't exist. A Christian's confidence in the existence of God is in no way more substantiated than a biologist's confidence in the ToE (modern). But, in the same way, scientists should do a better job explaining that, although scientific theories must be supported with repeated experimentation, evidence, observation and provide the ability to make predictions, new evidence could always come up in the future that displaces these theories. In short, they both need to realize that anything is possible and any belief could be wrong, potentially, even if the chances of that are infinitesimal.

 

[SuzyL]

I appreciate your comment, as it is very well-written and informative of your way of thinking. But, can you explain how you "know" something that cannot be verified through evidence?

I can only speak for myself but I do know it...because I can feel the Lord's love and he also answers my prayers. But I do concede that this is a "belief system" knowledge, not a provable fact. (I also know that my husband loves me but I cannot prove that to someone else either. But that is, of course different because others can watch his loving behavior towards me.)

My guess is there are a lot of people who know that God exists for the same reasons I have.

 

[leibowde84]

I can only speak for myself but I do know it...because I can feel the Lord's love and he also answers my prayers. But I do concede that this is a "belief system" knowledge, not a provable fact. (I also know that my husband loves me but I cannot prove that to someone else either. But that is, of course different because others can watch his loving behavior towards me.)

My guess is there are a lot of people who know that God exists for the same reasons I have.

To me, this is still just a strongly held belief. You don't know because you can't verify it, but all subjective experiences seem to point to it being the case. So, is it "knowledge" or "faith"?

 

[SuzyL]

I have always wondered if that famous quote attributed to Socrates didn't have a context we are not aware of? And while the 'golden age' of easy scientific discovery which gave science much of it's reputation has ended, that only reflects a reality that the search for practical, knowledge is becoming so much more difficult and expensive. And this is happening at a time when the demands for new primary insight are growing, even becoming desperate in some fields, antibiotics for example. And if science is groaning under the constraints of it's own limitations, faith traditions are also being forced to confront the corruptions of their own thinking, whether pedophile priests, the tyranny of occupation or ISIS. The view of ourselves as a species, that 'we' have created, is looking like the emperors new clothes. So long as both the scientific and moral insights that would make for peace and sustainability are missing, one might say, with a ear to Socrates, all is just chasing after wind!

My religion, I am a Swedenborgian, is often described at neo-Platonic. Certainly both Socrates and Plato were philosophically religious. This from a web site:
"Central to Plato’s thought is the theory of forms, which holds that there exists a realm of forms, perfect ideals of which things in this world are but imperfect copies. The world that we see around us, according to this theory, is but a pale shadow of the ultimate reality. Things may appear beautiful, or just, insofar as they imitate the forms Beauty and Justice, but the imperfect and changeable world cannot capture the glory of the eternal and immutable forms.
Plato’s contribution to philosophy includes ideas relevant to the philosophy of religion. In Plato’s Laws is the earliest surviving fully developed cosmological argument, though it is not an argument for a single First Cause but rather for at least two, one accounting for good and the other accounting for evil. An early form of the teleological argument can also be found in his works. The Euthyphro dialogue also contains a discussion of the relationship between God and morality, and is often cited as the source of the Euthyphro dilemma, an argument against divine command theory.
Plato also argued for our immortality, suggesting that we know certain things that we cannot possibly have learned in this life, and that we must therefore be remembering things that we knew previously." http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/whos-who/historic-figures/plato/

 

[SuzyL]

To me, this is still just a strongly held belief. You don't know because you can't verify it, but all subjective experiences seem to point to it being the case. So, is it "knowledge" or "faith"?

Since this is entirely subjective I am sure it looks like faith to you even though it FEELS like knowledge to me.

 

[leibowde84]

Since this is entirely subjective I am sure it looks like faith to you even though it FEELS like knowledge to me.

That makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which one acknowledges personal faith? Neither, really. Some religious adherents understand that their religious beliefs are, in fact, beliefs. But, many religions accept unverified, supernatural beliefs (the resurrection of Jesus, revelation to Muhammad, story of the birth of Jesus, etc.) as fact, explicitly referring to them as such. Sometimes you even get hesitation to refer to them as beliefs due to fear of upsetting God (never really understood the logic behind that). As for science, some scientists explicitly recognize the "faith" required for scientific discoveries. For example, without reliance on scientific interpretations, we wouldn't be able to get anywhere. Some other scientists refuse to acknowledge this, even though it becomes apparent when reading their assumptions. So, all in all, neither religion nor science recognizes or doesn't recognize personal faith absolutely.

I don't accept the premise that the resurrection of a human being is inherently more 'supernatural' than a single cell accidentally morphing into a human being through millions of lucky accidental significant improvements-
nor do I think it is any less well documented.

Yet I and the vast majority of people of faith I know, acknowledge that faith, that we can't prove it, most even acknowledge doubts from time to time.

Whereas in the latter case...

In the realm of science, the term "scientific fact" has a very different meaning than "fact" in general. Just because something is considered to be "scientific fact" doesn't mean that it is absolutely the case.

Do you think that's the subtle not-really-fact definition of fact Dawkins is using here?

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact"
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). "

We both know, many evolutionists like Dawkins would never consider any alternative no matter the evidence, there is far too much emotion and personal atheist ideology involved.

And that's the crux of the matter, it's not religion v science. We have science the method- then theism and atheism as two distinct contexts for it

when it comes to acknowledging our own beliefs and biases- critical objective thought- many atheists refuse to acknowledge that atheism is even a belief- how then separate it from their work?

moreover, atheism inherently seeks to explicitly refute God by claiming an answer- which squeezes God from the equation.

In contrast 'Nature is the executor of God's laws' frees people like Lemaitre and Planck to break through these barriers- be they static universes, classical physics, or today's classical evolution-

but the atheist barrier in this last theory is even greater than those before.

 

[SuzyL]

To me, this is still just a strongly held belief. You don't know because you can't verify it, but all subjective experiences seem to point to it being the case. So, is it "knowledge" or "faith"?

 

[SuzyL]

" frees people like Lemaitre and Planck to break through these barriers"...these are not the only options. My friend, Ian Thompson, who is a physicist wrote "Starting Science From God: Rational Scientific Theories from Theism." To say that this is a VERY deeply scientific/philosophical book is an understatement. But, he says there IS actually a theory of everything and he lays it out in this book, available on Amazon.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't accept the premise that the resurrection of a human being is inherently more 'supernatural' than a single cell accidentally morphing into a human being through millions of lucky accidental significant improvements-

nor do I think it is any less well documented.

Anyone “rising from the dead” is, by definition, supernatural, as it bypasses the law of nature that every organic life-form dies. It wasn’t claimed to be merely Jesus’ spirit, as Jesus’ body was claimed to have been absent. The ToE, on the other hand, is not supernatural, as there is nothing inherent in the scientific theory that goes against any law. In your opinion, it seems to go against logic or “common-sense”, but that doesn’t have anything to do with it being “supernatural”, according to the meaning of the term.


Also, beyond subjective claims of personal experiences not supported by any kind of verifiable evidence, there is absolutely no “documentation” supporting the resurrection.

Do you think that's the subtle not-really-fact definition of fact Dawkins is using here?

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact"

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). "

Yes, it certainly is. Dawkins is right when he says that there is no reasonable doubt when it comes to the ToE. All of the evidence we have points to it being the case, and no plausible alternative has been provided that adheres to the available evidence more so than the ToE. But, Dawkins often states that if another theory that fits with the evidence comes up that contradicts evolution, he would happily change his mind. He doesn’t see any indication that will happen in his lifetime, though. Creationism, for example, is not supported by any empirical/verifiable evidence.

We both know, many evolutionists like Dawkins would never consider any alternative no matter the evidence, there is far too much emotion and personal atheist ideology involved.

This is flat out wrong. It is clear that you have a deep feeling of distrust for Dawkins, but he has explicitly stated that he is open to any new theory as long as it is supported by verifiable evidence to a greater degree than the ToE, which he doesn’t think possible.

when it comes to acknowledging our own beliefs and biases- critical objective thought- many atheists refuse to acknowledge that atheism is even a belief- how then separate it from their work?

Although I am a theist, I do understand that you are mistaken here. Atheism is merely the absence of theism. The only thing that is required is for one to be without a belief in God. There is no requirement for a believe that God does not exist, and many, even outspoken atheists explicitly say that they do not hold this belief.

 

[SuzyL]

Anyone “rising from the dead” is, by definition, supernatural, as it bypasses the law of nature that every organic life-form dies. It wasn’t claimed to be merely Jesus’ spirit, as Jesus’ body was claimed to have been absent. The ToE, on the other hand, is not supernatural, as there is nothing inherent in the scientific theory that goes against any law. In your opinion, it seems to go against logic or “common-sense”, but that doesn’t have anything to do with it being “supernatural”, according to the meaning of the term.


Also, beyond subjective claims of personal experiences not supported by any kind of verifiable evidence, there is absolutely no “documentation” supporting the resurrection.



Yes, it certainly is. Dawkins is right when he says that there is no reasonable doubt when it comes to the ToE. All of the evidence we have points to it being the case, and no plausible alternative has been provided that adheres to the available evidence more so than the ToE. But, Dawkins often states that if another theory that fits with the evidence comes up that contradicts evolution, he would happily change his mind. He doesn’t see any indication that will happen in his lifetime, though. Creationism, for example, is not supported by any empirical/verifiable evidence.



This is flat out wrong. It is clear that you have a deep feeling of distrust for Dawkins, but he has explicitly stated that he is open to any new theory as long as it is supported by verifiable evidence to a greater degree than the ToE, which he doesn’t think possible.



Although I am a theist, I do understand that you are mistaken here. Atheism is merely the absence of theism. The only thing that is required is for one to be without a belief in God. There is no requirement for a believe that God does not exist, and many, even outspoken atheists explicitly say that they do not hold this belief.

"There is no requirement for a believe that God does not exist, and many, even outspoken atheists explicitly say that they do not hold this belief." I did not know this! BUT...isn't this just semantics. Could a person actually "not have a belief in God" but still think that a God exists? Am I missing something? I mean if a person thought that a God existed but didn't believe in a God...hummmm. My brain hurts...

 

[leibowde84]

"There is no requirement for a believe that God does not exist, and many, even outspoken atheists explicitly say that they do not hold this belief." I did not know this! BUT...isn't this just semantics. Could a person actually "not have a belief in God" but still think that a God exists? Am I missing something? I mean if a person thought that a God existed but didn't believe in a God...hummmm. My brain hurts...

An atheist can be someone who NEITHER holds a belief that God exists, nor holds a belief that God does not exist. In short, they can be undecided. Many incorrectly label these people as "agnostics", but that is merely a misuse of the term. Atheism applies to anyone who does not hold a positive belief that God and/or gods exist.

 

[SuzyL]

An atheist can be someone who NEITHER holds a belief that God exists, nor holds a belief that God does not exist. In short, they can be undecided. Many incorrectly label these people as "agnostics", but that is merely a misuse of the term. Atheism applies to anyone who does not hold a positive belief that God and/or gods exist.

And how does it differ from agnosticism then? I always thought it meant a person was "questioning" his or her beliefs. Is that correct?

 

[leibowde84]

And how does it differ from agnosticism then? I always thought it meant a person was "questioning" his or her beliefs. Is that correct?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

Nothing to do with belief, but, rather, knowledge.

 

[leibowde84]

And how does it differ from agnosticism then? I always thought it meant a person was "questioning" his or her beliefs. Is that correct?

You can certainly be an agnostic atheist or theist. I am the latter.

 

[SuzyL]

You can certainly be an agnostic atheist or theist. I am the latter.

Which means what? That you believe there probably is a God but that just don't know what that looks like?

 

[outhouse]

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact"
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). "

I find this true.

How can anyone deny facts???

But I personally would add more descriptions of those who do not agree with the facts of evolution. I don't think those who refuse this factual knowledge TAUGHT in every credible university world wide as all being labeled " ignorant, stupid or insane"

 

[outhouse]

. Dawkins is right when he says that there is no reasonable doubt when it comes to the ToE

There is only credible science and those who refuse knowledge.

There is no debate here, there are not two sides. Only those who refuse fact.