What is Faith?

[Nerthus]

It is not unjustified for many people.
They have their own brands of evidence..whilst it might not be established scientific evidence it is evidence nonetheless...to them.

I do agree that what is justified for one, is not for another. Although, I hesitate to use the word evidence in a lot of cases.

 

[jarofthoughts]

No it isnt empirical in the slightest, to think it is is laughably naive.
There is no real empiricality in the models of science, they are approximations of what we can measure and observe.
You are utterly subjective.

These models and approximations are based on empirical data, not subjective ones. Subjective data, also known as anecdotes, are practically worthless.

Look, science is well aware that it doesn't know everything (if you'll allow a little anthropomorphising ), otherwise it would stop. But it -is- the best and most effective way of figuring out how reality works. This conversation is proof of that.

2) Is subjective...a subjective view you have based on your own understanding...there is alternative evidence to suggest that the 4 physical dimensions of spacetime are not the only ones we have a presence in.

I never said they were, but what on earth makes you think that the dimensions mathematically postulated in for instance string theory are not physical?

You are quite wrong about 3) In my view supernatural phenomena, for example the phenomena known as ghosts, have been captured upon imaging devices and other instrumentation, its just not possible however to scrutinise ghosts in laboratory conditions...yet to dismiss the images and whatever else captured (such as audio recordings) as non real without a rational mudane explanation for the phenomena is basically...stupid.

Ghosts? Really? We're going there? :sarcastic
I have yet to see any evidence for any type of ghost that cannot be explained rationally and through mundane causes. And even if there were, no available explanation does not mean that you get to postulate whatever explanation you want. You'd still need objectively verifiable evidence that your explanation is correct.

Plenty of images exist that have no scientific explanation.

Plenty of phenomena as well, but that is no reason to think that there is something supernatural going on. To quote Tim Minchin; 'Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be... ...not magic'.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I thought you might think so...but that does not rule out the entirety of the paranormal such as Ghosts at all...they do interact with the physical...the observer and his camera.
Which by that definition means that they are real...they have some kind of physical presence or have an effect on the physical.

So, lens flares, weird lights, smudges on lenses, double exposures and photoshopped images equals ghosts? :sarcastic
Who knew...

 

[jarofthoughts]

There is no black and white jarofthoughts...

You'll notice that the cowboy on the left is black, while the cowboy on the right is white, with contrasting background of white and black, respectively.

the universe is not like some clockwork automaton...

That remains to be seen. Until then I'll stick with the stuff we have evidence for.

it is not reducable to human logic...

That also remains to be seen, although, I'll admit it probably won't happen in our lifetime.

there are subjective observational limitations...and quantum uncertainity is not the only one of them...LOL

To quote Dawkins; 'We're working on it'.

Do you 'believe' in virtual particles and/or imaginary time incidently jarofthoughts?

Depends on what you mean by 'believe' in. I'm not that well versed in Quantum Physics (Meow Mix might be a better bet there) but I know that both of these concepts are useful in a mathematical sense. I don't know, however, if they actually exist in a physical sense. I'd have to read up on that first.

 

[Willamena]

No it isnt empirical in the slightest, to think it is is laughably naive.
There is no real empiricality in the models of science, they are approximations of what we can measure and observe.

"Empiricality" is "what we can measure and observe."

 

[blackout]

OK, it's not the same as belief in the world, since that's justified by opening your eyes and ears. What we see around us is the world. We named what we see around us "the world". So that's justified. Belief in God is unjustified, unlike that belief in the world.

Unless of course your experience of Life/Self/UniVerse/Reality
IS that of 'God'.

 

[Willamena]

OK, it's not the same as belief in the world, since that's justified by opening your eyes and ears. What we see around us is the world. We named what we see around us "the world". So that's justified. Belief in God is unjustified, unlike that belief in the world.

But the fact that the belief in God doesn't need to be justified according to some is the whole point. It is unjustified, and therefore faith because it's belief based on no evidence.

God is just as real as the world, and equally justified by opening your eyes and ears. What we see around us, as the world, is an aspect of what we know to be there.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

"Empiricality" is "what we can measure and observe."

Empiricality is not limited by the scientific method and empiricality is not synonymous with the experimental method...there is the empirical method.

The word empirical is older than the scientifc method...


''The empirical method is generally characterized by the collection of a large amount of data before much speculation as to their significance, or without much idea of what to expect, and is to be contrasted with more theoretical methods in which the collection of empirical data is guided largely by preliminary theoretical exploration of what to expect. The empirical method is necessary in entering hitherto completely unexplored fields, and becomes less purely empirical as the acquired mastery of the field increases. Successful use of an exclusively empirical method demands a higher degree of intuitive ability in the practitioner''

Wiki - Empirical method

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

You'll notice that the cowboy on the left is black, while the cowboy on the right is white, with contrasting background of white and black, respectively.



That remains to be seen. Until then I'll stick with the stuff we have evidence for.



That also remains to be seen, although, I'll admit it probably won't happen in our lifetime.



To quote Dawkins; 'We're working on it'.



Depends on what you mean by 'believe' in. I'm not that well versed in Quantum Physics (Meow Mix might be a better bet there) but I know that both of these concepts are useful in a mathematical sense. I don't know, however, if they actually exist in a physical sense. I'd have to read up on that first.

LOL

You believe what you want...but dont think your beliefs are any less subjective than those of someone who believes the Sun is God....because they are not.

I am not interested in Miaow mix's opinion btw I wanted yours...read up on it and get back to me.

Dawkins unlike Hawkins has no deep understanding of physics..Hawkins understands the situation clearly.
There is no such thing as real as Hawkins demonstrates and Dawkins will never be able to pull himself out of his arse or the universe he is subjectively confined to.

 

[jarofthoughts]

"Empiricality" is "what we can measure and observe."

Empiricality is not limited by the scientific method and empiricality is not synonymous with the experimental method...there is the empirical method.

The word empirical is older than the scientifc method...


''The empirical method is generally characterized by the collection of a large amount of data before much speculation as to their significance, or without much idea of what to expect, and is to be contrasted with more theoretical methods in which the collection of empirical data is guided largely by preliminary theoretical exploration of what to expect. The empirical method is necessary in entering hitherto completely unexplored fields, and becomes less purely empirical as the acquired mastery of the field increases. Successful use of an exclusively empirical method demands a higher degree of intuitive ability in the practitioner''

Wiki - Empirical method

Both of you are correct.
There is no conflict here.

 

[jarofthoughts]

LOL

You believe what you want...but dont think your beliefs are any less subjective than those of someone who believes the Sun is God....because they are not.

Dawkins unlike Hawkins has no deep understanding of physics..Hawkins understands the situation clearly.
There is no such thing as real as Hawkins demonstrates and Dawkins will never be able to pull himself out of his arse or the universe he is subjectively confined to.

You seem really hung up on this whole subjectivity thing, don't you?

Look, it's not as if I'm not aware that everything I think is right could turn out to be wrong. But until then I'm making the assumption that observed reality is real. And people can mystify over that as much as they please, but the fact of the matter remains that science, whether people like it or not, works. And that is the long and the short of it. Now, I'm not saying that you reject science as such, you certainly don't come across that way, but there are plenty of people who do, generally without having studied science in the slightest detail.
And this they do all the while lavishing in the perks that science has brought them, criticizing everything from scientific theories to modern medicine, claiming that they need none of what the "elitist" scientists are telling them. That is pure hypocrisy if you ask me.
People really need to wake up and show some bloody gratitude to the amount of work that has been done to get us where we are today.

Now, you can postulate alternate realities and metaphysical dimensions all you like, but it won't get you very far because of one simple nugget that stops all supernatural musings in their tracks: There is not a shred of objective evidence that any of that is true.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Both of you are correct.
There is no conflict here.

I was ensuring that term Empiricality is not confused with the Experimental method.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As they say, you can't step into the same stream twice, and this thread certainly has moved on since I last posted.

It appears, in sum, that the atheist position is that one can't have faith in God unless one can prove God ontologically exists, or unless God is objectively obvious. OK then! No surprises there.

I wouldn't call that the "atheist position".

At least, I'm an atheist and it's not my position.

I would throw out there for reflection, though, the question of how one could measure or objectively prove the existence of an omnipresent God. If God is the basis of reality, the ground of being, there is going to be no ontological 'where' that God is not.

In that case, the question of the existence of God isn't one of empirical evidence, it's one of valid definition. What qualities distinguish a God from other things that are not Gods? Are these qualities present in "the basis of reality" but not in other things?

If you've simply decided to re-define terms so that "God" is simply the label for "the basis of reality and the ground of being", then what does it get you? If "God" has no meaning apart from this, then you need to justify any sort of claims about this "God" (e.g. pretty much any religious tenet or theological claim) on their own merits. If the label "God" brings with it other baggage (e.g. intelligence, personality, authority, "life force"-ness, appropriateness as a subject for worship), then you don't get to slap the label on without showing that the label is appropriate.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

You seem really hung up on this whole subjectivity thing, don't you?

Very...subjectivity is everything.

Look, it's not as if I'm not aware that everything I think is right could turn out to be wrong. But until then I'm making the assumption that observed reality is real. And people can mystify over that as much as they please, but the fact of the matter remains that science, whether people like it or not, works. And that is the long and the short of it. Now, I'm not saying that you reject science as such, you certainly don't come across that way, but there are plenty of people who do, generally without having studied science in the slightest detail.
And this they do all the while lavishing in the perks that science has brought them, criticizing everything from scientific theories to modern medicine, claiming that they need none of what the "elitist" scientists are telling them. That is pure hypocrisy if you ask me.
People really need to wake up and show some bloody gratitude to the amount of work that has been done to get us where we are today.

I understand what you are saying here and I do sympathise.
I am a scientist (chemist) myself...I spend all day in front of HPLC instrumentation analysing samples of water and soil...great fun.

Now, you can postulate alternate realities and metaphysical dimensions all you like, but it won't get you very far because of one simple nugget that stops all supernatural musings in their tracks: There is not a shred of objective evidence that any of that is true.

So what do you call Dark matter/energy then?

Hmmm?

 

[Meow Mix]

So what do you call Dark matter/energy then?

Hmmm?

Clearly, physical/empirical phenomena since they're observable, testable, and predictable (such as computer simulations have done).

Also in an earlier post you suggested that Hawking said nothing is real (in a post to jarofthoughts) -- what did you mean by that?

 

[Willamena]

I wouldn't call that the "atheist position".

At least, I'm an atheist and it's not my position.

Same here.

 

[jarofthoughts]

So what do you call Dark matter/energy then?

Hmmm?

Place-holders until we can figure out what they really are. :yes:

 

[Willamena]

If you've simply decided to re-define terms so that "God" is simply the label for "the basis of reality and the ground of being", then what does it get you? If "God" has no meaning apart from this, then you need to justify any sort of claims about this "God" (e.g. pretty much any religious tenet or theological claim) on their own merits. If the label "God" brings with it other baggage (e.g. intelligence, personality, authority, "life force"-ness, appropriateness as a subject for worship), then you don't get to slap the label on without showing that the label is appropriate.

What is "the basis of reality and the ground of being" such that she has redefined it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is "the basis of reality and the ground of being" such that she has redefined it?

I didn't mean to suggest that she did. I was just trying to cover my bases in terms of god-concepts.

What I was getting at is that, in general terms, there are the "____ meets criteria A, B, and C, therefore ____ is God"-type arguments and the "I define 'God' to mean ____"-type arguments. One way, you have to justify God's attributes on the front end, and the other way, you have to attribute them on the back end... but either way, you have to address them sooner or later if you want to actually use your concept of God for anything.

 

[Willamena]

I didn't mean to suggest that she did. I was just trying to cover my bases in terms of god-concepts.

What I was getting at is that, in general terms, there are the "____ meets criteria A, B, and C, therefore ____ is God"-type arguments and the "I define 'God' to mean ____"-type arguments. One way, you have to justify God's attributes on the front end, and the other way, you have to attribute them on the back end... but either way, you have to address them sooner or later if you want to actually use your concept of God for anything.

And if God is not attributable, such that there is nowhere God is not and nothing God is not, and similarly nowhere God is and nothing God is (the assignment of locality and substance being attribute), where does that leave your arguments?