Where Do You Find Faith?

Off Topic
181

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lmao @ the religious in this thread being more open minded than the anti’s.

[/quote]

Not everyone in the anti’s is a total dick about it, and I’d agree evolution doesn’t explain everything. But I would disagree that intelligent design is a scientific theory for the basic reason that its not testable or refutable and depends on the supernatural. That doesn’t mean the theory isn’t true, its just not based in science.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/science-evolution-and.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0427_050427_intelligent_design.html

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm

[/quote]

Which is all fine and dandy, until people start treating “scientifically verifiable” as meaning “objective truth” or “gospel.” Because that’s how people seem to take it. Many people anyway.

I’ve got no problem acknowledging that the God I believe in, too many, doesn’t seem real. And that many people, unless they experience something similar to what I did, will NEVER believe in him. But too often I’m told that either I’m wrong or my experience doesn’t count because it’s “not testable.”

182

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

Blaze: My argument isn’t a straw man. I’m not arguing against something that isn’t being argued in the first place. You argue that evolution disproves the possibility of intelligent design. It doesn’t. Not even close.[/quote]

There is no way to completely and utterly disprove anything related to life and God 100%. In any case, argumentum ad ignorantiam. That being said, given the criteria of intelligent design, evolution flies in its face. Given scripture, evolution flies in its face. It disproves it enough.

Won’t like the answer because it’s not an answer but a cop out? Try me. The answer better not be “God intended it to be so” or “he’s testing your faith”.

ID or teleological arguments generally imply that the designer is God, are generally used as proof for the existence of God (as it is being used in this thread). I feel it is a relevant point and was worth mentioning.

Yes, but it’s not conducive to the discussion progressing intelligently. Do I really need to disprove that there is a flying spaghetti monster or can we all agree that it’s a load of bull? Throwing idiotic what-ifs helps no one.

183

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lmao @ the religious in this thread being more open minded than the anti’s.

[/quote]

Not everyone in the anti’s is a total dick about it, and I’d agree evolution doesn’t explain everything. But I would disagree that intelligent design is a scientific theory for the basic reason that its not testable or refutable and depends on the supernatural. That doesn’t mean the theory isn’t true, its just not based in science.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/science-evolution-and.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0427_050427_intelligent_design.html

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm

[/quote]

Which is all fine and dandy, until people start treating “scientifically verifiable” as meaning “objective truth” or “gospel.” Because that’s how people seem to take it. Many people anyway.

I’ve got no problem acknowledging that the God I believe in, too many, doesn’t seem real. And that many people, unless they experience something similar to what I did, will NEVER believe in him. But too often I’m told that either I’m wrong or my experience doesn’t count because it’s “not testable.”[/quote]

I would say its not that your view doesn’t count, or that you are wrong, or that God is or isn’t real, its just that science is useful for some things and not for others. Science is based on observations, repeatability, and testability, and it explains how lots of things work, but doesn’t explain everything or even necessarily speak to where we all come from ultimately. Some things are, at least currently, scientifically unknowable.

184

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

I’ve got no problem acknowledging that the God I believe in, too many, doesn’t seem real. And that many people, unless they experience something similar to what I did, will NEVER believe in him. But too often I’m told that either I’m wrong or my experience doesn’t count because it’s “not testable.”[/quote]

So… You’d say you’re more open minded that those that think they are better for you and more enlightened because they have faith in different things?

:wink:

185

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

I’ve got no problem acknowledging that the God I believe in, too many, doesn’t seem real. And that many people, unless they experience something similar to what I did, will NEVER believe in him. But too often I’m told that either I’m wrong or my experience doesn’t count because it’s “not testable.”[/quote]

So… You’d say you’re more open minded that those that think they are better for you and more enlightened because they have faith in different things?

;)[/quote]

Do you understand what the word “faith” means? Do you understand that faith is subjective, where science is as objective as we can in terms of proving laws and facts about the universe?

186

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lmao @ the religious in this thread being more open minded than the anti’s.

[/quote]

Not everyone in the anti’s is a total dick about it, and I’d agree evolution doesn’t explain everything. But I would disagree that intelligent design is a scientific theory for the basic reason that its not testable or refutable and depends on the supernatural. That doesn’t mean the theory isn’t true, its just not based in science.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/science-evolution-and.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0427_050427_intelligent_design.html

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm

[/quote]

Which is all fine and dandy, until people start treating “scientifically verifiable” as meaning “objective truth” or “gospel.” Because that’s how people seem to take it. Many people anyway.

I’ve got no problem acknowledging that the God I believe in, too many, doesn’t seem real. And that many people, unless they experience something similar to what I did, will NEVER believe in him. But too often I’m told that either I’m wrong or my experience doesn’t count because it’s “not testable.”[/quote]

I would say its not that your view doesn’t count, or that your are wrong, or that God is or isn’t real, its just that science is useful for some things and not for others. Science is based on observations, repeatability, and testability, and it explains how lots of things work, but doesn’t explain everything or even necessarily speak to where we all come from ultimately. Some things are, at least currently, scientifically unknowable. [/quote]

This seems like a fairly sober and well reasoned view. I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to leave this discussion.

188

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Some things are, at least currently, scientifically unknowable. [/quote]

Which I’ve seen referred to as “gaps”. And that theists are “accused” of placing their faith in to fill those gaps. While atheists place their faith that science will fill the gap eventually.

The knobs analogy is a gap. The fact that some of the brightest scientific minds in the world acknowledge that the universe functions on very intense and specific formulas we call math. That which if any one of the numerous ones were changed, ever so slightly, would destroy the entire fabric of reality.

Different strokes, different folks and all that. What matters is everyone does what they need to do personally to get through the day.

189

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Different strokes, different folks and all that. What matters is everyone does what they need to do personally to get through the day. [/quote]

Yup. I also think a touch of civility and humility on this topic goes a long way, especially when conversing with those that might see the world differently.

190

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Which I’ve seen referred to as “gaps”. And that theists are “accused” of placing their faith in to fill those gaps. While atheists place their faith that science will fill the gap eventually.
[/quote]

Or they accept that some gaps might never get filled. But, yes.

191

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

I’ve got no problem acknowledging that the God I believe in, too many, doesn’t seem real. And that many people, unless they experience something similar to what I did, will NEVER believe in him. But too often I’m told that either I’m wrong or my experience doesn’t count because it’s “not testable.”[/quote]

So… You’d say you’re more open minded that those that think they are better for you and more enlightened because they have faith in different things?

;)[/quote]

Do you understand what the word “faith” means? Do you understand that faith is subjective, where science is as objective as we can in terms of proving laws and facts about the universe?[/quote]

Exactly, science is objective, methodical and driven by a spirit of relentless inquiry. It begins with the supposition that we do not know the answers. It recognizes it’s own limitations and seeks to surpass them. That is precisely what makes it so useful in solving a multitude of problems.

This is why I find it so odd when people who claim to espouse science as the basis of their world view champion that view with rabid emotionalism, prejudice and the dogmatic certainty that they have or will have all the answers, or at least enough of the answers that the questions that they can’t answer don’t matter.

This attitude seems diametrically opposed to what science is supposed to stand for. How is this different from the religious person whose faith teaches love but whose actions show hate? Because science is “true” and religion isn’t? Even if that’s accurate so what?

Whether your beliefs are factually accurate or not, of principle importance is how they cause you see and act in the world.

192

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Different strokes, different folks and all that. What matters is everyone does what they need to do personally to get through the day. [/quote]

Yup. I also think a touch of civility and humility on this topic goes a long way, especially when conversing with those that might see the world differently. [/quote]

We both know that isn’t going to happen. One side or the other is going to continue to launch their pet insults they get from their pet websites and messages boards. It’s always the same tired insults, same tired expressions that I grew up with, and grew away from.

Not to pick on one side, but in the land of the internet you aren’t having this discussion without the bigoted “spaghetti monster” type riffs. It just isn’t going to happen. Hasn’t ever happened on this board, isn’t going to happen. I really can’t recall a religion thread without it. That’s how original the bigot is.

193

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

I’ve got no problem acknowledging that the God I believe in, too many, doesn’t seem real. And that many people, unless they experience something similar to what I did, will NEVER believe in him. But too often I’m told that either I’m wrong or my experience doesn’t count because it’s “not testable.”[/quote]

So… You’d say you’re more open minded that those that think they are better for you and more enlightened because they have faith in different things?

;)[/quote]

Do you understand what the word “faith” means? Do you understand that faith is subjective, where science is as objective as we can in terms of proving laws and facts about the universe?[/quote]

Exactly, science is objective, methodical and driven by a spirit of relentless inquiry. It begins with the supposition that we do not know the answers. It recognizes it’s own limitations and seeks to surpass them. That is precisely what makes it so useful in solving a multitude of problems.

This is why I find it so odd when people who claim to espouse science as the basis of their world view champion that view with rabid emotionalism, prejudice and the dogmatic certainty that they have or will have all the answers, or at least enough of the answers that the questions that they can’t answer don’t matter.

This attitude seems diametrically opposed to what science is supposed to stand for. How is this different from the religious person whose faith teaches love but whose actions show hate? Because science is “true” and religion isn’t? Even if that’s accurate so what?

Whether your beliefs are factually accurate or not, of principle importance is how they cause you see and act in the world.[/quote]

To paraphrase: science is useful but its usefulness has limits; it isn’t necessarily designed to answer every important question. And neither a belief in science nor a belief in religion nor a belief in both require us to be dicks to those who disagree with our world view. That’s just a choice we make in how we interact with others.

194

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Different strokes, different folks and all that. What matters is everyone does what they need to do personally to get through the day. [/quote]

Yup. I also think a touch of civility and humility on this topic goes a long way, especially when conversing with those that might see the world differently. [/quote]

We both know that isn’t going to happen. One side or the other is going to continue to launch their pet insults they get from their pet websites and messages boards. It’s always the same tired insults, same tired expressions that I grew up with, and grew away from.

Not to pick on one side, but in the land of the internet you aren’t having this discussion without the bigoted “spaghetti monster” type riffs. It just isn’t going to happen. Hasn’t ever happened on this board, isn’t going to happen. I really can’t recall a religion thread without it. That’s how original the bigot is. [/quote]

The evidence appears to support your thesis. :slight_smile:

195

[quote]batman730 wrote:
This is why I find it so odd when people who claim to espouse science as the basis of their world view champion that view with rabid emotionalism, prejudice and the dogmatic certainty that they have or [b]will have[b] all the answers, or at least enough of the answers that the questions that they can’t answer don’t matter.

[/quote]

So in other words, they have faith? Faith that “we’ll figure it all out eventually”?

196

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

I’ve got no problem acknowledging that the God I believe in, too many, doesn’t seem real. And that many people, unless they experience something similar to what I did, will NEVER believe in him. But too often I’m told that either I’m wrong or my experience doesn’t count because it’s “not testable.”[/quote]

So… You’d say you’re more open minded that those that think they are better for you and more enlightened because they have faith in different things?

;)[/quote]

Do you understand what the word “faith” means? Do you understand that faith is subjective, where science is as objective as we can in terms of proving laws and facts about the universe?[/quote]

Exactly, science is objective, methodical and driven by a spirit of relentless inquiry. It begins with the supposition that we do not know the answers. It recognizes it’s own limitations and seeks to surpass them. That is precisely what makes it so useful in solving a multitude of problems.

This is why I find it so odd when people who claim to espouse science as the basis of their world view champion that view with rabid emotionalism, prejudice and the dogmatic certainty that they have or will have all the answers, or at least enough of the answers that the questions that they can’t answer don’t matter.

This attitude seems diametrically opposed to what science is supposed to stand for. How is this different from the religious person whose faith teaches love but whose actions show hate? Because science is “true” and religion isn’t? Even if that’s accurate so what?

Whether your beliefs are factually accurate or not, of principle importance is how they cause you see and act in the world.[/quote]

To paraphrase: science is useful but its usefulness has limits; it isn’t necessarily designed to answer every important question. And neither a belief in science nor a belief in religion nor a belief in both require us to be dicks to those who disagree with our world view. That’s just a choice we make in how we interact with others.
[/quote]

Works for me.

197

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
This is why I find it so odd when people who claim to espouse science as the basis of their world view champion that view with rabid emotionalism, prejudice and the dogmatic certainty that they have or [b]will have[b] all the answers, or at least enough of the answers that the questions that they can’t answer don’t matter.

[/quote]

So in other words, they have faith? Faith that “we’ll figure it all out eventually”?
[/quote]

Well yeah, I was deliberately trying to avoid being inflammatory, but that’s part of what I was getting at in a read between the lines kind of way.

We seem biologically predisposed to have faith. The object of that faith may change, but the impulse endures, for better or for worse. Overall, I think for better, but that’s just me.

Edit: Not sure why my reply is bolded too. Unintentional.

198

[quote]batman730 wrote:

We seem biologically predisposed to have faith. The object of that faith may change, but the impulse endures, for better or for worse. [/quote]

Interesting.

I never really thought of that to be honest. Would lend itself to more of a atheistic point of view or theistic point fo view, depending on your perspective.

I messed up the bold lol. Forgot the “/”

Edit: I have thought about it, but not in those terms, that language or put that way, which has made me thing on it differently.

199

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lmao @ the religious in this thread being more open minded than the anti’s.

[/quote]

Not everyone in the anti’s is a total dick about it, and I’d agree evolution doesn’t explain everything. But I would disagree that intelligent design is a scientific theory for the basic reason that its not testable or refutable and depends on the supernatural. That doesn’t mean the theory isn’t true, its just not based in science.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/science-evolution-and.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0427_050427_intelligent_design.html

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm

[/quote]

Intelligent design is in the realm of religion. Agree, I don’t want to see intelligent design taught in schools. And I’d be very concerned about any institution of high learning that eschewed evolution.