Where Do You Find Faith?

Off Topic
202

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Yeah, you could really use it to argue either way.

Atheist: “Faith is a vestigial biological impulse that imparted a survival advantage on the species by helping us to cement tight knit community groups based around shared beliefs, providing a wellspring of optimism in the face of adversity and helping us reconcile with that which we can’t understand rationally. Humans continue to mistakenly interpret this emotion as proof of God.”

Theist: “An intelligent and fundamentally benevolent God designed us to trust and seek Him, even though He is unseen. Each of us has an inherent yearning to believe in something greater, more mysterious and all encompassing than what we can see/know directly through our senses. Some humans mistakenly direct this impulse toward things other than God.”

Either could be true. Elements of both could be true. I’ve got a pretty good handle on what I believe, but it’s interesting either way.

204

[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]

Science doesn’t require faith? Science is objective? That’s interesting.

Three tenets of Cell Theory:
1.) All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
2.) The cell is the most basic unit of life.
3.) All cells arise from pre-existing, living cells.

Where did the first cell come from?

205

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Where did the first cell come from?
[/quote]

That is what’s known in the community as the Battle Cell ™.

206

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Yeah, you could really use it to argue either way.

Atheist: “Faith is a vestigial biological impulse that imparted a survival advantage on the species by helping us to cement tight knit community groups based around shared beliefs, providing a wellspring of optimism in the face of adversity and helping us reconcile with that which we can’t understand rationally. Humans continue to mistakenly interpret this emotion as proof of God.”

Theist: “An intelligent and fundamentally benevolent God designed us to trust and seek Him, even though He is unseen. Each of us has an inherent yearning to believe in something greater, more mysterious and all encompassing than what we can see/know directly through our senses. Some humans mistakenly direct this impulse toward things other than God.”

Either could be true. Elements of both could be true. I’ve got a pretty good handle on what I believe, but it’s interesting either way.[/quote]

Nothing wrong with throwing Pascal’s Wager into this mix.[/quote]

The problem I have with Pascal’s Wager, in my limited understanding, is that it treats belief as a kind of hell prophylactic, just in case God happens to exist. Faith becomes an onerous series of sacrifices which, while something of a pain in the ass in this life, beats eternal damnation. Pay your dues by going to church on Sunday, just to be on the safe side.

Never mind that this supposes that Christianity is the correct path to God (what if we needed to keep Kosher?), it sounds pretty depressing to me.

Conversely, if one were to posit that faith can yield benefits in the here and now, regardless of whether God exists in the objective sense, and if it turns out that God doesn’t exist it has cost you nothing, I would find that a much more compelling argument than “you might go to hell when you die”.

The problem either way is that this isn’t really a question of logic, but feeling.

207

I personally don’t see the question of whether science requires faith as all that important.

The more important questions are:
what type of question is science currently designed to answer;
what type of question is science currently most useful in answering; and
what is the current state of scientific usefulness based on the current state of scientific knowledge.

Say, for example, I wanted to travel to mars. For me, personally, if I had the resources, I’d look to people who understood the scientific principles necessary to get me there and have faith that they would use sound science to accomplish the task. I think even most (not all) devoutly religious people would agree that this is the type of question or problem that is best suited to science to answer, and they are not going to find the technical path to mars laid out in their bible or other holy texts.

Now say, for example, I wanted to know how the laws of physics came about or what happened before the Universe was created or whether there were supernatural forces at work that designed it all. At least in our current state on knowledge, these questions are scientifically unknowable and science doesn’t do a good job answering these questions. Will science answer these question in the future? I don’t know and I accept the fact that there might be some questions that might never get answered.

The flip side is, religion also shouldn’t be masked as science, because it makes science less useful at what it is actually designed to do and what it does well. Intelligent Design theory purports to the answer the question of how the laws of physics were formed and claims that the theory is based in science.

It isn’t, even if the theory is based on math, data, observable things, or other science-related principles, because the theory, at least in our current state of knowledge, is untestable and incapable of refutation or verification in the same way that the claim that there is no god or no creator is not testable or refutable. Its just not the type of question science is currently designed to answer or at least currently capable of answering.

I currently have “faith” that science is good at answering some important questions and that it will get better at doing so, but I don’t have “faith” that science is capable of answering all the important questions.

208

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I personally don’t see the question of whether science requires faith as all that important.

The more important questions are:
what type of question is science currently designed to answer;
what type of question is science currently most useful in answering; and
what is the current state of scientific usefulness based on the current state of scientific knowledge.

Say, for example, I wanted to travel to mars. For me, personally, if I had the resources, I’d look to people who understood the scientific principles necessary to get me there and have faith that they would use sound science to accomplish the task. I think even most (not all) devoutly religious people would agree that this is the type of question or problem that is best suited to science to answer, and they are not going to find the technical path to mars laid out in their bible or other holy texts.

Now say, for example, I wanted to know how the laws of physics came about or what happened before the Universe was created or whether there were supernatural forces at work that designed it all. At least in our current state on knowledge, these questions are scientifically unknowable and science doesn’t do a good job answering these questions. Will science answer these question in the future? I don’t know and I accept the fact that there might be some questions that might never get answered.

The flip side is, religion also shouldn’t be masked as science, because it makes science less useful at what it is actually designed to do and what it does well. Intelligent Design theory purports to the answer the question of how the laws of physics were formed and claims that the theory is based in science.

It isn’t, even if the theory is based on math, data, observable things, or other science-related principles, because the theory, at least in our current state of knowledge, is untestable and incapable of refutation or verification in the same way that the claim that there is no god or no creator is not testable or refutable. Its just not the type of question science is currently designed to answer or at least currently capable of answering.

I currently have “faith” that science is good at answering some important questions and that it will get better at doing so, but I don’t have “faith” that science is capable of answering all the important questions. [/quote]

Solid post.

209

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

I currently have “faith” that science is good at answering some important questions and that it will get better at doing so, but I don’t have “faith” that science is capable of answering all the important questions. [/quote]

So… How do you fill the gaps then? If at all.

Personally, I don’t really bother with the gaps, lol. Shit is over my head in any appreciable detail, and I’m pretty comfortable with my belief/faith/interpretation and/or relationship with the god concept. But it’s fun to chew the fat over.

210

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I personally don’t see the question of whether science requires faith as all that important.

The more important questions are:
what type of question is science currently designed to answer;
what type of question is science currently most useful in answering; and
what is the current state of scientific usefulness based on the current state of scientific knowledge.

Say, for example, I wanted to travel to mars. For me, personally, if I had the resources, I’d look to people who understood the scientific principles necessary to get me there and have faith that they would use sound science to accomplish the task. I think even most (not all) devoutly religious people would agree that this is the type of question or problem that is best suited to science to answer, and they are not going to find the technical path to mars laid out in their bible or other holy texts.

Now say, for example, I wanted to know how the laws of physics came about or what happened before the Universe was created or whether there were supernatural forces at work that designed it all. At least in our current state on knowledge, these questions are scientifically unknowable and science doesn’t do a good job answering these questions. Will science answer these question in the future? I don’t know and I accept the fact that there might be some questions that might never get answered.

The flip side is, religion also shouldn’t be masked as science, because it makes science less useful at what it is actually designed to do and what it does well. Intelligent Design theory purports to the answer the question of how the laws of physics were formed and claims that the theory is based in science.

It isn’t, even if the theory is based on math, data, observable things, or other science-related principles, because the theory, at least in our current state of knowledge, is untestable and incapable of refutation or verification in the same way that the claim that there is no god or no creator is not testable or refutable. Its just not the type of question science is currently designed to answer or at least currently capable of answering.

I currently have “faith” that science is good at answering some important questions and that it will get better at doing so, but I don’t have “faith” that science is capable of answering all the important questions. [/quote]

This. Really well said.

Push, I don’t have a lot of time to write an articulate response to your questions but this post by jjack is a good reflection of my thoughts on intelligent design.

IMO, science classes in the public schools should be focused on experimental design and the application of the scientific method. ID becomes problematic for the reasons jjack talked about.

As a parent, I am free to teach my kids about how this fits into my belief system, if I believe science reveals how God works, strengthens my faith in a creator, or how I grapple with the mysteries.

212

for pushharder:
maybe IF we did not indoctrinate young minds into religion at age 4 , but waited to expose them to it until they where 13 we would not rank 27 in the world in science and math ?

This:Religious Children Struggle To Separate Fact From Fiction | IFLScience

and this: - YouTube

so, where do I find Faith ? In myself and my abilities !

213

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
for pushharder:
maybe IF we did not indoctrinate young minds into religion at age 4 , but waited to expose them to it until they where 13 we would not rank 27 in the world in science and math ?

so, where do I find Faith ? In myself and my abilities ![/quote]

You really believe we’re not first place in random-ass science and math tests because of religion?

214

Correlation? Any? Maybe if everyone observed the Sabbath the science and math averages would rise?

215

magick, just read the iflscience link. I believe that will answer the question for you.

That and we have propagated an entire generation of self-absorbed entitled pathetically wimpy pussies !

218

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
magick, just read the iflscience link. I believe that will answer the question for you.

That and we have propagated an entire generation of self-absorbed entitled pathetically wimpy pussies ![/quote]

…

No, the link doesn’t do anything at answering my question.

As for the link and what it says in the abstract of an study that we cannot read (Why is it that people never link the fucking actual study!@#)… Children also believe that Santa Claus and the fucking Tooth Fairy actually exist if their parents tell them. Children fucking believe that there are monsters in the closet or under the bed. Children frequently come up with imaginary friends and somehow justify in their minds the fact that their parents can’t see said friend while they can.

Who the fuck cares what 5 and 6 year-olds believe in?

219

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
for pushharder:
maybe IF we did not indoctrinate young minds into religion at age 4 , but waited to expose them to it until they where 13 we would not rank 27 in the world in science and math ?
[/quote]

Maybe if we didn’t let people eat Burger King 3 times a day we wouldn’t rank #1 in obesity.

See I can create correlation out of thin air too!

220

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Correlation? Any? Maybe if everyone observed the Sabbath the science and math averages would rise?[/quote]

Aww you beat me to it.