Faith and science

[Hail Mary]

Two questions with distinct answers from my point of view. The first was intended for those inclined to answer in more general terms while the second was intended for those who wanted something more specifically spelled out. I'm not usually able to get a thread of mine to last past a few responses, so I've been consciously trying to find ways to engage more people.

I love discussions rather than debates. Discussions are fun, debates are tedious. I'll try and watch for any of your threads, but if you're interested in discussion, drop a private message to me!

I'd have to admit my previous conception of human mortality was wrong. People who have been dead for 2000 years shouldn't be able to walk into my living room wearing a physical body that I could examine in detail, let alone record on digital videotape. It would be a life transforming experience in every way.

Okay, I'm definitely on the road to losing this bet! So I'll tell you what I was trying to work towards. Some people have faith that science will answer all questions of the natural world. Your above response still allows that interpretation, in that a 2000 year old body could be resurrected in some way by scientific means.

To continue my above answer: I would specifically have to abandon the idea that humans cannot be gods, or at the very least, something that could pinch hit for a god on most ball teams. I would also be forced to look for extra-natural influences on day to day events. I would lose the ability to have faith in repeatable phenomena, no matter how carefully recorded.

Wow, okay the bet is complete. You have won the pearls, congratulations!

I'm interested though, are you Jewish or Muslim in background with a 'conversion' to Taoism? The idea of humans can't be gods is Jewish or Islamic in origin. I think most Christians look at it as God can be human!

To go beyond your question, the most profound effect would not be on my scientific knowledge, but on my spiritual faith, which, though profoundly different from your own, is still more important to me than my scientific understanding.
Perhaps some Cliff Notes are in order. Any time you see a thread started by me, it's safe to assume it's intended as a discussion thread, rather than as a debate thread. The more interpretations expressed, the merrier. I know people seem to enjoy the heated battle threads more, but it's just not my thing, and that could be why I never get more than a few responses.

Perhaps this is a different thread, but without really knowing anything about my personal faith, how can you say we are profoundly different? Most of the time, I'm actually fairly shocked to find how similar are all of our faiths, but for Taoism, admittedly, I've only read the Tao of Poo, and that's about it

In this specific case, a miracle would have forced you to rethink your entire view of the natural and supernatural, that is one of the main concepts in Christianity, so I don't really see much difference there.

(Congratulations on the pearls, don't spend them all in one place!)

[Jedidiah]

From a perspective of pure reason, faith is a fallacy. You are creative in placing together a subjective series of "adequate tests" then forgoing reason in the move to allow the conclusions therein to form your faith; the certain truth of your conclusions.

Are you suggesting my approach to life falls short of pure reason? Substitute 'confidence in" for "the certain truth of" and you would be a little closer to my definition.

Think if it like painting a painting, your "tests" are the paint, and the canvas is your faith. At first the canvas is blank, and you have no faith. You start painting with "tests" and end up with a painted canvas which is your faith. It is creative because it is subjective which "tests" you use to paint your canvas.

I have to say your analogy is creative. Not valid, in my opinion, but creative.

Think of it as building a building that will stand up under adverse conditions. You begin stacking block until they fall down. You modify your structure to improve stability. It keeps falling down. You evaluate the various bits and eventually you see something that would have been obvious at the first if you had only understood how things fit together. You tear down your entire building and make a new one according to your new vision.

For what it is worth.

[Jedidiah]

To continue my above answer: I would specifically have to abandon the idea that humans cannot be gods, or at the very least, something that could pinch hit for a god on most ball teams. I would also be forced to look for extra-natural influences on day to day events. I would lose the ability to have faith in repeatable phenomena, no matter how carefully recorded.

Please allow me to deal with this small part of your comments to the General.

I do not accept the idea that a human can be a god. I do accept the idea that the One God can, if He so chooses, take on humanity. The first take is that of Mormonism. The second is Christianity. Yes, looking at it from the ground the both look the same.

I believe that Jesus was resurrected after three days, but this does not change my normal faith in usual way of dealing with repeatable phenomena. It is possible that some things are just not normal repeatable events. Why give up something that works?

[lao tzu]

I love discussions rather than debates. Discussions are fun, debates are tedious. I'll try and watch for any of your threads, but if you're interested in discussion, drop a private message to me!

Sure, Ripper,

(Subtle cognitive shift there, have you ever seen "Tank Girl"?)

http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimag...0jetflies1.jpg

No! The one on the left! (I wish we could link images in here, too.)

Okay, I'm definitely on the road to losing this bet! So I'll tell you what I was trying to work towards. Some people have faith that science will answer all questions of the natural world. Your above response still allows that interpretation, in that a 2000 year old body could be resurrected in some way by scientific means.

Are you familiar with Clarke's Third Law? Pay especial attention to the corollaries.

Sure, since the effects result in something naturally observable, there's no reason the observations themselves can't be treated scientifically, but if it walks like a god, and talks like a god, the question reduces to one of semantics.

I take it as a given that a sufficiently advanced intelligence could fool me into believing anything it wanted me to believe. And there's not thing one I could do about it, so why bother trying? Better to suck up and see if the SAI or god or whatever you want to call it is willing to drop some fresh veggies in my stew. If it wants to poison me, I'm toast anyway.

Wow, okay the bet is complete. You have won the pearls, congratulations!

I'm interested though, are you Jewish or Muslim in background with a 'conversion' to Taoism? The idea of humans can't be gods is Jewish or Islamic in origin. I think most Christians look at it as God can be human!

Being human, I've argued before, means accepting both human abilities and inabilities. Direct communication between natural and extranatural realms is a perquisite of gods. The inability to do so is part of what makes us human. While a god could probably mimic all of my abilities, mimicing my inabilities doesn't seem possible. On the other hand, I can't even mimic a god's abilities, and I have no reason to believe any human can.

Perhaps this is a different thread, but without really knowing anything about my personal faith, how can you say we are profoundly different? Most of the time, I'm actually fairly shocked to find how similar are all of our faiths, but for Taoism, admittedly, I've only read the Tao of Poo, and that's about it

In this specific case, a miracle would have forced you to rethink your entire view of the natural and supernatural, that is one of the main concepts in Christianity, so I don't really see much difference there.

As a Taoist, I see what's beyond the horizon as naturally indescribable and accept those limitations. As a christian, you see what's beyond the horizon as taking on a describable personality. That's a pretty profound difference. My Tao involves pushing the horizon back, not jumping over it completely.

(Congratulations on the pearls, don't spend them all in one place!)

(NOW you tell me! Heck, they were spent even before I got 'em! It's a taoist thing, y'understand. )

As ever, Jesse

[Zarathustra]

Are you suggesting my approach to life falls short of pure reason?

Yes.

Substitute 'confidence in" for "the certain truth of" and you would be a little closer to my definition.

The problem here is that you cannot know "the certain truth of" of the sun coming up tomorrow, because you may have missed a test that has a valid 'the sun won't come up tomorrow' conclusion. So subjectively to the tests you have done one applies faith to make them true and one applies faith to the tests one hasn't done to make them untrue. Thus you then create your faith on:

A. That the tests you have done are correct and pointing to conclusion.
B. The tests you havn't done\thought of have no bearing to validity of conclusion.

I have to say your analogy is creative. Not valid, in my opinion, but creative.

My analogy is the same as the one you have created below.

Think of it as building a building that will stand up under adverse conditions. You begin stacking block until they fall down. You modify your structure to improve stability. It keeps falling down. You evaluate the various bits and eventually you see something that would have been obvious at the first if you had only understood how things fit together.

If you change block to paint, tower to canvas and adverse conditions to artistic scrutiny. You would have the same analogy.

You tear down your entire building and make a new one according to your new vision.

Yes, you create a new one, according to your new subjective vision.

Thus you are creative in the faith you construct yourself.

[Jedidiah]

The problem here is that you cannot know "the certain truth of" of the sun coming up tomorrow, because you may have missed a test that has a valid 'the sun won't come up tomorrow' conclusion.

Exactly why I remove "certain truth" and replace it with "confidence."

[Zarathustra]

Exactly why I remove "certain truth" and replace it with "confidence."

Then you don’t have faith the sun will rise. You have justified true belief that it will rise.
There were a few more points to my post then just this, are they conceded?

[lao tzu]

(Zarathrusta, I've been enjoying your comments,
but please do remember this is not intended as a debate thread,
and as such unanswered points are probably best described
as undiscussed, rather than conceded.)

[Zarathustra]

(Zarathrusta, I've been enjoying your comments,
but please do remember this is not intended as a debate thread,
and as such unanswered points are probably best described
as undiscussed, rather than conceded.)

G'day Taoist,

Sorry to have disrespected your previously stated intensions of this thread. Thanks for using a small font to point it out.

[Zarathustra]

Howdy Jedidiah,

It was uncalled for for me to make the inference that the points were conceded, this should be a discussion not a debate. I apologize for making in into the latter. Please disregard my comment.

Personally, I have been enjoying this thread and your comments, Cheers

[Jedidiah]

It was uncalled for for me to make the inference that the points were conceded, this should be a discussion not a debate. I apologize for making in into the latter. Please disregard my comment.

That is okay, it went over my head anyway.

[lao tzu]

I do accept the idea that the One God can, if He so chooses, take on humanity.

Hi Jed,

I actually tried to incorporate a response to this in my last reply to the Ripper.

Being human, I've argued before, means accepting both human abilities and inabilities. Direct communication between natural and extranatural realms is a perquisite of gods. The inability to do so is part of what makes us human.

In my view, insofar as a humanified god retains any divine abilities that surpass those of the humans around him, he fails to become fully human. I find a humanified god unsatisfying in the same sense a deified human is unsatisfying. As I personally possess no divine abilities, any attempt to emulate either of these seems pointlessly vain.

From a perspective of pure reason, faith is a fallacy.

I fail to see how this does not apply equally to any theoretical science. Pure reason is a deductive process, where both faith and science are inductive, creating theories or theologies to link together discrete observations exactly because deduction leaves gaps to be filled.

As ever, Jesse

[Jedidiah]

Howdy,

I actually tried to incorporate a response to this in my last reply to the Ripper.

Being human, I've argued before, means accepting both human abilities and inabilities. Direct communication between natural and extranatural realms is a perquisite of gods. The inability to do so is part of what makes us human.

In my view, insofar as a humanified god retains any divine abilities that surpass those of the humans around him, he fails to become fully human. I find a humanified god unsatisfying in the same sense a deified human is unsatisfying. As I personally possess no divine abilities, any attempt to emulate either of these seems pointlessly vain.

If you make your definition the only way to deal with the issue, I would have to agree with you. I, however, do not see any use to this aspects of your definition of "man" beyond eliminating the acceptabilty of Jesus as both human and divine. Seems to be somewhat circular to me.

Jed

[lao tzu]

Howdy,

If you make your definition the only way to deal with the issue, I would have to agree with you. I, however, do not see any use to this aspects of your definition of "man" beyond eliminating the acceptabilty of Jesus as both human and divine. Seems to be somewhat circular to me.

Jed

Hiya, Jed,

There are other uses.

Actually, I first formulated that principle in an entirely secular context, and I'd say it's a mark of its strength that it's useful here as well. I usually stress human inabilities when discussing moral and ethical principles.

Consider. Free choices are only as free as the available options. Everyone agrees with that. But I go further and say that the available options are conditioned by false knowledge. That's the origin of the "fantastic other" I inserted earlier.

More succinctly, trying to make sense of contradictory data is a fundamental part of the human condition. This is an important truth when discussing human ethics and morality. It also just happens to be an aspect of humanity not available to a god.

As ever, Jesse

[Zarathustra]

I fail to see how this does not apply equally to any theoretical science. Pure reason is a deductive process, where both faith and science are inductive, creating theories or theologies to link together discrete observations exactly because deduction leaves gaps to be filled.

It does apply to theoretical science as well, It was put there to show that even the reasoned conclusions from 'tests' can be brought into doubt.