The dictionary gives two definitions of faith
faith |fāθ|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
New Oxford American Dictionary
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Don't be offended when I point out a logical fallacy in something you say, WS. I don't mean it to be critical of you or your thinking, just alerting you to something that may lead you into a false conclusion. I believe that the majority of people think illogically all the time. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but for someone who wants to get to the truth of a matter, it's a major obstacle.Originally Posted by wildside50
Anyway, since you ask, that's not really a logical fallacy there. It's more like a broad assumption, based on maybe "hopeful thinking". The entire statment would read, "Since we know that Mankind has evolved and gained knowledge for as long as it has existed, we can expect that it will continue to do so". That's just a statement of expectation, in other words, a prediction. Might turn out to be true, might not.
However, if you were saying that, "because Mankind has evolved and learnt in the past, that proves it will continue to do so", well, I don't have to point out the flaw in that thinking. There most likely is a term in Logic for that, but I'm not so familiar with Logic that I can cite all of the terms. Used to be able to, though. Studied the subject, aeons ago.
Oh no no no Krute. We've had too many good discussions the last couple of days for me to be offended. It was an honest question meant with no snarkiness whatsoever. DAMN INTERNET! No intonation.
My point in rephrasing was to assert that I have faith in that statement. Of course the future can neither be proven nor disproven. I should state "I theorize that..." but I choose not to. I have faith in that statement. Perhaps that makes me blindly faithful of humanity?
EDIT: Hopefully by now Krute you can feel free to criticize, argue, point out faults, or whatever you want with me. I won't take offense. I value your opinion and perspective. No kid gloves necessary.
Last edited by wildside50; 2010 September 8th at 01:02.
Wildside, do me a favour and never get up on your roof for any reason. I'd hate to lose you because of a "good idea"!
But while I'm at it, I have to ask why you call a demonstrable fact of the physical world, a "good idea"?! That implies a mind to think of that "good idea". Whose mind was that "good idea" formed in?
Exactly.I'm just saying, we think that sub-atomic particles are the smallest matter. We all just take it, somewhat on faith I feel, as fact based on the best knowledge we have available at this time. Then in like the 70's they discover Quarks. Now we change our belief, and put our faith in that.
But I think "faith" isn't the right word to use, there. To me, the phrase "having faith in" carries a certain connotation of "risk if you don't". Religious people do two things - (1) they believe in a supernatural entity, and (2) they place their faith in that entity that he will do something for them. But I think it's possible to believe in God, yet at the same time place absolutely no faith in him.
So, I don't like to use the word "faith" when referring to acceptance of a demonstrable fact. A skydiver, for instance, expects that the laws of aerodynamics will ensure that his parachute will open and billow and give him a safe landing. But that's not faith, because whether or not he has "faith" in the laws of aerodynamics, they'll work anyway.
I choose the former definition. The latter is more of the conotative definition (is that an oxymoron?)
Good point, Doc.
I don't mean a good idea in so much as "iiiiiiiiiiii'm not so sure about this 'gravity' thing all the kids are talking about...". More in the mathematical understanding of how it works. It still is technically a scientific theory. A very well thought out, studied, and tested theory. But we can only test so much here on Earth and in our solar system. What if it turns out what we know as gravity is actually due to a galaxy sized 2 year old pushing his thumb down on our solar system? Far fetched sure, but we can't really test that. I feel we have to have faith, for now, that that isn't true.
JINX ON CONNOTATION! But I don't think its fair to not use a word simply because of it's connotation. If I offer you a faggot on a deserted island, and you take offense instead of starting a fire, that ought not be my fault.
Yeah, damnit! While we're talking semantics and such, maybe we ought to try to coin a word for that phenomenum.
"Net Nuance Deficit"? NND for short.
Well, nothing wrong with optimism, WS. I hope you're right. Personally, I have a much bleaker view, but that's just me.My point in rephrasing was to assert that I have faith in that statement. Of course the future can neither be proven nor disproven. I should state "I theorize that..." but I choose not to. I have faith in that statement. Perhaps that makes me blindly faithful of humanity?
Right back at you, WS.EDIT: Hopefully by now Krute you can feel free to criticize, argue, point out faults, or whatever you want with me. I won't take offense. I value your opinion and perspective. No kid gloves necessary.
I might argue that if the Bible is right, whether or not you have faith in the Bible, it'll work anyway.
I interpret this very differently — as the Hubble Ultra Deep image cornreaper posted shows, every time we build a better telescope, we find more stuff farther away (and further removed in time) to look at with it. Every time we build a better microscope, we find tinier, more elemental stuff to look at. If anything, I "have faith" that as soon as somebody gets a good look at a Higgs boson, someone will very shortly ask, "What gives rise to it? What's it made of? And can we get a look at that?"
Hahaha!
I see I'm dealing with a well-educated man here.
Well, I think a word's connotations have a direct bearing on its interpretation, and the context in which it can correctly be used. But maybe you're right, here. Bit hard to find a word other than "faith" or "belief" when referring to a skydiver's confidence in aerodynamics.
Hmm, this'll take some thinkin' on. Lurlene, fetch me my thinkin' stick!
By the by Krute (don't you love idioms?), where in Australia do you live? I love when I play Halo 3 and it shows a world map of where people are playing, the only people playing in Australia are along the coast. I know for sure you're not one of them!
Fair enough. But I'd counter that with the question, "How would you know it worked?"
.......... see you in hell? *rimshot*
Yes, you're right, I'm not a Gamer, WS.
I do live on the east coast, but not by the sea. Inland at Brisbane, capital city of Queensland. It's a mild Spring day here. Beautiful.
Yeah, that's the catch, isn't it. Churches can make any claim they want to, since they don't have a Complaints Department.
Funny thing is, if it's all true, we'll all find out too late. If it's not true, we'll never find out.
Now, that doesn't seem fair.
Okay after talking with my wife, I've thought of a followup question:
Can you deny there is an infintesimally small chance that whenever you do an experiment, some powerful being effects the outcome, and can effect it the same way each and every time (thus making it repeatable)?
If the answer is yes, that can be denied, than to me you have faith in science.
If the answer is no, then hey, maybe there is a God?
Nice racket: "Eternal salvation, or double your money back!"
You want to know what my God's honest (see what I did there?) belief is? If there is a God, he doesn't need me telling him how great he is every day, and would certainly forgive me for having a scientific approach to life. I don't want to believe in a God who would punish Stephen Hawking for writing a book attempting to prove God is not needed for creation. So I choose to believe that any higher power would let that one slide.
Quite right, Erik. I think Wildside was saying pretty much the same thing.
What always takes the wind out of my sails is the thought that, no matter how much of the universe we eventually get to observe, it cannot possibly be enough, because space is infinite.
But then, surely that's impossible? But then again, if it does "stop" somewhere, what exists beyond it? Even totally empty space is "a place".
That's headache material.
That's a good question!
I wouldn't try to deny the possibility of that happening. Mainly because there's absolutely no evidence for it, either way. And it would be impossible to find any evidence, anyway. An entity such as God is supposed to be, could do that without any risk of being detected by us.
But the fact that I deny it doesn't mean that I have faith in science. Again, I prefer to use a less-loaded word. I'd say that I have confidence that what I observed a thousand times before, I'll very likely observe another thousand times, all else being equal.
In fact, the only time I would suspect the intervention of God would be if the experiment failed for no demonstrable reason. And even then, I'd need to find a satisfactory reason for his doing it, before I was totally convinced.
Yep, well, many a "preacher man" has promised virtually that. Of course, they usually say it while they're inside a really big tent.
Yes, exactly. That's the major stumbling block for me. As soon as they tell you there's a god, and he created you and he's infallible and good, etc, they hit you with the disclaimer. You have to behave a certain way for as long as you live, otherwise you get a Fail.
I can't for a second believe that such an entity would be like that. I think whatever happens after we die, if anything, everybody gets it.
Because if it really is a true, substantial fact, like all the other facts of Nature, then it must adhere to the same rules. Nature is random and neutral, so god, being part of Nature, would be, too.
That's an interesting point Krute. Is it as simple as semantics? Maybe the religious among us just have confidence in what was learned by those before them (Peter, John, Philip, Bart, etc...), and not blinding faith.
Posting Permissions
