What is the value of faith?

[cosmosdan]

@mswas

Voyager I think part of the problem here is that faith has become a loaded term. It seems like many people here are using a version of faith that is synonymous with delusion. Both Judaism and Christianity command a person to seek the light of truth. I do not know as much about Islam but I think there are similar concepts.

The problem here is that the playing field has been defined by the people who are subverting the concept. Faith is not at all ignorant. A person who fears the truth is lacking in faith.

Pope Benedict has been doing a lot of talking about the relationship between faith and reason.

There are two unfair processes that go into this conversation many of the times it comes up.

1. One side dominates the semantic playing field and will only accept arguments using the emotional biases it has over the words. IE if Christians are dominant, then faith is de facto good. If rationalists are arguing it is de facto bad. Anyone who is not following the dominant meme has to negotiate their way out of the dominant definitional space in order to assert their point of view and establish their own semantic space in which to work.

2. The non-dominant side of the argument is often characterized by the dominant side by the lowest common denominator. To get past this, one has to be either, very persistent, highly educated, or a skilled rhetorician. In the case of the dominant faction on this particular forum, the presumption is that people of faith are all some variation on redneck evangelical or the crystal gazing hippy at the local head shop.

Something I wonder is how many of you taking the rationalist side of the argument have read St. Anselm or Benedict XVI on this subject? Anyone? There is a wealth of material on the topic of reason and faith.

I would argue that “blind faith” is not faith at all, because a person of true faith is not afraid to have their faith tested.

I missed this post earlier in responding to others but it appears that you and I are on the same track. I agree. Blind faith may be an accepted term but beliefs held in the face of ample evidence against those beliefs is not really faith IMO.

[fessie]

Thank you, mswas, for pointing that out.

This phrase by Apos intrigues me:

@Apos

Faith is the assertion that something is true even when there is no evidence to support it, or even when there is evidence to contradict it. Faith is belief, without any implication that there is any supporting evidence. That is precisely what is often lauded ABOUT faith: that UNLIKE things for which we have good reasons, we believe even against “all odds.”

I don’t see that has having anything at all to do with religion, with or without any particular god. That’s just plain stubbornness and fear. Scientists can (and have) engage in that activity frequently, extensively.

You might argue that it’s because they’re not applying the true scientific method in the right way, letting their egos or fear interfere with proper use of the tool.

I’d say the same thing happens with faith.

[Alwrong]

@Voyager

So who bases their entire lives on faith? Monks, perhaps, but they live in an environment where they don’t have to face the real world.

I don’t see the connection with what I said. I didn’t make any statements about “entire lives” based on faith. And, are you saying that monks don’t live and interact in the real world?

First, note that I only included falsifiable claims. 300 years ago, these were scientific claims, in fact at the beginning of the 19th century, many religious leaders in the US were quite excited by science, since they assumed science would support their religious claims. Science falsified old claims about the age of the earth, but these were fairly easy to give up. Darwin made such an impact since evolution threatened humanity’s special nature, and that was a lot harder to give up.
So the religious claims I mentioned overlap in the realm of historical and geological claims, and thus are subject to falsification.

But were the *religious * claims falsified? If yes, then why do so many people still have religious beliefs? Are they knowingly living a lie?

The claim that “God loves us” is not. (Not scientifically falsifiable, at least.)

And neither is “God exists”.

I assume you are not implying that science is some monolithic entity.

Actually, my question implies the opposite: science is not monolithic, but rather, heterogeneous and ever changing, and, therefore, there’s no exact date when “no one knew what the hell was going on” and then, later, “settled down”. And, your comment (which led to my question), suggests that religion is a some monolithic entity:

it seems to me that the state of religion, for the last three thousand years or so …

First, what happened 3,000 years ago? And, second, which state of religion are you referring to? Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? Or Hinduism, Buddhism, or Shintoism? Or Catholicism, Protestantism, Deism, Transcendentalism, or Universalism?
I think you are saying that the very existence of so many disparate (and often contradictory) belief systems indicates that religion hasn’t “settled down” in the way that the various fields of science have. Is that it? If yes, then I agree.

You know, sometimes one side of a battle gets defeated by the evidence, and sometimes someone figures out that the two sides are using different notation to say the same thing.

You think, then, that science consists of battles, with winners and losers, the conquerors and the vanquished? Aren’t “all true scientists” on the same side, looking for the “best” explanation of “objective” reality, as manifested by “empirical” evidence, and willing to automatically give up a theory whenever new evidence contradicts it? No?

Of course it is a religious hypothesis. What other kind could [atheism] be?

First, it seems to me that atheism is not a hypothesis: it’s a statement (or more broadly, a philosophical stance) about the lack of belief in “god”, in whatever way that word is defined. Perhaps you are extending atheism to include Empircism, Rationalism, Phenomenalism, or Naturalism. In any case, if atheism is a hypothesis, it must consist of more than just the word “atheism”. What is the full hypothesis, and can it be tested?

Second, it seems that you are saying that any statement about a religious belief is, itself, a religious statement. Is that what you mean?

And if you pay your money and become able to search, you’ll see that I have consistently said that I am open to a god popping up and showing himself.

What if she pops up and shows herself? Would you still be open?

I’ve suggested certain things that God can do that would be pretty convincing, such as instantly rearranging stars. Hell, parting the Red Sea would be pretty convincing.

I find it interesting how you made the transition from my statement about evidence for god to your claim that, if god does something, you’ll believe.

If the Red Sea were to part, would you immediately conclude that god exists? What evidence would you accept that the Red Sea had indeed parted? If everyone in the world had the evidence, would everyone conclude that god exists? If not, would you be one of those who insists that it must have been god?

Or would you first look for a reasonable non-theistic explanation, and, failing that, consider the possibility that there’s some massive religious conspiracy, or that you’ve gone mad and you can no longer trust your perception and your capacity to reason? If not, then it seems to me that you are indeed open to the idea that god exists.

Also, perhaps you are implicitly suggesting that god should somehow announce the event before it happens, or that someone should predict that it will happen, or that you can somehow command god to make it happen. If it was god accouncing it, how would you know that it was god? If it was someone predicting it, how would know that they weren’t spearheading the conspiracy? If you asked god, then … why the hell are you making requests to someone/something that doesn’t exist?

In any case, on what basis would you conclude that it was indeed god that caused the event? And which religion’s god would be the one that did it?

So you suggest wrong.

Not yet.

I started off believing, and my present lack of faith is not due to any unhappiness with my religious training or upbringing, just an examination of the data.

I haven’t suggested that you experienced any unhappiness because of religious training, but I guess you are merely presenting some additional information as a way of fleshing out your argument.

In any case, please let me know what “just an examination of the data” consists of, without any reference to any theory, hypothesis, or belief system.

BTW, I still don’t get why you don’t consider theories objective. Being objective does not imply guaranteed correctness. Hypotheses are very subjective, of course.

So, hypotheses are very subjective but theories are objective? Given that theories are based on hypotheses, when is the gap from subjective to objective bridged? I think that you’re saying that only tested and verified hypotheses become part of (scientific) theories, and that tested and verified hypotheses can be considered objective. Is that it?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Alwrong But were the religious claims falsified? If yes, then why do so many people still have religious beliefs? Are they knowingly living a lie?

There are certain religious beliefs that are held in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary.

God created the world about 6000 years ago.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God.

to name just a couple. Some people who believe theses things simply haven’t really examined the evidence although they’ve probably heard about it. Many just want to believe what hey are told by others they trust and avoid the responsibility of looking at the evidence themselves and trying to figure things out.

At some point refusing to even consider the evidence available is a denial of true faith rather than crying faith as some excuse to avoid even considering the evidence.

[Voyager]

@Alwrong

I don’t see the connection with what I said. I didn’t make any statements about “entire lives” based on faith. And, are you saying that monks don’t live and interact in the real world?

You were talking about basing ones life on faith. I hardly think that someone who goes to Church on Sunday is doing that. I don’t recall Jesus ever saying “you can follow me by showing up Christmas and Easter.” Some monks don’t devote full time to faith, but there are some who do, and they are protected from the outside world for just this reason. Torah students were supposed to be provided for by their families so they could study full time and not have to worry about anything else. I think my great grandfather was one.

But were the *religious * claims falsified? If yes, then why do so many people still have religious beliefs? Are they knowingly living a lie?

Ask your local creationist, who certainly is acting as if certain religious beliefs have not been falsified.

And neither is “God exists”.

Of course not. However, considering the lack of evidence for god, and the fact that those supposedly in contact with god have a poor record of making true statements about the world, there is no reason to believe in one. Not that I’d know which one to pick, since there are so many mutually contradictory deities.

Actually, my question implies the opposite: science is not monolithic, but rather, heterogeneous and ever changing, and, therefore, there’s no exact date when “no one knew what the hell was going on” and then, later, “settled down”. And, your comment (which led to my question), suggests that religion is a some monolithic entity:First, what happened 3,000 years ago? And, second, which state of religion are you referring to? Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? Or Hinduism, Buddhism, or Shintoism? Or Catholicism, Protestantism, Deism, Transcendentalism, or Universalism?

Science is attacking the physical world from many different perspectives. Even if we think there is one world, we need to look at it from many different levels of analysis.

Religion, on the other hand, is all supposed to be about the ultimate answer, handed down by the god or gods who know the ultimate answer. Now, the many religious people who are not literalists say that only part of the Bible is true. Getting them to tell us which part has been a continuing conversation around here. Polycarp has recently said that he needs to think about this, and I for one am eagerly awaiting his response.
There is also the factor that science and scientists are imperfect, and much of the scientific process is designed to work around this. God is supposed to be perfect, and much of apologetics is about explaining how clearly incorrect teachings are correct if viewed in the proper way.

I think you are saying that the very existence of so many disparate (and often contradictory) belief systems indicates that religion hasn’t “settled down” in the way that the various fields of science have. Is that it? If yes, then I agree.

Exactly right - with the adder that religion should have settled down a long time ago.

You think, then, that science consists of battles, with winners and losers, the conquerors and the vanquished? Aren’t “all true scientists” on the same side, looking for the “best” explanation of “objective” reality, as manifested by “empirical” evidence, and willing to automatically give up a theory whenever new evidence contradicts it? No?

Hoo boy, you must have never been to any interesting conferences! You must also have never read The Double Helix. Everyone knows that new theories become universally accepted only when the old scientists retire or die.
When I was in grad school I got considerable status for trashing some guy who was interviewing for a professor job. Unlike religion, though, no blood is shed - usually.

First, it seems to me that atheism is not a hypothesis: it’s a statement (or more broadly, a philosophical stance) about the lack of belief in “god”, in whatever way that word is defined. Perhaps you are extending atheism to include Empircism, Rationalism, Phenomenalism, or Naturalism. In any case, if atheism is a hypothesis, it must consist of more than just the word “atheism”. What is the full hypothesis, and can it be tested?

You are quite right - strictly speaking a declaration of atheism is only a statement of belief, not knowledge. However, a rational justification of atheism must include the hypothesis that no gods exist. This can never be proven (but then most theories can’t be either) but it can be falsified. There are lots of ways to support it. But, for instance, an atheist can believe in the supernatural. (Not likely, but there is nothing inherently impossible about it.) Atheists can believe in reincarnation. Atheists just can’t believe in any god.

Second, it seems that you are saying that any statement about a religious belief is, itself, a religious statement. Is that what you mean?What if she pops up and shows herself? Would you still be open?I find it interesting how you made the transition from my statement about evidence for god to your claim that, if god does something, you’ll believe.

Not every one. There are metastatements about religious beliefs that aren’t - for instance “John believes in the IPU.” But a statement of atheism is. After all “there are no black swans” is a statement about black swans, isn’t it?

If the Red Sea were to part, would you immediately conclude that god exists? What evidence would you accept that the Red Sea had indeed parted? If everyone in the world had the evidence, would everyone conclude that god exists? If not, would you be one of those who insists that it must have been god?

Or would you first look for a reasonable non-theistic explanation, and, failing that, consider the possibility that there’s some massive religious conspiracy, or that you’ve gone mad and you can no longer trust your perception and your capacity to reason? If not, then it seems to me that you are indeed open to the idea that god exists.

I wouldn’t immediately believe. It would be nice if it was reproducible. I’d want to check for evidence of UFOs and tractor beams. That’s why I like the star example better - it implies a violation of physical laws. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t think I’d have gone mad. I’ve been involved in debugging enough of microprocessor defects to be immune to that. I started a thread once about accepting the supernatural given enough evidence - I would, since I think that is the only scientifically honest thing to do. I’m not in the majority on this point.

Also, perhaps you are implicitly suggesting that god should somehow announce the event before it happens, or that someone should predict that it will happen, or that you can somehow command god to make it happen. If it was god accouncing it, how would you know that it was god? If it was someone predicting it, how would know that they weren’t spearheading the conspiracy? If you asked god, then … why the hell are you making requests to someone/something that doesn’t exist?

We test for things that don’t happen all the time - just to be sure. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do a JREF style test for god. Anyhow, God would know what would convince me, right?

Now, the usual theist response to this kind of thing is “you can’t test God” and “God wants faith, and you wouldn’t need faith if God actually showed up.” These people clearly have never read Exodus. Moses did not get to go into the Holy Land because he smote the rock. If God cared about faith, this would be a good thing, since faith would be needed to believe that God brought forth the water, not the rod hitting the rock. God showed his power all through that story.

In any case, please let me know what “just an examination of the data” consists of, without any reference to any theory, hypothesis, or belief system. So, hypotheses are very subjective but theories are objective? Given that theories are based on hypotheses, when is the gap from subjective to objective bridged? I think that you’re saying that only tested and verified hypotheses become part of (scientific) theories, and that tested and verified hypotheses can be considered objective. Is that it?

Hypotheses may or may not be objective. I don’t really know how you’d classify wild-ass guesses. But they become theories when there is objective and repeatable evidence for them, and no falsification. There are other factors also, like predictive ability, but I don’t think that has much to do with objectivity. So, how are theories not objective?

[Apos]

However, a rational justification of atheism must include the hypothesis that no gods exist.

Nonsense. All that is required to rationally justify atheism is… nothing at all. Theism is the position that requires a justification. Without one, you have atheism. The strong atheist claim might well require justification, but that’s a subset of atheism.

But a statement of atheism is. After all “there are no black swans” is a statement about black swans, isn’t it?

Yes, but “I’ve never seen a black swan and have no reason to believe one exists” is not a conclusive statement about black swans per se, just about whether or not one has reason to believe in them.

[Czarcasm]

@Voyager

Not every one. There are metastatements about religious beliefs that aren’t - for instance “John believes in the IPU.” But a statement of atheism is. After all “there are no black swans” is a statement about black swans, isn’t it?

No, a statement about atheism would be, generally “There are no unicorns as far as I know, and the evidence of their existence is so scant that it’s not worth wasting my limited time on this earth to explore it any further. When come back, bring evidence.”

[Alwrong]

Hi Voyager!
I’m not sure whether you’re debating or merely sharing some personal experiences and anecdotes.

For example, I said:

@AlWrong

IOW, those who are basing their lives on faith are not basing their lives on blind faith, but, rather on faith that is based on evidence and information. Whether the evidence is satisfactory and whether the information is sufficient is not a question of objectivity but of epistemology.

You then said something that I think referred to my comment, although you don’t explicitly quote me when you say:

@Voyager

You were talking about basing ones life on faith. I hardly think that someone who goes to Church on Sunday is doing that.

Where did I say anything about someone who goes to Church on Sunday? What is the relevance of your comment?

I don’t recall Jesus ever saying “you can follow me by showing up Christmas and Easter.”

What is the relevance of what Jesus did or didn’t say? (Or, more precisely, what you recall or don’t recall Jesus ever saying.)

Some monks don’t devote full time to faith, but there are some who do, and they are protected from the outside world for just this reason.

Interesting, but irrelevant.

Torah students were supposed to be provided for by their families so they could study full time and not have to worry about anything else. I think my great grandfather was one.

Also irrelevant, though slightly more interesting.

Ask your local creationist, who certainly is acting as if certain religious beliefs have not been falsified.

I don’t have a local creationist. What are you going to tell me do now?

Religion, on the other hand, is all supposed to be about the ultimate answer, handed down by the god or gods who know the ultimate answer.

Is that what Buddhists say?

Now, the many religious people who are not literalists say that only part of the Bible is true.

I see that, for purposes of this thread, you are restricting your definition of “religious people” to Christians. Okay, but you do realize that there are other religions besides Christianity, right?

Getting them to tell us which part [which part of the Bible is to be taken literally] has been a continuing conversation around here.

When you read any any literary work, how do you determine what to take literally and what to take figuratively?

Exactly right - with the adder that religion should have settled down a long time ago.

Good. We agree.

Hoo boy, you must have never been to any interesting conferences! You must also have never read The Double Helix. Everyone knows that new theories become universally accepted only when the old scientists retire or die.
When I was in grad school I got considerable status for trashing some guy who was interviewing for a professor job. Unlike religion, though, no blood is shed - usually.

I guess you missed the irony in my post, even though I included a smilie. (Or, perhaps I am missing the irony in your comment. )
In any case, you are confirming my point that scientific research is subject to human emotions. IOW, science, though theoretically “objective” is, in practice, subjective.

However, a rational justification of atheism must include the hypothesis that no gods exist. This can never be proven (but then most theories can’t be either) but it can be falsified.

How? (Okay, you do offer some suggestions below.)

@Voyager

@AlWrong

it seems that you are saying that any statement about a religious belief is, itself, a religious statement. Is that what you mean?

Not every one. There are metastatements about religious beliefs that aren’t - for instance “John believes in the IPU.” But a statement of atheism is. After all “there are no black swans” is a statement about black swans, isn’t it?

I wasn’t questioning whether the statement “there is no god” is a statement about god.
I asked whether any statement about a religious belief is, itself, a religious statement. Your analogy misses the mark. (And, BTW, black swans exist, right?)

I wouldn’t immediately believe. It would be nice if it was reproducible. I’d want to check for evidence of UFOs and tractor beams. That’s why I like the star example better - it implies a violation of physical laws. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t think I’d have gone mad. I’ve been involved in debugging enough of microprocessor defects to be immune to that. I started a thread once about accepting the supernatural given enough evidence - I would, since I think that is the only scientifically honest thing to do. I’m not in the majority on this point.

But, “accepting the supernatural” isn’t necessarily the same as accepting the existence of god, is it?

Anyhow, God would know what would convince me, right?

I don’t know if that’s right or wrong. How do you know?

There are other factors also, like predictive ability, but I don’t think that has much to do with objectivity. So, how are theories not objective?

You’re asking me?? It seems that you’re the one who is claiming that theories, themselves, are objective. If indeed that is what you’re claiming, then it’s up to you to show that your claim is true.

[Alwrong]

@cosmosdan

There are certain religious beliefs that are held in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I agree. But “plenty of evidence to the contrary” is not the same as having someone’s beliefs falsified.

Some people who believe these things simply haven’t really examined the evidence although they’ve probably heard about it.

It’s nice that you said “*Some * people”. What about those who have “really examined the evidence” and yet still hold on to their beliefs? It seems that their *core * beliefs are not falsifiable, and this is how they are able to reconcile the evidence with their beliefs. Which is the point that I was attempting to make.

[Scylla]

I think faith is one of the most important aspects of humanity. I’ll bet it’s hardwired into us by evolution as a compensation for the detrimental effects of our intelligence, and it is a huge benefit.

Think about it. From a rational standpoint life is futile and we’re all fucked, so why bother?

Faith. Faith let’s you act when your intelligence would otherwise dictate that you shouldn’t bother. It gives you the will to act on something doubtful as if it were true.

I read this great book called Deep Survival, who lives who dies and why It’s pretty clear from reading that book that in a survival situation the people that had faith they’d make it had a much better chance than those people who did not.

It’s a weird kind of faith, too. It’s not a denial of the facts, because the other trait these survivors had in common is that they were realists and able to rationally asess in a no nonsense way the seriousness of their situations.

You see the problem?

Your plane crashes in the middle of Alaska half way up a mountain 300 miles from anywhere. You are off course so nobody knows where to look for you. You have two broken legs, one broken arm and a concussion. You have no food, no survival gear, insufficient clothing, and it’s 30 degrees below zero outside and a blizzard is coming in. Oh, and a very hungry looking grizzly bear is sniffing around.

What do you do?

You’re pretty fucked aren’t you? Looking at it intelligently, anything you do is going to be absolutely futile and lead to nothing but prolonged pain and suffering. The most rational choice here is just to give up and go to sleep and die with a little dignity. Your intelligence let’s you die.

This, I guess is why we have faith. We’ve evolved into it. Take the same situation, let the guy understand it completely, except fill his being with the absolute knowledge that he’s going to survive, that he’s going to be ok. Now that he knows he’s going to be ok, he better get around to doing all that stuff he’s supposed to.

He whittles a crossbow out of the propellor, shoots the bear with it, splints his legs with the bones, builds a heat source from the carbureator and fuel, sews himself a suit out of the bearskin, makes some crutches out of a used tampon, a bobblehead doll and two old soda cans… and walks home.

If he actually tried to think about doing all those things from a rational standpoint, he’d have to laugh. He’s got no chance.

So, evolution doesn’t let you think about it rationally. It gives you faith, and you walk home.

Of course, lots of people have faith and still get eaten by the bear, but some of them make it.

---

It’s a very religious feeling, and I’ve had it. It’s when you know you are going to do something that you know you can’t.

On my first fifty mile run, I had a complete breakdown around mile 38. Fell, couldn’t get up, absolutely done, active hallucinations, lots of pain, the whole deal. Then, I knew I would finish and I got up and finished.

[Voyager]

@Czarcasm

No, a statement about atheism would be, generally “There are no unicorns as far as I know, and the evidence of their existence is so scant that it’s not worth wasting my limited time on this earth to explore it any further. When come back, bring evidence.”

Since atheism is a statement of belief, not of knowledge, saying “John doesn’t believe in IPUs” is a valid statement of IPU style atheism. Someone can make the statement you give, but add “I believe in them anyway.” Certainly deists don’t claim that they have evidence of a god, but they are not atheists.

[Czarcasm]

@Voyager

Since atheism is a statement of belief, not of knowledge, saying “John doesn’t believe in IPUs” is a valid statement of IPU style atheism. Someone can make the statement you give, but add “I believe in them anyway.” Certainly deists don’t claim that they have evidence of a god, but they are not atheists.

Why do you say that first statement as if it has been settled? Atheism is not a statement of belief. As an atheist, I am saying “I have not been presented with enough evidence to even consider the possibility of a supernatural all-powerful deity.” And, no, you cannot add “I believe in them anyway.” to the statement “There are no unicorns as far as I know, and the evidence of their existence is so scant that it’s not worth wasting my limited time on this earth to explore it any further.” Of course, if you can find a Christian on this board who is willing to say, “There is no God as far as I know, and the evidence of his existence is so scant that it’s not worth wasting my limited time on this earth to explore it any further, but I believe in him anyway.”, you will have proven me wrong.

[Voyager]

@Alwrong

Hi Voyager!
I’m not sure whether you’re debating or merely sharing some personal experiences and anecdotes.

For example, I said:You then said something that I think referred to my comment, although you don’t explicitly quote me when you say:Where did I say anything about someone who goes to Church on Sunday? What is the relevance of your comment?

The relevance of my comment is that you are identifying a very small set of people. The question is whether those who base their life on faith (blind or otherwise) can make it in the real world, and I’m wondering who that covers.

What is the relevance of what Jesus did or didn’t say? (Or, more precisely, what you recall or don’t recall Jesus ever saying.)

Any Christian basing his life on faith would care quite a bit what Jesus said. How could one be a Christian, base your life on faith, and ignore the words of Jesus? Basing one’s life on faith in other religions would be different.
[

I don’t have a local creationist. What are you going to tell me do now?

[/quote]

Give me a break. You wondered about religious people and falsified claims, and I gave you a rather large set of religious people who devoutly believe in a falsified claim. Are you going to respond or are you going to waste my time being cute?

Is that what Buddhists say?

Irrelevant. Many Buddhists are atheists. Some have promoted Buddha to godhood.

I see that, for purposes of this thread, you are restricting your definition of “religious people” to Christians. Okay, but you do realize that there are other religions besides Christianity, right?

Try to improve your reading comprehension. I just mentioned I’m Jewish. Not only Christians believe in the Bible. The debates, however, have been about the Bible, not the Gita.

When you read any any literary work, how do you determine what to take literally and what to take figuratively?

Which literary work are we supposed to take literally? Gone With the Wind? The Wizard of Oz? The Skylark of Space? If you consider the Bible a work of fiction, I don’t see your problem.
Now, if the Bible is an ancient history, there are methods historians use to check on what is written, including looking for supporting evidence and the motives of the writers. The problem some would have in using these methods with the Bible is that interactions with deities get thrown right out. Now, Jefferson did a version of the gospels without miracles, but that doesn’t work for our dopers who believe in the Resurrection, but reject scientific implausibilities and moral strictures they don’t like (don’t like for very good reasons, I might add.)

Good. We agree.I guess you missed the irony in my post, even though I included a smilie. (Or, perhaps I am missing the irony in your comment. )
In any case, you are confirming my point that scientific research is subject to human emotions. IOW, science, though theoretically “objective” is, in practice, subjective.

You said that theories are subjective, not the practice of science. Things just don’t jump from hypothesis to theory, there are arguments about the quality of the evidence, about alternative explanations, etc. Things are theories after this discussion is over. If you had said science for theory, we could have saved a lot of bandwidth.

I wasn’t questioning whether the statement “there is no god” is a statement about god.
I asked whether any statement about a religious belief is, itself, a religious statement.
Your analogy misses the mark.

I gave a statement about religious belief that wasn’t a religious statement. And I said the first time that I was talking about justification for atheism, not atheism itself, which is a statement of belief. The justification involves reasons for the position of lacking belief in gods making sense. So I don’t see your point. A person can be an atheist without any justification for the position.

)But, “accepting the supernatural” isn’t necessarily the same as accepting the existence of god, is it?

I thought that was exactly what I said. Some atheists also, as a corollary to the rejection of the possibility of god, also reject the possibility of the supernatural.

I don’t know if that’s right or wrong. How do you know?

By the definition of omniscience, a trait of the western god.

You’re asking me?? It seems that you’re the one who is claiming that theories, themselves, are objective. If indeed that is what you’re claiming, then it’s up to you to show that your claim is true.

I already did, by describing how hypotheses become theories. So far you’ve given evidence that science is not objective (no argument with that) but haven’t said a word about theories. The ball is now in your court.

[Voyager]

@Czarcasm

Why do you say that first statement as if it has been settled? Atheism is not a statement of belief. As an atheist, I am saying “I have not been presented with enough evidence to even consider the possibility of a supernatural all-powerful deity.” And, no, you cannot add “I believe in them anyway.” to the statement “There are no unicorns as far as I know, and the evidence of their existence is so scant that it’s not worth wasting my limited time on this earth to explore it any further.” Of course, if you can find a Christian on this board who is willing to say, “There is no God as far as I know, and the evidence of his existence is so scant that it’s not worth wasting my limited time on this earth to explore it any further, but I believe in him anyway.”, you will have proven me wrong.

You are talking about the justification for your position. If some clown says “I don’t believe in god, since that is dog backwards,” he’s an idiot, but still an atheist. (We don’t get to excommunicate people, do we?) I doubt I’d find a Christian who says that, but deists do. In any case, I’m not taking a survey. It seems that you agree that if I went out with my lantern and found someone of any religion who admits there is no evidence, doesn’t care to look for any, but believes anyhow, he is not an atheist. That’s all I’m saying.

[Czarcasm]

Most atheists do not reject the possibility of a god, we merely think that gods are as probable as leprechauns, unicorns, and The Great Pumpkin. Have you, Voyager, rejected the possibility of these beings, or are you keeping an open mind as to their existence?

[Czarcasm]

@Voyager

You are talking about the justification for your position. If some clown says “I don’t believe in god, since that is dog backwards,” he’s an idiot, but still an atheist. (We don’t get to excommunicate people, do we?) I doubt I’d find a Christian who says that, but deists do. In any case, I’m not taking a survey. It seems that you agree that if I went out with my lantern and found someone of any religion who admits there is no evidence, doesn’t care to look for any, but believes anyhow, he is not an atheist. That’s all I’m saying.

O.K. then, challenge accepted. Find me a deist willing to say,“There is no God as far as I know, and the evidence of his existence is so scant that it’s not worth wasting my limited time on this earth to explore it any further, but I believe in him anyway.”

[cosmosdan]

@Alwrong

I agree. But “plenty of evidence to the contrary” is not the same as having someone’s beliefs falsified.It’s nice that you said “*Some * people”. What about those who have “really examined the evidence” and yet still hold on to their beliefs? It seems that their *core * beliefs are not falsifiable, and this is how they are able to reconcile the evidence with their beliefs. Which is the point that I was attempting to make.

Then IMO you are drawing too fine a line. If those two beliefs aren’t falsified they are about as freakin close as you can get. There are some core beliefs that are unfalsifiable but that’s not what we’re talking about is it?

IMO there is no way any reasonable person could truly honestly examine the evidence concerning evolution and the history of the earth, or the history of where the Bible came from and come to the conclusions that the earth must be only 6000 years old and the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God. That is if they value the truth and real progress over tradition.

For them to cling to those beliefs they must have some mental and emotional attachment to those beliefs that supersedes their desire for truth. That doesn’t make them evil and they may operate as perfectly rational people in every other areas of their lives. It would make those beliefs, for whatever reason, their emotional rational “blind spots” In a similar way any person might be that way concerning some important emotional issue. Someone might deny their spouse is cheating on them even when presented the evidence because acknowledging the truth of the evidence requires changes they are reluctant to make.

There could be many things that might be too hard to accept and so people choose, subconsciously perhaps, to live in denial of clear evidence.
Let me point out that discovering the Bible is not the inerrant word of God says nothing about god belief specifically. I think that’s one of the fears that makes people resist the evidence but hey, I have no degree in psychology.

Losing the belief that the earth is 6000 years old doesn’t mean you lose your belief that God is.

So, who decides which beliefs are core beliefs?

[Voyager]

@Czarcasm

O.K. then, challenge accepted. Find me a deist willing to say,“There is no God as far as I know, and the evidence of his existence is so scant that it’s not worth wasting my limited time on this earth to explore it any further, but I believe in him anyway.”

I think any deist who understands the definition of knowledge would qualify. I doubt a deist would claim to “know” there is a god. The deist in fact by definition believes that God does not interfere, so he wouldn’t look for evidence, not believing there should be any. He also, by definition, believes that there is a god.

But like I said, I don’t care if there are or are not deists anymore. I’m far more concerned with the definition of atheism as a statement of belief, and lack of belief. I’m sure you are just as tired as I am of the “prove there is no god” crowd.

[Czarcasm]

@Voyager

But like I said, I don’t care if there are or are not deists anymore. I’m far more concerned with the definition of atheism as a statement of belief, and lack of belief. I’m sure you are just as tired as I am of the “prove there is no god” crowd.

I still believe that particular definition of Atheism is at best an extreme rarity. The question usually asked is,“Provide evidence for the existence of a god.” Evidence is not the same thing as proof, yet every damn time I ask for evidence, all I get back is the excuse “All you want is proof!”

[Alwrong]

Voyager, I’ll leave you with one of your quotes that exemplifies the problem that I’ve experienced with your posts in this thread:

Try to improve your reading comprehension. I just mentioned I’m Jewish.

Where did you mention that you’re Jewish? I thought that you were an atheist. Or do some Jews not believe in god? Or are you automatically Jewish if your great grandfather was a Torah student? (Or even if you *think * that he was …)

Thanks for teaching me something about communication. Keep up the faith!