What makes "belief" and "faith" so special?

[DetlefK]

I once posted a thread, asking how "faith" as a tool of revelation works. How do you start out? What step comes next? How do you finally find an answer to your problem?
I got one usefull reply, and it was "It's not about faith giving answers, it's about the journey."




So, I have a new question.

Why this insistence that "faith" and "belief" are the proper ways to handle religious questions?
If you as a human are confronted with a problem that is governed by the laws of nature and mathematics, a method of revelation based on doubt (e.g. the scientific method) is capable of delivering a solution. A method of revelation based on faith however is incompatible to such problems, because the underlying philosophical assumptions of faith are incompatible with the mathematical laws of statistics. (I can deliver a philosophical proof for that, if you want to see it.)



The question:
As faith is unable to solve problems you encounter in physical everyday-life, where does the assumption come from that faith is the only acceptable approach to handling questions about the spiritual side of life???

[skepticscott]

1. Because people need it

Lots of people have a deep emotional and psychological need to believe in this stuff, despite knowing deep down how ridiculous most of it is, and citing "faith" is the only way they can rationalize it.

But no one can answer the question of why "faith" (believing in unlikely things without good evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence) is any sort of a virtue, as opposed to an emotional weakness.

[SusanCalvin]

2. I know you are right, but I will never, ever understand it.

I know it exists, but, gut level, I just don't get it.

[rug]

4. You believe without evidence.

What is that called?

[SusanCalvin]

39. I don't. I never have, even as a child. That's why I will never get it.

If you are insinuating that I do believe without evidence, frankly I take that as an insult.

[rug]

42. "I know it exists, but, gut level, I just don't get it."

That is the belief without evidence.

Maybe you have other ways of knowing.

[SusanCalvin]

43. Gut level, I don't get believing without evidence.

I know some people believe without evidence. This is obviously a fact, which I accept.

What I will never be able to do is understand is why. Gut level, emotionally, I don't understand why people believe without evidence, although I accept the fact that they do.

There you go.

Oh, and are you always, at least in my perception, so gratuitously condescending? Rhetorical question - it's kind of amusing.

[rug]

44. There's nothing gratuitous about it.

[SusanCalvin]

46. I stand corrected.

Whatever floats your boat.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. No I don't.

I will, however, make assumptions within an acceptable margin of error, and subject to revision when evidence becomes available.

[rug]

3. Post your evidence that faith is an emotional weakness.

[skepticscott]

5. It'll follow right behind

your evidence for "god".

Oh..wait..you've arbitrarily declared your "god" exempt from the requirements of evidence that underlie rational thought, putting it on the same level of existence as that undetectable family of purple unicorns I have living in my garage.

You've answered your own challenge, ruggie..even though you don't know it

[rug]

8. I see. Once again - nothing.

You have an obvious habit of popping off with nothing to back it up.

BTW, your diversion is noted. If you have nothing to back up your claims, you should simply admit it. It will spare you embarrassment.

[skepticscott]

11. As I said, you first

If you can declare your claim of "god" to be exempt from the requirement of evidence, why should any other claim be subject to it in order to be accepted? I'm guessing you can't begin to muster a coherent answer to that.

Typical religionist..when evidence or the need to appeal to it serve your purpose, you're all over it, but when it undermines your agenda and reveals deep-seeded emotional need underlying everything, then evidence becomes superfluous or impossible, and you fall back on "faith" as an empty justification.

A tired and intellectually bankrupt dodge, ruggie. And as revealing of the weakness I spoke of as anything else I could provide.

[rug]

19. You can say it ten times. It's still your claim.

Not that I don't understand why you don't want to back it up.

And unlike you, I won't make a broad statement like "typical atheist", because that would be a bigoted statement. It's all you, scottie.

[skepticscott]

23. I'm going to follow your example, ruggie

I'm declaring the emotional weakness I mentioned to be "ineffable", and by your own argument, not something that requires evidence to make claims about. Since you've already declared that to be intellectually valid, my claim is exactly as reasonable to accept as yours concerning "god"is.

Hoist by your own petard.

[rug]

30. You've declared you have nothing.

Unlike your lame diversion, your claim is indeed subject to proof. You ain't got it.

I'll chalk it up as another blowhard statement.

[skepticscott]

40. I've shown that you have no more than me

to support your belief that "god" exists. If you say that's nothing, so be it. Or you could show us the evidence for your "god". Oh, wait...YOU'RE not required to provide evidence to back up your claims..only everybody else.

[rug]

41. You've shown nothing.

Your claim is clearly measurable, observable and now, by your smileys and avoidance, thoroughly debunked.

Read the other thread, post in the other thread if you want to talk about measuring a god. It will be amusing to see you flail there as well.

As for this thread, your claim is vacuous.

[Human101948]

51. Hey, could you have your god call me and vouch for you?

Until he'she does you haven't got a leg to stand on.

[rug]

52. Call yourself.

No charge.

[Human101948]

53. Phone is disconnected...

Actually there never was a connection.

[DetlefK]

7. Because it's an emotional state that puts you into danger:

"I wonder if everything worked out alright."

Faith says: "I'm convinced it worked out. No need to check."
Doubt says: "I don't know whether it worked out. Let's check whether it worked out or not."


Faith produces conclusions without the input of evidence. And if those conclusions are wrong, in a worst-case-scenario people will die.
Doubt produces conclusions with the input of at least some evidence. The odds of making a wrong conclusion are far lower.

[jonno99]

12. Faith says: "I'm convinced it worked out. No need to check." IMO This is a straw man. I've known

many "people of faith" and have never heard or seen the line of reasoning: "...no need to check"

btw - one component of faith is believing what can't be proven. IOW - if something can be "checked-out", we're most likely not talking about a matter of faith.

If I've misunderstood you, perhaps you could provide an example of a "no need to check" scenario...

[DetlefK]

45. 4 problems

Oh, believers do believe in some things that could be proven if they bothered to check.
For example, 9/11-truthers say "burning kerosine can't melt steel". It doesn't have to melt. Steel gets soft if it gets glowing hot. This can be checked.
For example, homeopathy-fans believe that chemicals leave an imprint into water and that water remembers what chemicals once were in there. This can be checked.
For example, religious believers believe that prayer has some effect. This can be checked.
For example, religious believers believe that extraordinairy events are miracles. All they would have to do would be to take a look at the probability of such a thing happening.




Another problem is that that which cannot be proven cannot be disproven. Accordingly, if something cannot be proven, it is equally justified to believe in "it" and to believe in "the opposite of it".
For example: Satanism. You cannot prove that God is the good guy in the Bible. He could just as well be the bad, oppressive guy and Satan is the good guy for trying to free mankind from God's influence. There is no discriminator why a person holding the Bible as the ultimate truth would pick one faith over the other.




Aaaand another problem: How can a believer tell things that cannot be proven and exist apart from things that cannot be proven and don't exist?
You cannot disprove God's brother Larry.
You cannot disprove that God is currently imprisoned in the body of a comatose guy after he was beaten up at a mini-golf court by daemon-spawn.
You cannot disprove that the guy in the mental asylum claiming to be God is God.




The problem with faith is that evidence and judge aren't separated. Your faith is the evidence and this evidence, that you provided, leads you to make a decision. Faith exists unconnected from the outside-world. The only discriminator is your faith. Not somebody else's faith. Your's and your's alone.

And now, what happens if you aren't the only person in the world? How are other people going to make decisions based on faith?
We just established that your faith is the evidence on which decisions are based.
But what if other people demand the right to make decisions based on their faith?
And what happens if the conclusion you reached from your faith contradicts the conclusion somebody else reached from their faith?

Faith cannot lead to impartial judgements, because every single judge is exclusively looking at different evidence, evidence he himself provides.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Bam.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Because people who know, don't need it.

[rug]

59. Bam? Are you claiming scientists are paragons of emotional health?

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-10-professions-with-the-highest-suicide-rates/?view=all'

Oh . . . . bam.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Correlation/causation.

Something a scientist would know.

Or we can just play tit-for-tat.

http://www.care2.com/causes/survey-finds-perceived-link-between-anti-gay-religious-messages-and-gay-youth-suicides.html

[rug]

65. That link does not demonstrate what you think it does.

The topic here is emotional heath. If you knew what you were doing, I'd say you're implying gay youth have poor emotional health. I'll just assume you don't know what you're doing.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Oh you want to play that game.

The one where people put words in other people's mouths.

Fine, let's explore the side of this that is actually valid. One can be in good general mental health, and still be at higher risk than the general population. At risk due to external forces/religious discrimination.

The majority of gay and bisexual men have and maintain good mental health, even though research has shown that they are at greater risk for mental health problems. Like everyone else, the majority of gay and bisexual men are able to cope successfully if connected to the right resources.

However, ongoing homophobia, stigma (negative and usually unfair beliefs), and discrimination (unfairly treating a person or group of people) can have negative effects on your health. Research also shows that, compared to other men, gay and bisexual men have higher chances of having:
•Major depression,
•Bipolar disorder, and
•Generalized anxiety disorder.

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/mental-health.htm

Who spends the most time creating that environment in american society where they are discriminated against?

Religious people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_religion

I see the catholic church is on point with it's normal soft discrimination of 'sure, you can join us and give us your money, just never ever ever express any physical attraction with the sort of person you are attracted to, ever.'

Therein laying the groundwork of establishing homosexuality as a 'outgroup' or 'other', the very foundation of discrimination.

I see the Humanists seem to be on the right side of this issue. Pity for your religion.

[trotsky]

6. The last refuge of the defenders of religious privilege is, as you note...

the insistence that religion provides "answers" to questions that science cannot. However, I would argue that something can hardly be called an "answer" if it cannot be examined and verified, or worse, could quite possibly be different for everyone. That's not an answer, that's a response. It is no more accurate or representative of reality than the next person's guess.

But as scott notes above, this is stuff people *want* to believe. In most cases, they've been programmed with it from childhood. It's comforting, and our brains are hard-wired to see agency in things.

[mr blur]

9. Faith seems to be the perfect way to answer questions about the 'spiritual' side of life.

Demands no scientific knowledge or training, isn't subject to the bother of testing or proof and means that you can believe any old drivel, however unpleasant, unfair or bigoted while feeling better about yourself. Plus it has the extra attraction of allowing the believer to feel privy to some secret knowledge, thus making them feel 'special' - even 'chosen.

This how dangerous cults - from the $cientologists to the RCC - work.

The answer to you question "where does the assumption come from that faith is the only acceptable approach to handling questions about the spiritual side of life???" is that with faith, no-one can ever prove you're wrong.

[Festivito]

10. Here's a try.

Let me start by defining.

An idea is something we hold. A belief is an idea that holds us.

As an example, let me use scientific method. It is a grand idea. Some people believe in it. They might say: it is a revelation based on doubt and that it "is capable of delivering a solution." As capable of solving, it is an idea that holds one to use it to search for solutions, even when those solutions are not yet present. The idea holds the person to work at finding solution.

Faith is a little beyond belief. It is a conviction that the idea will achieve a needed goal, in this case, solve the problem. As an example, again, some people will so believe in science's ability to solve their problems that they will completely discard any other method, e.g. religion. What that act exemplifies is being more than a believer in science, being held by the idea of science to solve personal problems, it, rather, represents a true conviction that science will solve their problem and other methods will not or should not be trusted.

For your final question:
As the very old scientific idea that everything consists of earth, air, fire or water began to fail in light of atoms and molecules, some still held to the old idea and may have been rewarded in doing so in ways we could explain today, but, not back then. A conviction against some new idea along with a couple of good problems solved with the old idea that the newfangled science did not help one iota. One such person might hold to that old idea to the exclusion of anything else.

That is, they had faith in that old method over and above that other idea.

Gotta go.

[trotsky]

14. Thank you for a lovely demonstration of equivocation.

Well done.

[Festivito]

20. What equivocation and where? Or, did you mean: elaboration, in which case, thank you.

[trotsky]

21. I used the word I intended to.

http://adamkemp.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/30/797564-faith-faith-and-equivocation

Equivocation is when someone uses a word with two or more meanings as if it has only one meaning. Usually this is done to compare two things and make them seem similar, ignoring the fact that the different meanings of the word in question point to important differences between the things being compared.

In my experience, the most common example of this fallacy is with the word "faith". Let's start by looking at some possible common meanings of the word "faith":

1. Belief in something without proof
2. Belief in something without evidence or reason
3. Trust in someone or something
4. A religious belief or set of beliefs ("my faith...&quot

Given those definitions, see if you can find the equivocation fallacy in this argument:

Feel free to read on at the link, because he describes in great detail what you just did and why it's wrong.

[Festivito]

25. Ah. There is still no what equivocates or where it is, requested in my last post. eom

[trotsky]

27. Oh, I thought you would figure that out from the excerpt given.

"Faith."

You also did it with "idea" and "belief," but "faith" was the most egregious.

[Festivito]

32. Used twice, 1. defined and 2. used in a sentence. That cannot be equivocal use.

In order to equivocate, there would need be at least two uses in parallel and then the person calling out an equivocation would go on to point out what that difference is.

Rather than equivocation, could it be that you do not think the use exemplifies the definition, in which case it would be proper to say that the definition and use differ and to point out that difference and express it.

[trotsky]

33. Yes, it is equivocation.

The OP makes it quite clear he is referencing *religious* faith.

Your post makes use of the definition that means conviction or confidence in an idea.

Equivocation. We can keep going if you'd like, but you are clearly guilty of the fallacy.

[Festivito]

36. Ah-ha! You're saying the OP use of faith differs from my definition and usage -- just not how.

That I'm guilty of equivocating when my use differs from the OP's use, which is unusual since it is usually one person that equivocates.

[trotsky]

47. The simplest definition of equivocation:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/equivocation

a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.

Nothing to do with whether it's one person or not. Please proceed.

[jonno99]

13. It seems to me that the discussion is moot - unless there is a god/creator.

And - if one is convinced there is a god, then it would be prudent to understand what (if anything) this deity requires of his creation.

I think Rug makes a valid point in this regard:
"I am saying that it is not only okay to believe in a god(s) but that it is reasonable to do so."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218225508#post28

[skepticscott]

15. By that argument, if it's reasonable to believe in any one god

then you have to accept the existence of each of the thousands of other "gods" that humans have worshipped as equally likely. You have to assign the same likelihood of existence to Jehovah as to Isis, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Baal, and boatloads of others. Is that what you're arguing?

Or should we simply recognize that this is just a dodge to try to render the existence of the Xstian god (and no others) exempt from rational examination?

[jonno99]

17. It seems to me that the question stands on it's own: is it reasonable to

hold the idea that the origin of all matter has a source - or "cause"?

If that idea is reasonable, why deride those who hold it (to me, that is unreasonable)?

[trotsky]

22. Because as we all know, that's not the summation of religious belief.

Your belief goes well beyond the simple idea that "the origin of all matter has a cause," as does pretty much every religion.

This tactic is the old bait-and-switch - back your belief way off to general, nebulous claims full of ambiguous terms, such that no objection could possibly be made... and then when no one's looking, slap back on all the extra baggage about sins and resurrection and communion or whatever else your religion entails.

[jonno99]

29. Please see my below reponse to SS...nt

[skepticscott]

24. Except that it isn't the same question

Unless you're going to use the pre-loaded argument that "god" is whatever that "source" is, even though there is no reason to believe that any of the gods were talking about resemble or derive from it.

As trotsky points out, that's not the "god" or "religion" of anyone arguing here. It's just a dodge.

[jonno99]

28. It is the same basic question:

Is it reasonable to assume a god/creator, a "being" who is the originator of all matter?

Simple question - is it reasonable? If so, then what are we to do about it? It seems you are fine with accepting the possibility of a creator, BUT apparently we must leave it at that - we cannot explore this any further. Which of course is non-sensical.

Why? Because the first question begs a reasonable followup: if one is convinced there is a god, would it not be prudent to attempt to understand what (if anything) this deity requires of his creation?

You call the followup a dodge - an attempt I guess, to shoe-horn Christianity into an acceptable position. I say "explore all possible explanations" and let the chips fall where they may...

[trotsky]

31. There is a huge problem with your reasoning:

The typical definition of "god" essentially walls it off from any kind of human understanding.

Either "god" is a supreme being that humans cannot possibly begin to comprehend, or it is something that can be studied and analyzed to determine, as you claim we should, what it "requires from (its) creation."

Otherwise, please tell me what method we can use to A) propose one of these requirements, and B) verify it by confirming it aligns with your creator's wishes?

[jonno99]

34. That is a curious response. I've simply asked two questions.

Don't you ever ask yourself the first question? If you do - and answer 'no', I think that is reasonable - at least you've thought about it.

If others however, respond 'yes' to the first question, that is a also a reasonable response - agreed?

You don't like my followup question? I'm fine with that. What do you propose as a better follow-up question (given my faulty reasoning) - what should someone do? Nothing?

[trotsky]

35. No, I'm pointing out your line of reasoning is flawed.

If we allow that there is a supreme creator of the universe, and if we allow that we should attempt to determine its plan for creation, there is no way to do so.

[jonno99]

37. "there is no way to do so" Of course - unless the creator chooses to

make itself known.

Which begs the question: what would that look like?

[trotsky]

38. Tell you what - when you can get some agreement on that,

let the rest of us know.

Because right now, everything proposed for what that might look like is indistinguishable from a person just making it up.

[jonno99]

48. Well, a few thoughts come to mind:

1. truth is not necessarily determined or defined by consensus (of course).
2. however, if you are looking for consensus (something that most everyone seemed to have gotten the message), then I humbly offer that "pridefulness" is almost universally condemned. In the Christian tradition it is said that "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble..."

my two cents...

[trotsky]

49. One step back first:

Aren't you making a pair of giant assumptions that IF there is a sentient creator of the universe, that it:
A) Actually has a plan for its creation, and
B) Wants us to know it?

I mean, I can envision a scenario like an accidental creation of our universe - perhaps we are a bubble universe, created incidentally during a science experiment in another dimension, our existence in their timeframe might not even amount to a femtosecond. The creator in that situation might not even know it created something, let alone an entire universe, and that sentient beings arose in it.

Then to respond to your thoughts:
1. Why would a creator that *wants* us to know its plan make it so that only one individual, or a small group, knows the "truth"? Put yourself in your proposed creator's place - if you love and care about your creation, wouldn't you want to clearly communicate to them?
2. How could we tell the difference between a universe with a creator whose plan includes "don't be prideful" and a universe without a creator in which humans evolved and formed social groups and the most successful social groups were the ones that figured out "don't be prideful" was a good rule to live by?

[jonno99]

50. All great questions - all great points. But it merely brings us back to my first statement:

...if one is convinced there is a god, then it would be prudent to understand what (if anything) this deity requires of his creation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=225958

Put yourself in your proposed creator's place - if you love and care about your creation, wouldn't you want to clearly communicate to them?

Perhaps he has. And perhaps pride is a serious impediment to clear communication.

Gotta run - It's been good "talking" to you...

[trotsky]

54. But your first statement is where it goes off the rails.

In the example I gave you, where the universe has a creator who didn't know they created a universe, and certainly didn't know sentient beings were a result of the creation - there is no point in trying to understand what it "requires" of its creation. So no, it's not "prudent" to do so, and in fact is a waste of time.

"...perhaps pride is a serious impediment to clear communication."

So basically what you're saying with that is, your understanding of what the creator wants is correct, and anyone who disagrees with you is too prideful?

And I noticed you completely ignored my 2nd question:

How could we tell the difference between a universe with a creator whose plan includes "don't be prideful" and a universe without a creator in which humans evolved and formed social groups and the most successful social groups were the ones that figured out "don't be prideful" was a good rule to live by?

[jonno99]

57. In answer to your questions:

there is no point in trying to understand what it "requires" of its creation. So no, it's not "prudent" to do so, and in fact is a waste of time.

Of course there is a point; if in fact we do have a soul, wouldn't it be prudent to preserve it? But again, you are trying to force your own template onto reality. And it seems that if what you find doesn't align with that template it must be discarded. However, there are many who accept my first statement as true, and they are are willing to be wrong; they search & learn and attempt to self-correct and continue on; they are not satisfied with declaring "it can't be verified - so I'm giving up".

"...perhaps pride is a serious impediment to clear communication."

So basically what you're saying with that is, your understanding of what the creator wants is correct, and anyone who disagrees with you is too prideful?

Of course not. This was made in response to you're point: "wouldn't you want to clearly communicate to them? ". The point is simply that if there is a "don't be prideful" requirement, we shouldn't be surprised if our pride creates interference.

How could we tell the difference between a universe with a creator whose plan includes "don't be prideful" and a universe without a creator...

Well, this is the crux of the OP isn't it? In the end we who accept the possibility of a creator are left with hope and faith. Of course this answer is unacceptable to those who require proof (in the Christian tradition they would call this a "stumbling block": "God opposes the proud but give grace to the humble&quot . It should be noted that this answer is also difficult for those who don't require proof - even the Mother Teresa's of the world...

[trotsky]

58. Hold on there.

Of course there is a point; if in fact we do have a soul, wouldn't it be prudent to preserve it?

No one said anything about souls yet, you just brought that up. You've introduced several elements of your specific theology (souls, afterlife, faith, bible verses, etc.) when in fact the discussion isn't nearly ready to proceed to that level. We are talking about possible creators. I have presented one in which your appeal (that we should try and figure out what it wants) is pointless. Is it not just as reasonable to believe in that kind of creator? What makes your creator more reasonable to believe in than mine?

we shouldn't be surprised if our pride creates interference.

Why shouldn't we be surprised? What you're saying then is that our creator created us with something that blocks us from determining what it wants. What a cruel prank! Are you sure your god's name isn't Loki?

In the end we who accept the possibility of a creator are left with hope and faith.

Wrong. I've given you just one example of a creator in which there is no possibility of hope or faith, or pleasing it, because it doesn't even know we exist.

Anyway, if this discussion is to proceed, you need to decide if we are going to debate the claims of your specific religion or if we are still just analyzing the possibilities of accepting the existence of a creator. Quit bouncing back and forth as you desire.

[trotsky]

60. Any response yet? n/t

[jonno99]

62. My appologies for bouncing.

In answer to..

Anyway, if this discussion is to proceed, you need to decide if we are going to debate the claims of your specific religion or if we are still just analyzing the possibilities of accepting the existence of a creator. Quit bouncing back and forth as you desire.

We are back to my original point:

It seems to me that the discussion is moot - unless there is a god/creator.

And - if one is convinced there is a god, then it would be prudent to understand what (if anything) this deity requires of his creation.

You're correct - there is no point in debating further if we can't get past this point: is it reasonable to assume there is a creator?

But then we're back to #28:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218225930#post28

[trotsky]

63. I thought that was answered.

For the sake of argument, I have granted that it is reasonable to believe there is a creator. I even described one. Your challenge now is to prove that it's *more* reasonable to believe in your creator than it is in mine.

[jonno99]

64. So, just to be clear, is the following scenario the one to which your are referring?

(I'll call it the spilled petri-dish universe)

I mean, I can envision a scenario like an accidental creation of our universe - perhaps we are a bubble universe, created incidentally during a science experiment in another dimension, our existence in their timeframe might not even amount to a femtosecond. The creator in that situation might not even know it created something, let alone an entire universe, and that sentient beings arose in it.

If so, I reject it out-of-hand, simply because of the incredibly poor odds of a planet emerging from such an accident that would be capable of supporting human life - much less one containing an environment where life spontaneously emerges.

[trotsky]

66. May I see the statistical analysis you've done...

to determine the odds of such a planet emerging from such a universe? Surely with such a definitive statement, you must have some pretty sobering numbers. Please share them!

[jonno99]

68. Which numbers would you like?

the mind-boggling, the mind-numbing, or the ridiculously unlikely?

Let's be honest. You see the world as it is, find no (acceptable) evidence for a creator, and therefore assume natural processes are the cause of what we see. You can't prove natural causes, but you postulate that because the odds are not 0 it must be possible - nature found a way.

IOW - plenty of folks have calculated the odds of an "accidental earth", those numbers are not hard to find. But because you assume that natural causes are the answer, obviously then the "unlikely" numbers are wrong and can be dismissed - correct?

[trotsky]

69. No, let's really be honest.

No one has any idea what the odds are that intelligent life could have arisen in this universe - we only know that it did. You're the one assuming that it couldn't be possible without a creator specifically in the form of your god.

The "folks" you have referred to, who have supposedly calculated the odds, are young earth creationists. They put forth lies and exaggerations and misinformation like the "747 in a junkyard" analogy. If you are going to seriously offer up their nonsense, this discussion is over.

But as long as we don't know exactly how this universe came about, you are free to speculate a sentient creator for it. However you have no more evidence for your creator than I have for mine. They are equally likely or unlikely at this point, that's all we can say.

Or can you disprove my creator? Please try if you think you can.

[jonno99]

70. response:

You're the one assuming that it couldn't be possible without a creator specifically in the form of your god.

I've never made this claim. But given the odds...

The "folks" you have referred to, who have supposedly calculated the odds, are young earth creationists.

All of them? No. I could dig around and provide you links to the ones I've read, but would it really matter to you?

However you have no more evidence for your creator than I have for mine. They are equally likely or unlikely at this point, that's all we can say.

No argument here...

Or can you disprove my creator?

Of course not. But given the odds...

[trotsky]

71. Alright, I'll bite.

Given *what* odds? You've now staked your entire argument on a statistical analysis that you claim exists which conclusively demonstrates the odds of life originating in a universe that your god didn't create.

Let's see the math.

[jonno99]

72. Please, now it seems you're being disingenuous.

Do YOU honesty think that the odds favor accidental life? Even Hawkings admits that life outside our own planet is not a given:

Maybe the probability of life spontaneously appearing is so low, that Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, or in the observable universe, in which it happened.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/11/stephen-hawkings-wager-we-have-been-overlooked-by-advanced-et-civilizations.html

Are you gonna ask Hawkings for his math?

[trotsky]

73. I'm completely serious.

The quote from Hawking is not data that supports your position. Please provide the statistical analysis you say exists.

[jonno99]

74. I'm completely serious as well. It's not difficult however, to see where your headed -

I'll provide numbers which you discredit as disreputable, then I supply more numbers which you'll discredit as disreputable, when really all we're after is trying to reach a consensus on the IDEA: Do the odds favor accidental life?

You made the point that it is the young-earthers that believe the odds are unfavorable, so I brought in Hawkings.

Remember, this sub-topic started with my statement:

If so, I reject it out-of-hand, simply because of the incredibly poor odds of a planet emerging from such an accident that would be capable of supporting human life - much less one containing an environment where life spontaneously emerges.

So what are you after? A discussion about numbers - or the idea? I notice you're not disputing Hawkings (or are you?), so what is your point - to spend half a day disputing numbers? If so, I'm not interested.

So - do you dispute Hawkings? Why or why not?

[trotsky]

75. Hawking is not making the point you think he is.

He's pondering why we haven't encountered intelligent alien life yet. That we are the only example is just one of the many possibilities. He mentions others. He is not providing any statistics that would be useful to you in your assignment.

Instead, you are just waving your arms trying not to prove what you claimed, namely that there is statistical evidence showing how ridiculously remote the chances are of intelligent life arising in a universe that came into existence in some other manner than your god willing it so.

That is our sticking point right now. Recall that I said my example of a creator (the one who isn't aware of the universe they created) is just as likely as yours. You said nope, that my creator isn't nearly as likely because the odds of us existing in a universe like that are too remote.

Provide those odds, or concede the point.

[jonno99]

79. Yes, we can all see what Hawkings is discussing, and yes, in Hawkings' "ponderings"

he provides insight into his thoughts on the probability of spontaneous life:

Maybe the probability of life spontaneously appearing is so low, that Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, or in the observable universe, in which it happened.

I can see that you really want to ride your universe pony I'm calling "spilled petri-dish", but like it or not, I'm standing with Hawkings on this one: it could just be that life on earth is a one-off...

[trotsky]

81. First off, his name is Hawking. Not "Hawkings."

If you're going to anchor your erroneous argument on a single out-of-context quote of his, the least you can do is get his name right.

Second, he is offering up the possibility that life is so rare in the universe as one of the explanations for why we haven't detected any other intelligent life yet. He is not in any way saying life is so rare, perhaps even unique, that we are definitely or even most likely alone and that is the ONLY explanation. That's YOUR desperate spin - that's what you NEED him to have said, because it's the only thing you've been able to find to try and justify your claim.

Yes, it could just be that life on earth is a one-off, but that is a FAR CRY from what you have claimed - that life *IS* just a one-off or so rare that it's nearly impossible to have arisen in a creator-less universe.

Since you have utterly failed to provide justification for your statement, your position has been completely undermined. I gave you more than enough chances, but you failed. Thanks for playing, and better luck next time. Please feel free to have the last word if it makes you feel better.

[Iggo]

16. Faith is belief in the impossible.

Homie don't play that.

[hrmjustin]

18. I don't solve my everyday problems with my faith.

My faith guides me in my values but it is just a guide.

[nichomachus]

26. "Faith" is a misnomer and is incorrectly used

Faith is an openness to the universe and a confidence in the universe as it changes and unfolds.

What most people mean when they use the term is not that, but rather adherence to dogma.

Nobody wakes up one morning and says, "Gee, I believe in a triune god in which the son proceeds from the father and there is a holy spirit who proceeds from the two of them, so that there are three distinct persons in the same god."

That is a complex and convoluted dogmatic construct, and people are told they have to believe it to belong to a certain group. So, they say they believe it, even though most have no idea what it means.

The result is adherence to a dogma that is a house of cards. That's why they can't examine their beliefs, because the slightest breeze can bring the whole dogma down around their shoulders.

[LisaM]

76. I think that faith is a very variable term. It doesn't have to mean faith in God (or a god) per se.

If the question is a serious one, I'll answer by saying that faith in some ultimate concept of good is what reins us in, which makes us accountable to a higher purpose in ourselves, rather than always taking a selfish path.

I can't say I always succeed, but when I do conquer some of my innate selfishness without needing any kind of reward/compensation, I think I do so because I believe that it's a better thing to do. Winning these internal battles does have its own rewards, especially when I don't go talking about them.

[DetlefK]

77. So, faith is just a feeling???

[LisaM]

78. I didn't say that - I think it's a belief in some ultimate concept of good

and the "good" I refer to could take abstract or concrete form.

[DetlefK]

82. But that just moves the problem of legitimacy to the word "belief".

As in: "Why should I care about beliefs?"

[LisaM]

84. Why should we care?

Why should we at all? Well, we have souls. Which is what leads me to a knowledge of a higher value.


The addition of souls to our earthly frame gives me the question. Why were we given souls?

[DetlefK]

87. The more I discuss with believers, the more religion confuses me.

So, somehow there isn't a defintion for God that believers can agree on.
But they insist that he exists.

"Believe" has two meanings and believers jump back and forth between them as they please.
But they insist that the act of believing is important and serious.

Somehow every believer has a different defintion what "faith" is.
But they insist that it's totally important to have it.

[Albertoo]

80. What makes "belief" and "faith" so special? In-group and out-group markers

There used to be an evolutionary advantage to believing in gods (as lightning rods for the fears of humanity faced to many unknowns). This evolved into large religions.

There is an evolutionary advantage in belonging to a big, self protecting group which large religions are in part. Partaking in a religious ritual stamps you as part of the in-group.
A TV report about Mormons showed if you're in Salt Lake City, it's tougher to do business if you're not a Mormon yourself. Very hard if you're an Atheist. In-group, out-group.

Other than that, religious "belief" and "faith" are surrenders of critical faculties to books riddled with inconsistencies and patently absurd affirmations (6 days creation, Adam,..)

[DetlefK]

83. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that "belief" and "faith" havespecial definitions for believers.

Though it's hard to tell what exactly those definitions are.

I have seen "belief" being defined not as a mode of thinking, but as a life-style. (Basically.)

I have seen "faith" being defined as a mindset, not as something separable from yourself.



Though it would explain a few things: Being accused of having the wrong belief would effectively mean having the wrong culture. Being accused of lacking faith would effectively mean thinking in an abnormal way.

[Fix The Stupid]

85. This right here..."in-group / out-group" dynamics

Religious people 'belong' to something...and not only that, they can point their fingers at those who are not part of their cult, ie. the out-group.

What does it take to be 'religious' or faithful, or be part of a church?

Absolutely nothing but the surrendering of your critical thinking and logic skills.

There is no test. There are no skills needed. You don't have to be 'good' at anything. So, take a person who has all these traits, or lack of traits, and what better 'group' to join then the one that anyone can join just by uttering a few phrases or prayers or whatever...

Bonus being you can point at the 'others' and think you are superior for having 'faith" or whatever your cult requires of you.

It's a fantastic scam.

[Albertoo]

86. Not so much a fantastic scam as an unfortunate heirloom

I started by mentioning why religions appeared: evolutionary benefit of 'explaining' the dangers around. Storm, thunder & illnesses = monsters and demons. Sunshine and pretty clouds = angels. End of rationale.