NationStates Jolt Archive

I would argue that it is.

A leap of faith, by definition, exists outside the confines of reason. If that conclusion could be reachied through reason, there would be no need for a leap of faith.

Therefore, since the conclusion reached through a leap of failth is not able to be reached using reason, all leaps of faith are necessarily unreasonable.

rational, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience and reflection.

-The Devil's Dictionary.

if it were rational it wouldnt require a leap.

not that its a bad thing.

A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence.

yep, seems so...

Frum Wikiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith)

I would argue that it is.

A leap of faith, by definition, exists outside the confines of reason. If that conclusion could be reachied through reason, there would be no need for a leap of faith.

Therefore, since the conclusion reached through a leap of failth is not able to be reached using reason, all leaps of faith are necessarily unreasonable.

Yes, it is.

I would argue that it is.

A leap of faith, by definition, exists outside the confines of reason. If that conclusion could be reachied through reason, there would be no need for a leap of faith.

Therefore, since the conclusion reached through a leap of failth is not able to be reached using reason, all leaps of faith are necessarily unreasonable.

I don't think so. Just because there is no need for a leap of faith does not mean that a person could not use a leap of faith to arrive at the same place as someone who took a solely rational approach. There is nothing inherent in a leap of faith that would make it impossible to be rational.

I think it depends on whether or not induction falls within the boundary of "reasonable". All "leaps of faith" are based on trust in a given model of the way things work, and if we consider the argument - that these models exist because they always have worked - as being a reasonable one, then I think it's fair to say that faith, too, falls within rational action.

The contention with this approach is two-fold; firstly, whether a given model is expressive or testable enough to even be dismissable (thereby undoing its inductive reliability), and secondly, whether any model can be asserted to be accurate by virtue of its subjective construction.

A leap of faith is necessary in the construction of a complete world view. You might, however, be able to get away without it if you're happy to admit your world view to be incomplete.

I would argue that it is.

A leap of faith, by definition, exists outside the confines of reason. If that conclusion could be reachied through reason, there would be no need for a leap of faith.

Therefore, since the conclusion reached through a leap of failth is not able to be reached using reason, all leaps of faith are necessarily unreasonable.

Heh using that logic then yes. However all knowledge ultimately stem from such leaps, so all knowledge is unreasonable?

I don't think so. Just because there is no need for a leap of faith does not mean that a person could not use a leap of faith to arrive at the same place as someone who took a solely rational approach. There is nothing inherent in a leap of faith that would make it impossible to be rational.a leap of faith does not make you arrive anywhere. you'll always just hang in mid air.

rational, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience and reflection.

-The Devil's Dictionary.

Nth-ed. Also, illogical, meaning defying logics, or non related to logics. Credo quia absurdum they used to say: I believe because it's absurd - corollary: if it weren't absurd, I wouldn't need to believe, I would know through logics.

Heh using that logic then yes. However all knowledge ultimately stem from such leaps, so all knowledge is unreasonable?

That's a big claim... how would all knowledge stem from leaps of faith, rather than observation and deduction?

That's a big claim... how would all knowledge stem from leaps of faith, rather than observation and deduction?
When you take it on faith that reality exists in the first place and it knowable...

I don't think so. Just because there is no need for a leap of faith does not mean that a person could not use a leap of faith to arrive at the same place as someone who took a solely rational approach. There is nothing inherent in a leap of faith that would make it impossible to be rational.

I think the whole not taking any evidence into account bit of it(ya know, the bit that makes it a leap of faith) kind of makes it rather irrational. If we both enter a maze and I make a map as I go through, but you close you eyes and just run blindly, we could well both make it to the center(or exit, whatever), but that doesn't mean our methods are the same, or even of equal value.

Perhaps not, intuition can be said to reason something out so fast that you end up at the reasonable answer without going through the process. Leaps of faith are usually based on intuition so I think it could be possible for one to do so.

Though I admit I'm really buggered for an actual working example of that.

I think it depends on whether or not induction falls within the boundary of "reasonable".

It depends: induction can be a priori or a posteriori. See Kant.

That's a big claim... how would all knowledge stem from leaps of faith, rather than observation and deduction?

We touched upon this in that other thread(then I had to go home). Knowledge comes from our perception of the world, it can't be shown that how and what we percive is correct and true, other than relying on our senses, the same sense taht we use to percive.

That it inself is somewhat circular wouldn't you say. So at some point, we need to place trust that what we percive, hence what we know, is real. Ultimatly all that we know comes from a leap of faith.

The only church that enlights, is a church that burns!

We touched upon this in that other thread(then I had to go home). Knowledge comes from our perception of the world, it can't be shown that how and what we percive is correct and true, other than relying on our senses, the same sense taht we use to percive.

That it inself is somewhat circular wouldn't you say. So at some point, we need to place trust that what we percive, hence what we know, is real. Ultimatly all that we know comes from a leap of faith.

If knowledge is based on how we perceive things then where's the leap of faith? One would have to make a leap of faith to assume that we can accurately percieve reality, but that has no bearing on the knowledge we derive from our perceptions of....whatever it is that we're actually perceiving. For example, I see the sky as blue. I dare say you do too. Whether the sky really is blue or not has no bearing on the fact that I see it as blue.

We touched upon this in that other thread(then I had to go home). Knowledge comes from our perception of the world, it can't be shown that how and what we percive is correct and true, other than relying on our senses, the same sense taht we use to percive.

That it inself is somewhat circular wouldn't you say. So at some point, we need to place trust that what we percive, hence what we know, is real. Ultimatly all that we know comes from a leap of faith.

I think that would depend on your definition of faith.
Generally, faith is understood to be a belief in something that we cannot verify in any way with our senses.
To stretch the definition to claim that believing our own observations about reality seems a lot like reaching for staws in an attempt to show all us rational disbelievers that at heart, we still have a tiny little bit of faith...

Things like faith and imagination are positive qualities in most cases. For example, I take a leap of faith every time I apply for a job and hope they'll overlook my flaws and hire me, or when I approach a girl at a bar. And I take a pretty huge leap of faith whenever I take my car to a garage to have work done in it...

Granted, they never play out, but if you used your rationality for every decision in your life you probably wouldn't get anywhere.

I think that would depend on your definition of faith.
Generally, faith is understood to be a belief in something that we cannot verify in any way with our senses.
To stretch the definition to claim that believing our own observations about reality seems a lot like reaching for staws in an attempt to show all us rational disbelievers that at heart, we still have a tiny little bit of faith...
Can you verify reality for me then Cabra? We all have to assume that what we are seeing is real, we take it on faith as it were.

If knowledge is based on how we perceive things then where's the leap of faith? One would have to make a leap of faith to assume that we can accurately percieve reality, but that has no bearing on the knowledge we derive from our perceptions of....whatever it is that we're actually perceiving.
Actually it would have quite a bit, how do we know that we are perceiving reality correctly, if at all? If you're not looking at reality right, any knowledge gleamed from it would become suspect.

For example, I see the sky as blue. I dare say you do too. Whether the sky really is blue or not has no bearing on the fact that I see it as blue.
But how can we say that our knowledge is true if we don't know if it really is blue or not?

It depends: induction can be a priori or a posteriori. See Kant.
Induction is valid a priori only in a system wherein the rules we induce over are concrete and well known. There are very few concrete and well known rules in the natural world, since even the most seemingly necessary suppositions fall to the Descartes Demon (though there are more that survive than many have thought, even without Descartes' "God" fudge).

I think Kant assumes more power a priori than he can back up. 'course, it's been a while since I've read it, so I'll have to go back and check that one up.

Whether the sky really is blue or not has no bearing on the fact that I see it as blue.
Not only has it no bearing, it's also totally meaningless, since blueness is a subjective concept.

Actually it would have quite a bit, how do we know that we are perceiving reality correctly, if at all? If you're not looking at reality right, any knowledge gleamed from it would become suspect.
Except we're not getting knowledge from reality, we're getting it from our perceptions of reality. Our perceptions could be horribly horribly flawed, but it seems to have worked for us so far.


But how can we say that our knowledge is true if we don't know if it really is blue or not?

Because our knowledge isn't based on what it is, but on what we perceive it to be.
Not only has it no bearing, it's also totally meaningless, since blueness is a subjective concept.
It was just an example.

Can you verify reality for me then Cabra? We all have to assume that what we are seeing is real, we take it on faith as it were.

Nope, read the definition again ;)
Reality is what we can perceive, subjectivly or objectivly. Faith is what we have when it comes to things that we cannot percieve.

But how can we say that our knowledge is true if we don't know if it really is blue or not?

"Blue" is subjective.
Wavelength, for which we have plenty of evidence and which can be observed objectively and described objectively, is not.

So, yes, "The sky is blue" is a subjective statement about reality. Much like "It's hot today", or "Chocolate is nice". All of those are personal valuations of a given situation.
What we can verfiy objectively is the wavelength of the colour blue, the temperature in relation to other temperatures, and the sugar-content and smoothness of chocolate.

Except we're not getting knowledge from reality, we're getting it from our perceptions of reality. Our perceptions could be horribly horribly flawed, but it seems to have worked for us so far.
You still end up assuming that they are not, and that reality is real.

Because our knowledge isn't based on what it is, but on what we perceive it to be.
Then, since we cannot state what (G)od(s) is, how is knowledge about how we perceive S/He/It/Them any less than, say, black holes?

Nope, read the definition again ;)
Reality is what we can perceive, subjectivly or objectivly. Faith is what we have when it comes to things that we cannot percieve.
Circular reasoning, you assume that since you can perceive, it must be there. Give me enough drugs can I can perceive a lot of things. :D

Perceptions alone do not work as the perceiver might be crazy (We all might be crazy, or butterflies dreaming we are Lao Tzu), again you're taking it on faith that reality is here, you can perceive it, and that you are not a butterfly.

"Blue" is subjective.
Wavelength, for which we have plenty of evidence and which can be observed objectively and described objectively, is not.

So, yes, "The sky is blue" is a subjective statement about reality. Much like "It's hot today", or "Chocolate is nice". All of those are personal valuations of a given situation.
What we can verfiy objectively is the wavelength of the colour blue, the temperature in relation to other temperatures, and the sugar-content and smoothness of chocolate.
No, rather it is more correct to say, based upon our assumption that the world works in x manner, we can the wavelength of the color blue.

If knowledge is based on how we perceive things then where's the leap of faith? One would have to make a leap of faith to assume that we can accurately percieve reality, but that has no bearing on the knowledge we derive from our perceptions of....whatever it is that we're actually perceiving. For example, I see the sky as blue. I dare say you do too. Whether the sky really is blue or not has no bearing on the fact that I see it as blue.

You see no bearing on wether the sky is actualy blue? Then you admit that you don't care for absolute truth, so what is the problem you have with faith?

I think that would depend on your definition of faith.
Generally, faith is understood to be a belief in something that we cannot verify in any way with our senses.
To stretch the definition to claim that believing our own observations about reality seems a lot like reaching for staws in an attempt to show all us rational disbelievers that at heart, we still have a tiny little bit of faith...

Heh I guess your 'mindset' would make you say that. Why is it clutching at straws to suggest that we have faith that what our sense tell us is true?

Again I'm going back to the circular argument of it all. We have no way to show that what our senses tell us is true other than our senses.

Now you would not take that kind of resoning if I use it to say the bible is true because it says so in the bible, so why take it now?

Not only has it no bearing, it's also totally meaningless, since blueness is a subjective concept.

True, yet we can objectify it by all agreeing on what blue looks like. Otherwise saying that it is true that the sky is blue, is meaningless, and makes a mockery of truth.

Except we're not getting knowledge from reality, we're getting it from our perceptions of reality. Our perceptions could be horribly horribly flawed, but it seems to have worked for us so far.


And that is at the crux of the matter, you admit that what we percive may have no bearing on reality. But you can't see how that shows that our knowledge ultimatly stems from faith?

Nope, read the definition again ;)
Reality is what we can perceive, subjectivly or objectivly. Faith is what we have when it comes to things that we cannot percieve.

No faith is what we belive to be true without proof.

I suppose you could have faith in something. If you can have faith in a relationship why not be able to have faith in a certain religious belief?
Sounds a bit like hope.

And that is at the crux of the matter, you admit that what we percive may have no bearing on reality. But you can't see how that shows that our knowledge ultimatly stems from faith?
We have our good old friend Descartes to thank for a way out of this. "Cogito ergo sum", while not complete, certainly leads us to admit that there is a process of thought and perception going on, regardless of what we may choose to believe. This establishes a system of understanding within which knowledge can be gained, even if we are forced to consciously acknowledge that this knowledge is true to that system rather than true to whatever "reality" might underly it.

True, yet we can objectify it by all agreeing on what blue looks like. Otherwise saying that it is true that the sky is blue, is meaningless, and makes a mockery of truth.
But we don't all agree on what blue looks like. Heck, nobody can even describe what blue looks like. Sure, we have all sorts of scientific quantifications for what constitutes blue light, but the actual perception of blueness remains outside the bounds of our linguistic capability because it's something that is necessarily unshareable.

The only reason we assume we all agree what blue looks like is as a construct of language. It is entirely possible for someone to perceive the colour blue in the same way that you perceive the colour red, but because we've all come to know of the colour of the sky as being called "blue", the fact that their blue is your red is never actually discovered.

We have our good old friend Descartes to thank for a way out of this. "Cogito ergo sum", while not complete, certainly leads us to admit that there is a process of thought and perception going on, regardless of what we may choose to believe. This establishes a system of understanding within which knowledge can be gained, even if we are forced to consciously acknowledge that this knowledge is true to that system rather than true to whatever "reality" might underly it.

But that still does not negate my assertion that all knowledge has a grounding in faith.

Saying that our knowledge is an asspect of our perception of reality, only serves to acknowldge that we are not certian that our knowledge is real. If that is the case, and we act as if our knowledge is real, we certianly are taking a leap of faith.

But we don't all agree on what blue looks like. Heck, nobody can even describe what blue looks like. Sure, we have all sorts of scientific quantifications for what constitutes blue light, but the actual perception of blueness remains outside the bounds of our linguistic capability because it's something that is necessarily unshareable.

The only reason we assume we all agree what blue looks like is as a construct of language. It is entirely possible for someone to perceive the colour blue in the same way that you perceive the colour red, but because we've all come to know of the colour of the sky as being called "blue", the fact that their blue is your red is never actually discovered.

Again that is true. But in 'reality' when we say blue, blue is what we mean, and a person that see's red instead of blue quickly learns that their perceptions are somehow skewed(intrestingly enough not the other way around huh?). As to it being a function of language sure, but what is language a function of, if not to communicate ideas?

We have our good old friend Descartes to thank for a way out of this. "Cogito ergo sum", while not complete, certainly leads us to admit that there is a process of thought and perception going on, regardless of what we may choose to believe.
Ok, let's work on this. I think, therefore I am (I think). So I think, but how do I know that you think (Not meant in the flame way, but literally ;) ). I can't get into your skull, I cannot see, taste, hear, smell, or otherwise your thoughts, I don't know if you are a thought of mine or not. To take it a step further, I THINK that I am thinking, but I can't see, hear, smell, taste, touch, etc. my own thoughts either. As with the butterfly or the chicken and the egg, I'm constantly turning back on my own beginning to say that I think that I am thinking so therefore I am thinking that I am thinking so therefore I am thinking that I am... you get the point.

This establishes a system of understanding within which knowledge can be gained, even if we are forced to consciously acknowledge that this knowledge is true to that system rather than true to whatever "reality" might underly it.
That's the point exactly, our knowledge is based upon a system that we have chosen to accept as real without being able to examine it from outside the system to see if it really is so. We have no actual way to determine if the system is true or not to what is actually out there, but we assume that it is, on faith.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with that because said system has proven to be MUCH better than other systems in providing knowledge that works consistently, is flexible, and a whole host of other things, but we really cannot escape the fact that when you get down to brass tacts, it really is just another leap of faith.

That's the point exactly, our knowledge is based upon a system that we have chosen to accept as real without being able to examine it from outside the system to see if it really is so. We have no actual way to determine if the system is true or not to what is actually out there, but we assume that it is, on faith.


Ahhh thank you, now that is what I have been trying to say.:)

We make leaps of faith all the time though. If my mother says she will go to the store to buy some food, I will believe that she will. There is no way I can know for certain that such an action will take place. I have no evidence that she will, yet I believe that she will anyway, are you saying that this judgement is necessarily unreasonable? Should then I not believe anything that anyone says?

Again that is true. But in 'reality' when we say blue, blue is what we mean, and a person that see's red instead of blue quickly learns that their perceptions are somehow skewed(intrestingly enough not the other way around huh?). As to it being a function of language sure, but what is language a function of, if not to communicate ideas?

No, not really.
When used to describe reality, language is a system of agreements really. We as a society agree to call the colour of the sky blue. Or bleu. Or blau. Or whatever our agreed language may be.
By doing so, we all agree to call the colour we see the sky in blue, and not red or green. That in itself does not make any assumptions on how the individual actually sees the colour. Unless you're colourblind, or blind, you will see a colour when looking at the sky, and you have agreed with the rest of the English-speaking world to call it blue.
Your perception of colours might be completely inverted from everyone else, and you would never even notice. You might see the sky green and the grass blue, but since it's been agreed that the sky is blue you accept to call what you see blue.

That's what we mean by saying that colours are subjective. Everyone could, for all we know, see them differently. We've just for conveniece sake agreed to give them certain names.

Now, if you want to regard colours objectively, you need to go into their wavelength. And that will be the same for the same shade, no matter who measures it and no matter where.

That's the point exactly, our knowledge is based upon a system that we have chosen to accept as real without being able to examine it from outside the system to see if it really is so. We have no actual way to determine if the system is true or not to what is actually out there, but we assume that it is, on faith.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with that because said system has proven to be MUCH better than other systems in providing knowledge that works consistently, is flexible, and a whole host of other things, but we really cannot escape the fact that when you get down to brass tacts, it really is just another leap of faith.

It's admittedly much trickier to examine the system from within, without being able to take a distanced look. But it most certainly is possible.
You can get through a maze without being able to see the entire layout.
Why assume that there is an outside of the system, if there is no evidence whatsoever for it? For all we know, inside is all there it. Assuming that there is an outside would indeed require faith.

We make leaps of faith all the time though. If my mother says she will go to the store to buy some food, I will believe that she will. There is no way I can know for certain that such an action will take place. I have no evidence that she will, yet I believe that she will anyway, are you saying that this judgement is necessarily unreasonable? Should then I not believe anything that anyone says?

Yeah I agree, if we use the definition provided then it is unreasonable, but it is not unreasonable to place trust in this leap of faith.

We make leaps of faith all the time though. If my mother says she will go to the store to buy some food, I will believe that she will. There is no way I can know for certain that such an action will take place. I have no evidence that she will, yet I believe that she will anyway, are you saying that this judgement is necessarily unreasonable? Should then I not believe anything that anyone says?

Again, that's no faith, it's experience.
You have experience in living with your mother, you know that she will in most cases not lie unless there is a very good reason to. You can't perceive any such reason, and therefore assume she's going to the shop.

A leap of faith would be to wait for 3 days for her to come back and still accept she's only been to the shops.

Again, that's no faith, it's experience.
You have experience in living with your mother, you know that she will in most cases not lie unless there is a very good reason to. You can't perceive any such reason, and therefore assume she's going to the shop.


There you go. It is still faith, there is no fundamental proof, experience is evidence, but not conclusive evidence. Many people claim to have experienced God, that is not conclusive evidence for his existence, even if you are allegedly experiencing him yourself. There is no way you can get past the fact that you don't know that she is going to the shops, if you don't know but you still believe, you are making a leap of faith.


A leap of faith would be to wait for 3 days for her to come back and still accept she's only been to the shops.

That's just making it a bigger leap of faith.

Yeah I agree, if we use the definition provided then it is unreasonable, but it is not unreasonable to place trust in this leap of faith.

It's not a leap of faith. If anything, it's classical conditioning. You know, Pavlov and the dogs.

There you go. It is still faith, there is no fundamental proof, experience is evidence, but not conclusive evidence. Many people claim to have experienced God, that is not conclusive evidence for his existence, even if you are allegedly experiencing him yourself. There is no way you can get past the fact that you don't know that she is going to the shops, if you don't know but you still believe, you are making a leap of faith.


Really?
So you are unable to see a difference between assuming and believing? Or are you just so desparate for the rest of the world to show some "faith"?

Really?
So you are unable to see a difference between assuming and believing? Or are you just so desparate for the rest of the world to show some "faith"?

There is little difference. Any difference is purely semantic. There is no way you could possibly show that I know my mother is going to the shops, thus it means that I can only believe that the assumption that she is going to the shops is true.

There is little difference. Any difference is purely semantic. There is no way you could possibly show that I know my mother is going to the shops, thus it means that I can only believe that the assumption that she is going to the shops is true.

The difference being, an assumption remains valid until disproven. Say you assumed she went to the shops, but instead she comes home with a new hairdo and no milk or bread.
What happens to faith when it gets disproven? Will you still believe that she did go to the shop after all? My experience with people of faith in similar situations is that they tend to assume she went to the shop, and there was a hairdresser set up as special event, and she just forgot about the milk and bread...

It's admittedly much trickier to examine the system from within, without being able to take a distanced look. But it most certainly is possible.
You can get through a maze without being able to see the entire layout.
The issue is that you are saying it's possible to navigate this maze, I call into question the very existence of the maze in the first place, it could be a straight path after all. You say it is a maze, why? Because you perceive it that way. How do we know your perceptions are valid? Because they correspond with the maze that you perceive. You circle back and loop yourself again.

Why assume that there is an outside of the system, if there is no evidence whatsoever for it? For all we know, inside is all there it. Assuming that there is an outside would indeed require faith.
Because the system I speak of is how we use science to acquire knowledge, not reality in and of itself. That is the problem, we cannot get outside of reality to see if reality is real, we cannot get outside of reality to see if science actually fits reality should it be real. Outside is a metaphoric choice of wording here, not literally outside.

The difference being, an assumption remains valid until disproven. Say you assumed she went to the shops, but instead she comes home with a new hairdo and no milk or bread.

The falsification principle can prove an assumption false yes, I don't remember disputing that. A valid assumption is not the same as a true assumption. An assumption is a premise you take as true for the sake of argument. The assumption is valid, because it is the best explanation to the evidence provided, but believing that the assumption is true because it is valid is where the leap of faith happens. I know its a bit annoying, but you need to make a distinction between valid and true. It will remain a belief until you can show that it is possible to know the assumption is true.


What happens to faith when it gets disproven? Will you still believe that she did go to the shop after all? My experience with people of faith in similar situations is that they tend to assume she went to the shop, and there was a hairdresser set up as special event, and she just forgot about the milk and bread...

If the assumption becomes more and more invalid, then the belief in the assumption becomes more and more irrational.

Ok, let's work on this. I think, therefore I am (I think). So I think, but how do I know that you think (Not meant in the flame way, but literally ;) ). I can't get into your skull, I cannot see, taste, hear, smell, or otherwise your thoughts, I don't know if you are a thought of mine or not. To take it a step further, I THINK that I am thinking, but I can't see, hear, smell, taste, touch, etc. my own thoughts either. As with the butterfly or the chicken and the egg, I'm constantly turning back on my own beginning to say that I think that I am thinking so therefore I am thinking that I am thinking so therefore I am thinking that I am... you get the point.
I do get the point. Since thinking is ongoing, it could well be that thought is yet another of those perceptions that could be being deceptive. The thing is that the notion of self is derived from introspection. If, indeed, the thoughts I perceive are not my own, then to perceive the question "Do I exist?" is actually perceiving the thoughts of another source asking that question about themselves.

In any reasonable sense, the "self" we perceive must be the "self" of the thinker. To say that "I" exist is thus obvious, because the source of the thought is eventually the thinking agent, which we know, by virtue of the thought's perception, to exist.

The same argument, obviously, does not extend to other people. But it doesn't need to. You do know that my actions have some source relative to yourself; that is, even in the Descartes Demon scenario, what I do is at least an illusion, whatever else it might be. Because I have some position relative to the self, something that is communicating with you exists, even if that communication is entirely internal or if I am just a projection of some singular entity trying to talk to you or mess with your head.

That's the point exactly, our knowledge is based upon a system that we have chosen to accept as real without being able to examine it from outside the system to see if it really is so. We have no actual way to determine if the system is true or not to what is actually out there, but we assume that it is, on faith.
The thing is, we haven't necessarily chosen to accept it as real. We can quite happily acknowledge that it's entirely feasible that everything we see is a cleverly contrived illusion without going mad.

What we know is that the self exists and that there is a fine boundary between the self and "Everything Else". We can state as much without faith at all. We can state that perception is ongoing, again without faith but rather as a consequence of the self that is perceiving, and that although perception may not model what is "real", "truths" exist within that synthetic system that deal with the relationships between perceptions that hold regardless of whether the model is true to reality or not (such as "within this frame of perception, the keyboard appears closer to me than the monitor").

As a result, I have not discounted the possibility of the system being false. My knowledge is simply more conditional than it would be if I were to do so.

The issue is that you are saying it's possible to navigate this maze, I call into question the very existence of the maze in the first place, it could be a straight path after all. You say it is a maze, why? Because you perceive it that way. How do we know your perceptions are valid? Because they correspond with the maze that you perceive. You circle back and loop yourself again.

Might be. Might well be just holes in space-time, after all, rather than corners and dead ends.
We perceive reality as a maze, but using our brains we could figure out that in fact, it's just bent space. That's the difference between the colour blue and the wavelength. We can perceive one, although only subjectively. We can use the other to describe it objectively.


Because the system I speak of is how we use science to acquire knowledge, not reality in and of itself. That is the problem, we cannot get outside of reality to see if reality is real, we cannot get outside of reality to see if science actually fits reality should it be real. Outside is a metaphoric choice of wording here, not literally outside.

Again, why assume something we have no evidence for? Such as a reality outside this reality?
We've phonetically agreed to sum up all our sensual input in the word "reality". To pretend that for it to be real there needs to be an outside of it makes no sense at all.

Again though, all you are doing here is trying to allocate layers of faith. What we are saying is only that we all use faith. We can argue about differing types of faith if you wish, but that only detracts from the original point, now I belive that is a kinda misdirection.

What happens when faith has been disproved? Then it shows your faith was ill considered. Go ahead though and disprove the existance of God.

Would you then assume that animals have faith?
Why would I try and disprove god? As I said, faith is required for things we cannot perceive and experience, and as that conveniently is where religious folks place god, the concept is well out of reach of rationality. However, it would appear that his realm is shrinking, he's becoming more and more a "god of the gaps".

The difference being, an assumption remains valid until disproven. Say you assumed she went to the shops, but instead she comes home with a new hairdo and no milk or bread.
What happens to faith when it gets disproven? Will you still believe that she did go to the shop after all? My experience with people of faith in similar situations is that they tend to assume she went to the shop, and there was a hairdresser set up as special event, and she just forgot about the milk and bread...

Again though, all you are doing here is trying to allocate layers of faith. What we are saying is only that we all use faith. We can argue about differing types of faith if you wish, but that only detracts from the original point, now I belive that is a kinda misdirection.

What happens when faith has been disproved? Then it shows your faith was ill considered. Go ahead though and disprove the existance of God.

Would you then assume that animals have faith?
Why would I try and disprove god? As I said, faith is required for things we cannot perceive and experience, and as that conveniently is where religious folks place god, the concept is well out of reach of rationality. However, it would appear that his realm is shrinking, he's becoming more and more a "god of the gaps".

Huh now I just don't follow your reasoning here?

I don't think animals have faith, umm perhaps they do though. When the eagle chick cries out from the nest for feeding does it have faith that it's mother will answer it's call and not a preditor, or does it's brain not work that way?

When you asked 'what happens when faith is disproven' I assumed that you were talking about religous faith, and so asked you to disprove some religous faith, if I was mistaken then please feel free to ignore that.

I disagree with your definition of faith, faith is beliving in that which we have no proof for. Many religous people will tell you of their religous experiances, and perceptions, so by your defintion not faith based.

Heh yes it is true that for many of us God is 'of the gaps'. Do you feel that this is in any way an inferer idea than positing a scientific idea to fill in gaps in our knowledge though? Surley it is exactly the same thought process?

Saying that our knowledge is an asspect of our perception of reality, only serves to acknowldge that we are not certian that our knowledge is real. If that is the case, and we act as if our knowledge is real, we certianly are taking a leap of faith.

It doesn't require a leap of faith to believe for instance that the sky appears blue to me. It's based on evidence, and is very rational. Every time I've watched the sky it has appeared blue to me so I don't think it's irrational, or requires a leap of faith, to believe that the sky will be blue again tomorrow.
So I think almost all knowledge about how the world appears to me isn't based on a leap of faith.
There are other forms of knowledge that aren't based on leaps of faith either. Think of maths for instance. My knowledge about math isn't based on my senses or on how the world appears to me. Yet I think it doesn't require faith to say that 1+1=2. Also the knowledge about my emotions or my own values or what I find beautiful isn't based on a leap of faith. There must be other examples like that.

But yeah I agree that much of our knowledge about other things requires at least a very small leap of faith. Sometimes you have certain options and you should pick the most rational one.
For instance, it seems rational to say that if I kick you you will feel pain much in the same way as I would. Your nervous system is very similar to mine and your reaction will probably be very similar to mine and you will probably say to me that it hurts, so I think it's rational to say that your pain will be similar to mine, although there could be small differences. Of course this does require a small leap of faith because obviously I can't directly experience your experiences, but I think that all other options requires a far greater leap of faith, so assuming that your pain is similar to mine, even though I can't directly experience it and it does require a leap of faith, isn't irrational.
So I don't think there's a good reason for saying that for instance taking a leap of faith into believing in God is as rational as believing that if I kick you, you will feel pain.

We make leaps of faith all the time though. If my mother says she will go to the store to buy some food, I will believe that she will. There is no way I can know for certain that such an action will take place. I have no evidence that she will, yet I believe that she will anyway, are you saying that this judgement is necessarily unreasonable? Should then I not believe anything that anyone says?

I think we're confusing having faith in something and making a leap of faith. From wiki: "A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence."
I could for instance have faith in a stone falling towards the center of the earth, because all stones I have ever seen falling fell towards the center of the earth. If you have seen your mother keep her word each time she said she would do something you can be sure that she will do her best to do it again. There is nothing irrational in thinking "every time my mother told me she would do something and she was able to she kept her word, so the next time she gives me her word she will do what she promised if she was able to". This 'faith' isn't irrational. Believing that the bible is the literal word of God without any evidence wouldn't be based on any experience, so it requires a leap of faith, and it is irrational. (of course it could be that God has revealed himself to you, but then you wouldn't need a leap of faith to believe that and your faith wouldn't be irrational)

It sounds like a few people in this thread are trying to take measurements and perceptions of the physical world around us and compare them / equivocate them with religious faith.

Perceptions and descriptions used to observe / navigate the world around us are repeatable. That means that if you were to measure the wavelength of light reflected by our atmosphere, you would get approximately the same number every time. If you were to take a spoonful of baking soda and mix it with a spoonful of vinegar, I have faith that bubbles will form. I have faith in this because chemistry has taught me that when a carbonate is fully protonated, carbonic acid is formed before it goes into equilibrium with water and carbon dioxide. Go ahead and try it.

Ok, now that you've proven my faith, give me a method to prove yours. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that you cannot give me a repeatable test that will show the existence of either a god or a supernatural realm. Shit, I'll do you one better: give me a test to prove the existence of a god or supernatural realm, and I will join whatever church you want. The fact of the matter is religion is an irrational and unfounded faith.

Heh yes it is true that for many of us God is 'of the gaps'. Do you feel that this is in any way an inferer idea than positing a scientific idea to fill in gaps in our knowledge though? Surley it is exactly the same thought process?

That is an inferior thought process, absolutely. Rather than try to experimentally determine that which you do not understand, you put faith in an imaginary friend and call it a day. Isaac Newton used the "hand of god" to explain away discrepancies between his model for planetary motion and actual observed planetary motion. Needless to say, he was wrong.

When Galileo put forth the heliocentric model of the universe, the catholic church put their faith in god and said that no, the geocentric model was correct.

So we're science 2, faith 0...

Care to give an example when faith in god disproved science?

Ok, now that you've proven my faith...
One point we're discussing is whether or not you actually have. The Scientific method, as an example of Inductive reasoning, is a valid method of eliminating flaws in your model of the world but is not necessarily a valid method of constructing a correct one. For instance, have you tried adding baking soda to a frozen block of vinegar? Have you tried performing the experiment in vacuum conditions? Have you tried doing it at really high pressure? Are you confident that the same thing would occur in all possible conditions that you might do the mixing in?

I think "proof" is beyond what simple exhaustive testing can happily provide. You need to appeal to concrete rules to prove something, and I'm not sure you can do that in science without relying on circumstantial evidence (however much of it there is).

It doesn't require a leap of faith to believe for instance that the sky appears blue to me. It's based on evidence, and is very rational.

Yes I agree, totaly, but that is not what I'm saying.

I said all of our knowledge is ultimatly based on a leap of faith.
The sky is blue, but can you absolutley prove that to me?

Are do you ask me to take it on faith that how we percive the colour of the sky is indeed blue?

It sounds like a few people in this thread are trying to take measurements and perceptions of the physical world around us and compare them / equivocate them with religious faith.


I think you are wrong there that certianly is not my intent.


Ok, now that you've proven my faith, give me a method to prove yours. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that you cannot give me a repeatable test that will show the existence of either a god or a supernatural realm. Shit, I'll do you one better: give me a test to prove the existence of a god or supernatural realm, and I will join whatever church you want. The fact of the matter is religion is an irrational and unfounded faith.

I make you right, I don't know about you, but I'm trying to stick to the context of the OP, and all that I have said is just to indicate that 'leaps of faith are not unreasonable'.

Now it is others that are making the distinction between types or layers of faith, neither the OP did , nor am I.

Huh now I just don't follow your reasoning here?

I don't think animals have faith, umm perhaps they do though. When the eagle chick cries out from the nest for feeding does it have faith that it's mother will answer it's call and not a preditor, or does it's brain not work that way?

Well, I was wondering how else you would explain Pavlov's dogs? I assume you're familiar with the experiment?
Do you assume that they had faith in food anytime they heard the bell? Or do you think it was a simple learning process, associating experiences that coincided?
A chick calling for its mother is largely following instinct, it's very difficult to say if it has faith. Especially considering that you can imprint any kind of just-hatched bird with virtually anything that moves and makes noises and expect mothering from it (goose chicks have been imprinted not only on humans, but dogs, cats, even little moving toys)


When you asked 'what happens when faith is disproven' I assumed that you were talking about religous faith, and so asked you to disprove some religous faith, if I was mistaken then please feel free to ignore that.

Well, it has been done in the past, and that really is how "God" became a god of the gaps.
People used to have faith that god is in the heavens, which was more or less disproved by Juri Gagarin. So god had to leave there and re-settle elsewehere.
People used to believe that the entire world was flooded, and that Noah and his menagery were the only suvivors. Evidence speaks against it, and most (apart from the most irrational) believers again had to move god elsewhere.


I disagree with your definition of faith, faith is beliving in that which we have no proof for. Many religous people will tell you of their religous experiances, and perceptions, so by your defintion not faith based.

Well, yes and no. I believe I've already said that what we ourselves are able to experience is a small part of reality, and entirely subjective.
If we talk about reality, we usually are talking about the summed up experiences of a good handful of generations before us as well as our current generation. We filter those through our own experiences before accepting them as truth and reality, though.
For example, if you read an account of an autistic person who lived in the late 19th century, would that lead you to believe that at that time, everybody was autistic? You would recognise it as an individual's experience, influenced by social and biological factors.
Something that people with religious experiences rarely do, I'm afraid.


Heh yes it is true that for many of us God is 'of the gaps'. Do you feel that this is in any way an inferer idea than positing a scientific idea to fill in gaps in our knowledge though? Surley it is exactly the same thought process?

What, trying to figure out how things work, and throwing your hands in the air saying "god did it" are the same thought processes?

That is an inferior thought process, absolutely. Rather than try to experimentally determine that which you do not understand, you put faith in an imaginary friend and call it a day. Isaac Newton used the "hand of god" to explain away discrepancies between his model for planetary motion and actual observed planetary motion. Needless to say, he was wrong.

When Galileo put forth the heliocentric model of the universe, the catholic church put their faith in god and said that no, the geocentric model was correct.

So we're science 2, faith 0...

Care to give an example when faith in god disproved science?

Ahhh yes I can agree with you on that, and I would say that when measured against dogmatic, unchanging religoin, then yes I totaly agree. Not all religoin is unchaging nor inflexible though.

Anybody that belives faith in God disproves science is blatantly a fool.

Yes I agree, totaly, but that is not what I'm saying.

I said all of our knowledge is ultimatly based on a leap of faith.
The sky is blue, but can you absolutley prove that to me?

Are do you ask me to take it on faith that how we percive the colour of the sky is indeed blue?

It's a linguistic convention, so it must be true. Even if you perceived the color of the sky in the way I perceive red for instance we could still agree that the sky is blue, separate from how we would actually perceive it, so it would still be true that we perceive it as "what we agreed to call blue". Unless you're color blind you will also perceive other things I call blue in the same way as you perceive the sky. So it's obvious that the color of the sky is blue.
But it's impossible to know if we perceive it the same way since I can't experience the way you perceive it. (although I would say that it takes a larger leap of faith to assume that we don't instead of assuming we do indeed perceive it the same way)
"Blue" is the way we perceive the sky and most other electromagnetic waves of certain wavelength. It doesn't say anything about how we perceive it, only about what we perceive.

And how can you say that all our knowledge is based on a leap of faith while agreeing with what I said about knowing your own experiences and math, aren't those things knowledge?

Yes I agree, totaly, but that is not what I'm saying.

I said all of our knowledge is ultimatly based on a leap of faith.
The sky is blue, but can you absolutley prove that to me?

Are do you ask me to take it on faith that how we percive the colour of the sky is indeed blue?

Nope, language is very democratic that way. We agreed to call it blue. You can call it green if you like, but you'll have to deal with a lot of confusion and problems if you do.

Well, I was wondering how else you would explain Pavlov's dogs? I assume you're familiar with the experiment?
Do you assume that they had faith in food anytime they heard the bell? Or do you think it was a simple learning process, associating experiences that coincided?
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but why the distinction? If you use the synonym "belief" and say that the dogs believed they were going to get food when they heard the bell then there's no exclusion whatsoever with the possibility that they did so because they were taught to believe that.

I know this wasn't aimed at me, but why the distinction? If you use the synonym "belief" and say that the dogs believed they were going to get food when they heard the bell then there's no exclusion whatsoever with the possibility that they did so because they were taught to believe that.They anticipated the food based on their prior experiences. That has nothing to do with faith in the religious meaning.

They anticipated the food based on their prior experiences. That has nothing to do with faith in the religious meaning.

Nor with belief in the abstract sense, either, for that matter.

Nor with belief in the abstract sense, either, for that matter.

Oh right so if you make a prediction based on prior experience that makes it objectively true?

Yes. A problem is seen, an idea is fomulated. Wether that idea is based on irrationalityt or rationality it's still the same process.

No,
religion: A problem is seen, an idea is formulated, it is accepted as truth.

science: A problem is seen, an idea is formulated, it is tested and discarded if the idea doesn't seem to fit the evidence.

Well, I was wondering how else you would explain Pavlov's dogs? I assume you're familiar with the experiment?
Do you assume that they had faith in food anytime they heard the bell? Or do you think it was a simple learning process, associating experiences that coincided?

Ohh learned response, but when I say I don't follow your reasoning, I mean what has that got to do with the conversion in hand?


Well, it has been done in the past, and that really is how "God" became a god of the gaps.
People used to have faith that god is in the heavens, which was more or less disproved by Juri Gagarin. So god had to leave there and re-settle elsewehere.
People used to believe that the entire world was flooded, and that Noah and his menagery were the only suvivors. Evidence speaks against it, and most (apart from the most irrational) believers again had to move god elsewhere.

Yes I get that, but again that is no differant from changing and updateing scientific ideas.



Well, yes and no. I believe I've already said that what we ourselves are able to experience is a small part of reality, and entirely subjective.
If we talk about reality, we usually are talking about the summed up experiences of a good handful of generations before us as well as our current generation. We filter those through our own experiences before accepting them as truth and reality, though.
For example, if you read an account of an autistic person who lived in the late 19th century, would that lead you to believe that at that time, everybody was autistic? You would recognise it as an individual's experience, influenced by social and biological factors.
Something that people with religious experiences rarely do, I'm afraid.

Again we are in agreement, well all except the last bit of course. You have given us an example yourself how onece one religous idea is shown to be false a new one takes it's place. All 'knowledge'/ideas run the same sort of way though wouldn't you say, it's just another indication of how our thought process run.



What, trying to figure out how things work, and throwing your hands in the air saying "god did it" are the same thought processes?

Yes. A problem is seen, an idea is fomulated. Wether that idea is based on irrationalityt or rationality it's still the same process.

Oh right so if you make a prediction based on prior experience that makes it objectively true?The prediction's fulfillment. And the point is that in religious predictions there is no experience basis.

No. After all, if we have no faith in anything, we have nothing else.

And how can you say that all our knowledge is based on a leap of faith while agreeing with what I said about knowing your own experiences and math, aren't those things knowledge?

Heh because you keep missing the basic point I'm making.

Knowldge is based on our perceptions, you cannot prove that our perceptions are in accordance with reality, and so at this level you choose to believe so, is this not faith?

Do you say that maths is not based on our sense perceptions?

Not necessarily. A person may come to a conclusion that they trust their alternate source of knowledge over their own eyes. In situations where said source is normally trustworthy and the eyes can be decieved, a leap of faith may be rational.

The prediction's fulfillment. And the point is that in religious predictions there is no experience basis.

But Cabra specifically stated that this is true in the abstract sense as well as the religious sense.

What you say is incorrect, there is plenty of evidance to show how religion, and religous understanding has grown and changed.But there is no evidence for the religion's contents.

Knowldge is based on our perceptions, you cannot prove that our perceptions are in accordance with reality, and so at this level you choose to believe so, is this not faith?

I'm saying that we can have knowledge of our perceptions. I can for instance know that I'm perceiving something, it doesn't matter if it's really like I perceive it, I do have knowledge about how I perceive it, no? So you can have knowledge about how you perceive reality, while not knowledge about reality itself. (but of course, what is reality?)
Or for instance, I do have knowledge about my preferences, I can say that I like this song, but not that song, are you saying that those aren't knowledge or they aren't true?

Do you say that maths is not based on our sense perceptions?

Yes, are you saying you have a sense for matrices like you have a sense for light (eyes)? Or that you can perceive 22-dimensional forms? Or that 1+1=2 wouldn't be true even if you couldn't perceive it, isn't it purely based on rationality?
Isn't 1+1=2 because of the definition of summation?

What you say is incorrect, there is plenty of evidance to show how religion, and religous understanding has grown and changed.

Yeah, but the change was never because there was new evidence, in contrast with science.

No,
religion: A problem is seen, an idea is formulated, it is accepted as truth.

science: A problem is seen, an idea is formulated, it is tested and discarded if the idea doesn't seem to fit the evidence.

What you say is incorrect, there is plenty of evidance to show how religion, and religous understanding has grown and changed.

But there is no evidence for the religion's contents.

Nope there is plenty of evidance, what there is none of is proof. Yet that is why us belivers call it faith, you do understand that yeah?

If your point is that religous belief is irrational, then yes I agree. Now please contiune.

Nope there is plenty of evidance

What evidence? I haven't seen a shroud of evidence for the existence of god, which is kind of an important aspect of most religions. That isn't because nobody has tried or because god doesn't exist but because the idea of god is constructed in a way you can't find evidence for it, it's outside of the scope of empirical investigation. You can't find evidence, religious faith is based solely on a leap of faith.
Science on the other hand might also require some faith (believing the measurements are right, believing the scientists aren't trying to misguide you etc) but at least there is evidence.

I'm saying that we can have knowledge of our perceptions. I can for instance know that I'm perceiving something, it doesn't matter if it's really like I perceive it, I do have knowledge about how I perceive it, no? So you can have knowledge about how you perceive reality, while not knowledge about reality itself. (but of course, what is reality?)
Or for instance, I do have knowledge about my preferences, I can say that I like this song, but not that song, are you saying that those aren't knowledge or they aren't true?

Yes of course, I have never disagreed with this. But your knowledge of your perceptions can only come from your perceptions. It's circular reasoning. As I have already told Cabra(I'm still waiting for her to answer to that one)

You would not take that circular type of reasoning if I was to use to suggest that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God, so why take it now?



Yes, are you saying you have a sense for matrices like you have a sense for light (eyes)? Or that you can perceive 22-dimensional forms? Or that 1+1=2 wouldn't be true even if you couldn't perceive it, isn't it purely based on rationality?
Isn't 1+1=2 because of the definition of summation?

No it based first on sense perceptions. If you have 1 apple, and add 1 apple to it how many apples do you have.

Without things to count, what use is counting?

Yeah, but the change was never because there was new evidence, in contrast with science.

Can you prove that? No matter, when we talk of scienctific change then that change must be in light of new scientific evidance, so when we talk of religous change it must be in light of religous evidance yes?

They anticipated the food based on their prior experiences. That has nothing to do with faith in the religious meaning.
a) This thread isn't restricted to the religious sense of the word faith.
b) The religious sense is just a particularly specific instance of the general sense. People believe what they do for some internal reason (which may be simple learned behaviour not unlike that of Pavlov's experiment) - religion is no different.
Nor with belief in the abstract sense, either, for that matter.
Why not? Holding the premises you've been taught to be true is still belief, even when it's done subconsciously, isn't it?

What evidence? I haven't seen a shroud of evidence for the existence of god, which is kind of an important aspect of most religions. That isn't because nobody has tried or because god doesn't exist but because the idea of god is constructed in a way you can't find evidence for it, it's outside of the scope of empirical investigation. You can't find evidence, religious faith is based solely on a leap of faith.
Science on the other hand might also require some faith (believing the measurements are right, believing the scientists aren't trying to misguide you etc) but at least there is evidence.


Do you mean proof when you say evidance? Cozthere is lots of evidance about for the existance of God.

A freind of mine comes from an Irish Catholic family, and suffered with an illness, the doctors could not help at all, and as a last resort his mother took him to Knock(in Irlend, like Lourdes) when they got back, the doctor decided to try some new medication, and lo he got better..

This is true story, and this was all the evidance that he needed to allow the possiblity of the existance of a God into his head.

Do you say that maths is not based on our sense perceptions?
Certainly. It might have been inspired by a need to distinguish between and categorise things we perceive, but mathematics is a synthetic system and entirely self-enclosed. It is not reliant on sense or experience, but on agreed axioms and definitions. It has more in common with language than it does with science.

I think we're confusing having faith in something and making a leap of faith. From wiki: "A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence."

Most do leaps of faith on a daily basis. People do leaps of faith when they listen to and believe things of science without actually checking them out themselves. Most of us (like 99,99%?) believe that the world is round. That takes a leap of faith even in these modern times. Most people (I would think) have not traveled around the world. Many people have seen pictures which tell us that Earth is round, however. But all we know it could be an elaborate hoax. If you haven't experienced it or tested it yourself, you're making a leap of faith.

Leaps of faith are a good thing. We just don't have the time to check out EVERYTHING for ourselves. We'd be testing and ascertaining every damn thing that's ever been tested and found to be true through our entire lives and never get anything done if it weren't for our ability to believe.

Thank God for that. :p

Yes of course, I have never disagreed with this. But your knowledge of your perceptions can only come from your perceptions. It's circular reasoning. As I have already told Cabra(I'm still waiting for her to answer to that one)

You would not take that circular type of reasoning if I was to use to suggest that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God, so why take it now?

Because I can't experience the word of god. If I perceive a kick, I'm sure I'm experiencing a kick, I'm not sure though if there really is a kick, I can only be sure that I'm experiencing a kick. It's difficult to explain, having an experience proves that your experience is real (although it doesn't prove anything about what's causing that experience, without a leap of faith)
Having knowledge of my perceptions and perceiving something is the same thing, it's no circular logic.

No it based first on sense perceptions. If you have 1 apple, and add 1 apple to it how many apples do you have.

Without things to count, what use is counting?

I agree that there is little use in counting without having things to count (unless maybe training for the day you actually have something to count). But it's still true that 1234^56789+98765^4321= "some very large number" even though you can't perceive these numbers. I'm not saying it's useful, but it's true, even separate from our perception. (yeah, I'm to lazy to calculate) And you can be sure of that because it's in the definition of summation and "^". Even though you can't perceive it it still is true. And how would you be able to perceive some of the more advanced forms of math (the ones you can't use apples to replace numbers)

Most do leaps of faith on a daily basis. People do leaps of faith when they listen to and believe things of science without actually checking them out themselves. Most of us (like 99,99%?) believe that the world is round. That takes a leap of faith even in these modern times. Most people (I would think) have not traveled around the world. Many people have seen pictures which tell us that Earth is round, however. But all we know it could be an elaborate hoax. If you haven't experienced it or tested it yourself, you're making a leap of faith.

Leaps of faith are a good thing. We just don't have the time to check out EVERYTHING for ourselves. We'd be testing and ascertaining every damn thing that's ever been tested and found to be true through our entire lives and never get anything done if it weren't for our ability to believe.

Thank God for that. :p

But wouldn't you agree that it isn't irrational to believe that the earth is round ?

The prediction's fulfillment. And the point is that in religious predictions there is no experience basis.
Fulfilment of a prediction does not imply objective truth. The inability of Newtonian mechanics to deal with quantum effects in spite of their tried-and-tested success with macroscopic bodies is just one example of that.

Do you mean proof when you say evidance? Cozthere is lots of evidance about for the existance of God.

A freind of mine comes from an Irish Catholic family, and suffered with an illness, the doctors could not help at all, and as a last resort his mother took him to Knock(in Irlend, like Lourdes) when they got back, the doctor decided to try some new medication, and lo he got better..

This is true story, and this was all the evidance that he needed to allow the possiblity of the existance of a God into his head.

:confused: How is this evidence for god? If you want real evidence just let 1000 people go to Knock and see if there is any significant statistical difference in the amount of people healed. If this is evidence for anything it's for modern medicine.

Fulfilment of a prediction does not imply objective truth. The inability of Newtonian mechanics to deal with quantum effects in spite of their tried-and-tested success with macroscopic bodies is just one example of that.

Didn't Newtonian mechanics also fail to predict the movement of really large bodies (like planets)?

But wouldn't you agree that it isn't irrational to believe that the earth is round ?

That, my friend, doesn't matter. A leap of faith is a leap of faith even if you think it's rational or not. In fact, I'd say that whether something is rational or not is a matter of perspective.

Remember, people believed that the world was flat for quite some time, and it was thought that it's irrational to think the world's round. People had just as much empirical information on both. Most still do.

Leap of faith.

Heh okay so you can say for certian that if we had no sensory input that we would still have developed maths?

we wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that it's false separate from our sensory input.

Certainly. It might have been inspired by a need to distinguish between and categorise things we perceive, but mathematics is a synthetic system and entirely self-enclosed. It is not reliant on sense or experience, but on agreed axioms and definitions. It has more in common with language than it does with science.

Heh okay so you can say for certian that if we had no sensory input that we would still have developed maths?

Because I can't experience the word of god.

You see that statement right there is one of faith. You have not yet experianced God(or you may have and not reconised it) but unless you can absolutly prove to me that it is not possible to experiance God, then what you have uttered is no more than a faith based belief.

If I perceive a kick, I'm sure I'm experiencing a kick, I'm not sure though if there really is a kick, I can only be sure that I'm experiencing a kick. It's difficult to explain, having an experience proves that your experience is real (although it doesn't prove anything about what's causing that experience, without a leap of faith)

Again not really true, as anybody who has tried LSD will tell you.


Having knowledge of my perceptions and perceiving something is the same thing, it's no circular logic.

It is not. I can see a shape, but unless I have seen and labeled that shape before, then I have no knowledge of it.
By what methoed do you have knowledge of your perceptions?

:confused: How is this evidence for god? If you want real evidence just let 1000 people go to Knock and see if there is any significant statistical difference in the amount of people healed. If this is evidence for anything it's for modern medicine.

That is evidance, again I ask, when you say evidance do you mean proof?

we wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that it's false separate from our sensory input.

No? then what does it mean? What it shows is that even maths stems ultimatly from our sense data.

You see that statement right there is one of faith. You have not yet experianced God(or you may have and not reconised it) but unless you can absolutly prove to me that it is not possible to experiance God, then what you have uttered is no more than a faith based belief.

I agree, but if I had to prove every fate based statement I say I wouldn't have much time to do anything else. What I meant is that I haven't yet found a god-sense. I do however have found my light sense (eyes) taste-sense (taste buds on my tongue) smell sense etc.

Again not really true, as anybody who has tried LSD will tell you.

No, on the contrary, they will tell me that they did experience something. So they have knowledge about the fact that they experienced something and about how that experience was, they don't however have experience about what caused those experiences.

It is not. I can see a shape, but unless I have seen and labeled that shape before, then I have no knowledge of it.
By what methoed do you have knowledge of your perceptions?

You don't see the shape, you see the light reflecting of the shape. It takes a leap of faith to say you actually know something about the object the light comes from, but it doesn't take a leap of faith to say that you're perceiving something. And, depending on what you're perceiving, you can say something about what you're perceiving. If i perceive, for instance, sweet in my mouth I can say I perceive "sweet" it takes a small leap of faith though to say that I'm perceiving sugar.
Having a perception includes that you have knowledge about it, if you didn't you wouldn't be perceiving it. What you don't have knowledge about though is the real object you're perceiving, saying something about that requires a leap of faith.

Didn't Newtonian mechanics also fail to predict the movement of really large bodies (like planets)?
Ye olde GMm/r^2 generally works in simple cases, but yeah, there're others that we need a more advanced model for like General Relativity or whatever's currently being proposed as our unifying theory.

No? then what does it mean? What it shows is that even maths stems ultimatly from our sense data.

Firstly, we wouldn't be doing much without our sensory input, I can't really imagine any living being without at least some 'sensory' input. (except maybe viruses, but I don't consider them alive).
Secondly, It means just what I said, math is constructed to be true even separate from our senses, even though it originated from their impulses.
1+1=2 is always true, I perceive "sweet" or "blue" is only true thanks to our senses.

That is evidance, again I ask, when you say evidance do you mean proof?

No, I mean evidence, real evidence. To say something is real evidence you need a sufficient sample size and statistical analysis. Otherwise it could just be luck.

Heh okay so you can say for certian that if we had no sensory input that we would still have developed maths?
Of course not. That's not the sort of thing anyone can say for certain (mind you, nor is the opposing stance). My point, paraphrased, is that mathematics would be as valid tomorrow were we to suddenly lose all sensory input as it is now, and so it can't be reliant on sensation, even if it might have been inspired by it.

But wouldn't you agree that it isn't irrational to believe that the earth is round ?
And again, this comes back to the question I asked earlier; is it Rational to believe something that is not logically Valid, but that might nonetheless be conceivably (even probably) true?

I agree, <snip>........


Heh so it seems that you agree that a leap of faith is not nesicarily unreasonable?

Heh so it seems that you agree that a leap of faith is not nesicarily unreasonable?

It depends on which kind of leap, but yes, I agree. It would be impossible to check all scientific theories yourself. So if you want to do science you must take a leap of faith (you must have faith that they are true, or that no evidence on the contrary exists and all evidence supporting the theories are genuine). These leaps of faith are reasonable and rational.
Other leaps of faith aren't that reasonable and are certainly irrational.

Firstly, we wouldn't be doing much without our sensory input, I can't really imagine any living being without at least some 'sensory' input. (except maybe viruses, but I don't consider them alive).
Secondly, It means just what I said, math is constructed to be true even separate from our senses, even though it originated from their impulses.
1+1=2 is always true, I perceive "sweet" or "blue" is only true thanks to our senses.

Well that is all I said, I think the words I used were 'Ultimatly all knowledge stems from a leap of faith'



No, I mean evidence, real evidence. To say something is real evidence you need a sufficient sample size and statistical analysis. Otherwise it could just be luck.


Ohh you mean the evidance as used in the scientific world. Well obviously I'm not talking about science, so I don't mean that definition. Like the differance between statistical evidance, and the evidance of our eyes.

Of course not. That's not the sort of thing anyone can say for certain (mind you, nor is the opposing stance). My point, paraphrased, is that mathematics would be as valid tomorrow were we to suddenly lose all sensory input as it is now, and so it can't be reliant on sensation, even if it might have been inspired by it.

True, on both counts, but again my assertion is only that knowledge stems from our sensory input. Stems from, inspired by, so we are just using differant words to say the same thing.

And again, this comes back to the question I asked earlier; is it Rational to believe something that is not logically Valid, but that might nonetheless be conceivably (even probably) true?

Sure, it would be irrational to never take leaps of faith since then you would almost be unable to do the simplest things.

True, on both counts, but again my assertion is only that knowledge stems from our sensory input. Stems from, inspired by, so we are just using differant words to say the same thing.
That may be true, but you can't use this fact to make the case that you can discount mathematics if you can discount sensation. Although we gain the knowledge that we have through perception, this knowledge is not necessarily dependent on our perception being accurate, because it is derivative and conditional rather than absolute.

Sure, it would be irrational to never take leaps of faith since then you would almost be unable to do the simplest things.
Is this irrationality itself an assertion from faith? :p

I think it depends on whether or not induction falls within the boundary of "reasonable". All "leaps of faith" are based on trust in a given model of the way things work, and if we consider the argument - that these models exist because they always have worked - as being a reasonable one, then I think it's fair to say that faith, too, falls within rational action.
I would argue that induction does not fall within the boundary of "reasonable", but I'd like to thank you for making that requirement explicit.
A leap of faith is necessary in the construction of a complete world view. You might, however, be able to get away without it if you're happy to admit your world view to be incomplete.
Why wouldn't one be willing to accept an incomplete world view. One can't credibly claim to know how everything works, and thus one's world view must always be incomplete, no?

Uncertainty shouldn't be scary.

Heh using that logic then yes. However all knowledge ultimately stem from such leaps, so all knowledge is unreasonable?
It is possible to know with certainty the truth value of some things relative to the truth value of other things.

No leaps required.

As to that bit tacked on the end though. When you say other leaps of faith, just to clarify you mean religous don't you?

amongst others.

Now I'll readily agree that religoin is irrational, as it makes claims to truth without proof.

And without real evidence, you can only prove things in mathematics, not in science or religion. You can collect a lot of evidence favoring a theory, but you can't prove it.

But when you say not reasonable, do you mean that as an extension of irrational, or do you mean that religous leaps of faith serve no reasonable porpouse?

It can be reasonable to hold religious beliefs (I think you won't find many who say that it was unreasonable of the vikings to believe that lightning was caused by a god) but it can also be unreasonable (if you held the same belief today).

It depends on which kind of leap, but yes, I agree. It would be impossible to check all scientific theories yourself. So if you want to do science you must take a leap of faith (you must have faith that they are true, or that no evidence on the contrary exists and all evidence supporting the theories are genuine). These leaps of faith are reasonable and rational.
Other leaps of faith aren't that reasonable and are certainly irrational.

Wow agreement.

As to that bit tacked on the end though. When you say other leaps of faith, just to clarify you mean religous don't you?

Now I'll readily agree that religoin is irrational, as it makes claims to truth without proof.

But when you say not reasonable, do you mean that as an extension of irrational, or do you mean that religous leaps of faith serve no reasonable porpouse?

But that still does not negate my assertion that all knowledge has a grounding in faith.

Saying that our knowledge is an asspect of our perception of reality, only serves to acknowldge that we are not certian that our knowledge is real. If that is the case, and we act as if our knowledge is real, we certianly are taking a leap of faith.
Only if we believe our knowledge to be real.

One can entertain the possibility that something is true without holding it to be true. Again, no leaps.

Ohh learned response, but when I say I don't follow your reasoning, I mean what has that got to do with the conversion in hand?

So dogs salviating when hearing a gong is a learned response, but you expecting your mom to return with groceries when she says she's going to the shops is faith?
Why?


Yes I get that, but again that is no differant from changing and updateing scientific ideas.

Again we are in agreement, well all except the last bit of course. You have given us an example yourself how onece one religous idea is shown to be false a new one takes it's place. All 'knowledge'/ideas run the same sort of way though wouldn't you say, it's just another indication of how our thought process run.

Not really... see, if a scientific idea is proven false in a major aspect (say, the infalibitliy of the bible), it is rejected. Lamarck was basically thrown out of the window for that reason.
When a religious idea is shown to be false, religion claims it's just a metaphor anyway and happily walks away whistling.


Yes. A problem is seen, an idea is fomulated. Wether that idea is based on irrationalityt or rationality it's still the same process.

Not really. The rational process is considering all available data and coming up with a solution that will work.
The religious/irrational process is having an idea and then trying to fix the available data so it matches the idea. The idea does not have to work or help the given situation in any way.

Or can you show me the last time "god did it" led to the practical solution of a single problem or the discovery of anything new and until then unknown?

Nope there is plenty of evidance, what there is none of is proof. Yet that is why us belivers call it faith, you do understand that yeah?

If your point is that religous belief is irrational, then yes I agree. Now please contiune.

What evidence is there? I'm curious.

Nobody here expects proof for anything, in science there can be no proof. All there is is evidence.

Why not? Holding the premises you've been taught to be true is still belief, even when it's done subconsciously, isn't it?

Because dogs are incapable of abstrct thought.
Their sense of "self" is extremely limited.
Pavlov did not mess with the dogs' faith, he messed with their instinct reactions.
Unless you want to go out on a limb and claim faith to be an instinct in mammals, of course...

Nope there is plenty of evidance, ...Show me the evidence.

Do you mean proof when you say evidance? Cozthere is lots of evidance about for the existance of God.

A freind of mine comes from an Irish Catholic family, and suffered with an illness, the doctors could not help at all, and as a last resort his mother took him to Knock(in Irlend, like Lourdes) when they got back, the doctor decided to try some new medication, and lo he got better..

This is true story, and this was all the evidance that he needed to allow the possiblity of the existance of a God into his head.

How so?
If there is a god, what would he gain from dragging a sick kid halfway through Ireland to a place dominated by a ridiculously large airport in the middle of nowhere and massive amounts of souvenir shops?
It would make me believe in the human mind, since it was the doctor who was alert enough to keep himself informed about medical advances and did prescribe the new medicine...

That is evidance, again I ask, when you say evidance do you mean proof?

Nope. Just testable evidence.
Like significant statistical numbers of otherwise incurable people being cured after having visited places like Lourdes/Knock/Altoetting.
And an exclusion of all other possibilities that could have helped the healing process (like, in the case of Lourdes, the water.)

Ohh you mean the evidance as used in the scientific world. Well obviously I'm not talking about science, so I don't mean that definition. Like the differance between statistical evidance, and the evidance of our eyes.

The old religious loophole again, isn't it?
"Oh, I have evidence for my belief, but you must belief it cause it can't be demonstrated"

we shamble through our longish terms
of lavollusion mind
till be be ponderous packyderms
encased in ancient rind
- audifax o'hanlon -

=^^=
.../\...

Ohh you mean the evidance as used in the scientific world.There is no other.

And oh, the word is evidence.

for some reason, the phrase "leap of faith" always reminds me of the opening theme to 'george of the jungle': "watch out for that . . . TREEEEEEEEE!"

=^^=
.../\...

I think you'll find that those who genuinely believe are those who want to, nay need to, believe. While those don't generally use religion opportunistically for personal power.

Only if we believe our knowledge to be real.

One can entertain the possibility that something is true without holding it to be true. Again, no leaps.

Thats true, but in reality how many of us do?

Too far, you are delving too far. I'm talking about the thougth process not the specific way each line of reasoning takes.


Using "god did it" as a reply to any problem doesn't involve a thought process at all, other than "Oh, a problem... well, god did it, didn't he?"


Thats irrelevant, and is something that this type of debate always throws up. For the record I'm not trying to show why one type of thought is better or not than another I'm sipmply trying to answer the OP's question.

I assert that taking a leap of faith is not nesicarily unreasonble.

I assert that faith is necessarily unreasonable. Otherwise if would be called fact.

So dogs salviating when hearing a gong is a learned response, but you expecting your mom to return with groceries when she says she's going to the shops is faith?
Why?


Ohh now I understand, but that was not one of mine, I didn't even comment onthat argument.



Not really... see, if a scientific idea is proven false in a major aspect (say, the infalibitliy of the bible), it is rejected. Lamarck was basically thrown out of the window for that reason.
When a religious idea is shown to be false, religion claims it's just a metaphor anyway and happily walks away whistling.

Too far, you are delving too far. I'm talking about the thougth process not the specific way each line of reasoning takes.





Or can you show me the last time "god did it" led to the practical solution of a single problem or the discovery of anything new and until then unknown?

Thats irrelevant, and is something that this type of debate always throws up. For the record I'm not trying to show why one type of thought is better or not than another I'm sipmply trying to answer the OP's question.

I assert that taking a leap of faith is not nesicarily unreasonble.

Thats true, but in reality how many of us do?

You could say that for instance in everyday life it is a lot easier to fool yourself into believing that your knowledge is real, otherwise a lot of things would be very impractical. While in some situations (like this debate for instance) when you are in a more reflective mood, you can think clearly about our knowledge and acknowledge that only small parts of our knowledge are real and others are possibly true without proof that they are actually the truth.

A little bit like how it might be beneficial to follow a rather small set of simple ethical rules in day to day life but still have a more complete system to fall back to when difficult ethical questions are asked or which you can use to make such rules.

Loads of it, I have alreeady some.Nope. Otherwise show it.

Loads of it, I have alreeady some.

Evidence, not anecdotes.

To your first question, well how could I know. It would make you belive, is the key here, it obviusly made my friend believe differantly. It is not uncommon to come to differant conclusions though is it.

Don't get me wrong there, but personally I think that is a pretty good example of how a leap of faith is inherently unreasonable.

What evidence is there? I'm curious.

Nobody here expects proof for anything, in science there can be no proof. All there is is evidence.

Loads of it, I have alreeady some.

How so?
If there is a god, what would he gain from dragging a sick kid halfway through Ireland to a place dominated by a ridiculously large airport in the middle of nowhere and massive amounts of souvenir shops?
It would make me believe in the human mind, since it was the doctor who was alert enough to keep himself informed about medical advances and did prescribe the new medicine...

To your first question, well how could I know. It would make you belive, is the key here, it obviusly made my friend believe differantly. It is not uncommon to come to differant conclusions though is it.

If you mean by unreasonable irrationle then I agree. If you mean by unreasonable, have no merit the I disagree.

To clarify, a religous leap of faith is irrational, not all such leaps are religious, and not all such leaps are irrational nor unreasonable.

I would say irrational and without practical merit. If you're looking for spiritual merit, you need to ask someone else.

And I've yet to see a leap of faith that's rational or reasonable.

Don't get me wrong there, but personally I think that is a pretty good example of how a leap of faith is inherently unreasonable.

If you mean by unreasonable irrationle then I agree. If you mean by unreasonable, have no merit the I disagree.

To clarify, a religous leap of faith is irrational, not all such leaps are religious, and not all such leaps are irrational nor unreasonable.

I would say irrational and without practical merit. If you're looking for spiritual merit, you need to ask someone else.

And I've yet to see a leap of faith that's rational or reasonable.

Then I agree on the first point but definatly not on the second. Although I'm not even thinking of spritual merit.

I assert that faith is necessarily unreasonable. Otherwise if would be called fact.

You are necessarily unreasonable!

What people take as fact fluctuate. Pretty much everyone used to believe there's a God or gods, and tons of people believed that the world's flat. Those were considered facts. Now, not so much.

Still, for most people, belief in a round world takes just as much faith as belief in a flat one. For something to not be a leap of faith, you need empirical experience on the issue. Without leaps of faith our entire civilization would ground to a halt as everyone would be checking every damn thing they've taken for granted all their lives. As long as you haven't tested it yourself, you are taking a leap of faith when you believe something. Anything. No matter how logical it sounds to you.

People always forget that us humans aren't logical by nature. If you think that something is "logical" and as such it must be true-er than something else, you're still working on faith and aren't really that much better than the other guy who believes differently, "illogically" in your view. Hell, there are lots of people who consider that believing in whatever deity of their choosing is in fact perfectly logical.

And there we have it. Human logic is subjective. Never try to base your case on something as fickle as that.

(Yes, I personally believe in God, but I don't find it hard to believe that there are people who don't. :p But claiming that one is completely without faith in anything is stupid and childish. Everyone believes something at face value, without bothering to actually test it himself/herself. Leaps of faith happen. You can call them something else if you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that it's exactly the same as any other leap of faith if you just believe something without making sure it's actually true yourself.

And I'm fine with that. I can live without checking certain things and just believing that the results others have gotten are truthful enough. Leaves me more time to do other stuff, like posting in this forum. Think of religion as a side-effect of this human condition if you must.)

You still end up assuming that they are not, and that reality is real.
No, I don't. Perhaps you do.


Then, since we cannot state what (G)od(s) is, how is knowledge about how we perceive S/He/It/Them any less than, say, black holes?
Because our perceptions of black holes are much more consistent. An astronomer could show me a black hole in a telescope. I have yet to encounter someone who could allow me to perceive any (G)od(s).
You see no bearing on wether the sky is actualy blue? Then you admit that you don't care for absolute truth, so what is the problem you have with faith?
I am saying that I can't know for sure than I perceive things as they really are. Just because I see the sky as blue doesn't mean it is.

And I don't have a problem with faith. I just acknowledge that taking something on faith is irrational to some degree.
And that is at the crux of the matter, you admit that what we percive may have no bearing on reality. But you can't see how that shows that our knowledge ultimatly stems from faith?

Our knowledge is based on our perceptions. To assume that our perceptions are based on reality is a leap of faith. A leap you seem to think I have made.

Who first brought up the discussed leap of faith, this is attributed to Mr. Søren Kierkegaard. And who was Søren Kierkegaard?

ILLUMINATE THYSELVES! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard)

Because our perceptions of black holes are much more consistent. An astronomer could show me a black hole in a telescope. I have yet to encounter someone who could allow me to perceive any (G)od(s).

An astronomer couldn't show you a black hole in a telescope. No one has ever actually seen a black hole on anything. It's a theory that there are black holes because of the way things work. It'd make little sense in our current system of understanding things if there weren't black holes. Same with that dark matter. No one has really seen it, but it's supposed to be there.

Leap. Of. Faith.

And I don't have a problem with faith. I just acknowledge that taking something on faith is irrational to some degree.

Based on my response just above this one, you just called yourself irrational! Which I think we, as humans, are by default. :p So nuffin wrong with that.

You are necessarily unreasonable!

What people take as fact fluctuate. Pretty much everyone used to believe there's a God or gods, and tons of people believed that the world's flat. Those were considered facts. Now, not so much.

I think you need to differectiate between "fact" and "belief". Yes, people used to believe that the world was flat. Did that change the shape of the world and actually make it flat, with people falling over the sides? Not so much.


Still, for most people, belief in a round world takes just as much faith as belief in a flat one. For something to not be a leap of faith, you need empirical experience on the issue. Without leaps of faith our entire civilization would ground to a halt as everyone would be checking every damn thing they've taken for granted all their lives. As long as you haven't tested it yourself, you are taking a leap of faith when you believe something. Anything. No matter how logical it sounds to you.

Simply climbing a mountain or taking a plane will actually show you that the world is rounded : You can see further when you're further up. That only works on round objects. Only seriously lazy people insists on clinging to faith instead of collecting facts and actually think.
If someone tomorrow comes up here and claims he's found a miracle cure for everything from Alzheimers to hairloss, do you take a leap of faith, or will you ask how it works?


People always forget that us humans aren't logical by nature. If you think that something is "logical" and as such it must be true-er than something else, you're still working on faith and aren't really that much better than the other guy who believes differently, "illogically" in your view. Hell, there are lots of people who consider that believing in whatever deity of their choosing is in fact perfectly logical.

And there we have it. Human logic is subjective. Never try to base your case on something as fickle as that.

No. A deity moving planets at will, dented space-time and attraction between objects are all logical.
The question is, are they right? Do they always work? Are they any use to help us understand the world better?

Newton lost out on the first two, deities lose out on the third.
I'm not interested in logic so much as observable facts and the patterns underlying those.


(Yes, I personally believe in God, but I don't find it hard to believe that there are people who don't. :p But claiming that one is completely without faith in anything is stupid and childish. Everyone believes something at face value, without bothering to actually test it himself/herself. Leaps of faith happen. You can call them something else if you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that it's exactly the same as any other leap of faith if you just believe something without making sure it's actually true yourself.

And I'm fine with that. I can live without checking certain things and just believing that the results others have gotten are truthful enough. Leaves me more time to do other stuff, like posting in this forum. Think of religion as a side-effect of this human condition if you must.)

That wasn't the question, was it?
The question is are leaps of faith necessarily unreasonable?
I am very well aware that people aren't always reasonable, and I know that they take leaps of faith.
I can't think of any leap of faith that ever was reasonable.

An astronomer couldn't show you a black hole in a telescope. No one has ever actually seen a black hole on anything. It's a theory that there are black holes because of the way things work. It'd make little sense in our current system of understanding things if there weren't black holes. Same with that dark matter. No one has really seen it, but it's supposed to be there.

Leap. Of. Faith.

Nope. OB-SER-VATION.
As you very well said, we know how reality works, and we gave it names. A Black Hole is a name for an observed phenomenon. The fact that nobody ever SAW one doesn't mean nobody ever observed one. Seeing is just one of our senses, we've got many more.



Based on my response just above this one, you just called yourself irrational! Which I think we, as humans, are by default. :p So nuffin wrong with that.

Again, that wasn't the question, now, was it?

What people take as fact fluctuate. Pretty much everyone used to believe there's a God or gods, and tons of people believed that the world's flat. Those were considered facts. Now, not so much.

Thankfully science continuously updates itself and doesn't resort to dogma or superstition.

Still, for most people, belief in a round world takes just as much faith as belief in a flat one. For something to not be a leap of faith, you need empirical experience on the issue. Without leaps of faith our entire civilization would ground to a halt as everyone would be checking every damn thing they've taken for granted all their lives. As long as you haven't tested it yourself, you are taking a leap of faith when you believe something. Anything. No matter how logical it sounds to you.

But it takes a far greater leap to believe in something like "the earth is flat", a notion without any evidence, instead of "the earth is sphere-like" with plenty of evidence favoring it. Would you really say that someone who is supporting the first 'theory' is doing the same as the second one? Or that their ideas are equally valid?

People always forget that us humans aren't logical by nature. If you think that something is "logical" and as such it must be true-er than something else, you're still working on faith and aren't really that much better than the other guy who believes differently, "illogically" in your view. Hell, there are lots of people who consider that believing in whatever deity of their choosing is in fact perfectly logical.

And there we have it. Human logic is subjective. Never try to base your case on something as fickle as that.

So trusting a scientific theory, which has been rigorously tested and has delivered accurate predictions requires the same amount of faith as believing that pi=3 because the bible says so? And logic isn't subjective, which doesn't mean that people can't act irrational or apply logic wrongly.
For instance:
A = B
B = C
==> A = C

You see? It isn't subjective. It's one of those things that doesn't require faith to have knowledge about.


(Yes, I personally believe in God, but I don't find it hard to believe that there are people who don't. :p But claiming that one is completely without faith in anything is stupid and childish. Everyone believes something at face value, without bothering to actually test it himself/herself. Leaps of faith happen. You can call them something else if you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that it's exactly the same as any other leap of faith if you just believe something without making sure it's actually true yourself.

And I'm fine with that. I can live without checking certain things and just believing that the results others have gotten are truthful enough. Leaves me more time to do other stuff, like posting in this forum. Think of religion as a side-effect of this human condition if you must.)

No, not at all. Certain leaps of faith are irrational. For instance a person who believes that once he drops a stone it will shoot into the air. All stones he has dropped have fallen to the ground, so it would be irrational to believe that this stone will fall towards the air.
On the other hand you can also rationally take a leap of faith, since you have certain options and amongst those options you choose the one which requires the smallest leap. For instance believing that the earth is flat requires a bigger leap than believing the earth is round, since there is a lot of evidence favoring the last and none favoring the first.

You can't really equate believing in god and believing a scientist, while both do require a leap of faith the first requires a way larger one than the last.

I think anybody that belives they are loved takes a reasonable leap of faith don't you?

Just lack of any other reasonable explanation, really.
I'm having a terrible cold at the moment, I'm snotty, coughing, puffy-eyed, a terrible sight all in all. And yet my BF kissed me before going to work this morning.
As I'm not particularly rich, I assume he did that cause he loves me.

I can't think of any leap of faith that ever was reasonable.


I think anybody that belives they are loved takes a reasonable leap of faith don't you?

I think anybody that belives they are loved takes a reasonable leap of faith don't you?

I think that maybe we have been using 'a leap of faith' as simply meaning 'believing'. I think this is wrong, 'a leap of faith' is believing something without empirical evidence, while you can believe something because of empirical evidence too. You can for instance have evidence that you are loved (people smile at you, say they love you, care about you, have sex with you, etc). So believing that you are loved can be reasonable in that case.

I think that at least some knowledge requires no faith or believing, some does require faith (but no leap) and that some requires a leap of faith.

I think you need to differectiate between "fact" and "belief". Yes, people used to believe that the world was flat. Did that change the shape of the world and actually make it flat, with people falling over the sides? Not so much.

Facts are what we consider them to be. Facts can change. They aren't set in stone. New information can change fact to fiction and fiction to fact.

That is a fact.

Simply climbing a mountain or taking a plane will actually show you that the world is rounded : You can see further when you're further up. That only works on round objects. Only seriously lazy people insists on clinging to faith instead of collecting facts and actually think.

That does not give you definite proof of the existence of the planet's roundness, however. You only see parts of it. And seeing more of the world by climbing a mountain is not really a sign of the world being round - you'd see just as much more if the world was flat. You meant that you see the planet curving slightly, didn't you? That, still, could be considered an optical illusion or something by an adamant believer in the "world is flat" idiocy, and it is by no means definite proof of the world being a round ball-like thingie. That is why I said that one would have to travel actually around the world to gain the empirical information required to turn it from a belief to a fact.

And most people on the planet, I'm sure, have never flown in a plane nor climbed a mountain.

People have thought and "collected facts" for aeons. However, not everyone needs to prove everything to be true for them to believe it is true. That is actually a good thing - as I said, if people had to check everything for themselves, we'd have very little time to do anything else than keep on checking how things are. Leaps of faith are important rather than unreasonable.

If someone tomorrow comes up here and claims he's found a miracle cure for everything from Alzheimers to hairloss, do you take a leap of faith, or will you ask how it works?

That would be quite a bit different. If someone claimed that and it had reputable scientific backing, yes, I'm sure I would take this leap of faith and believe it is true without actually gathering empirical experience of my own on the issue.

If it was just some guy claiming that he had a bottle of stuff that cures everything, I'd just say he's crazy because I have never heard of anything that could do that.

No. A deity moving planets at will, dented space-time and attraction between objects are all logical.
The question is, are they right? Do they always work? Are they any use to help us understand the world better?

Newton lost out on the first two, deities lose out on the third.

You're actually wrong about your third point. They, the deities, were of much use for the human species when they sought understanding on how things work. It was an important part of human evolution. Whether belief in God or gods is useful anymore is debatable.

I'd go as far as to claim that without religion we wouldn't be where we are now. Without our capability to believe... We'd never learn anything, and we would not be able to trust people unless we did everything the way they did to gain empirical knowledge.

I'm not interested in logic so much as observable facts and the patterns underlying those.

Then why bring it up in the first place? It was you who spoke of logic and how faith is illogical and so forth.

I can't think of any leap of faith that ever was reasonable.

You can't think of leaps of faith that are reasonable? Do you believe in evolution? Black holes? Big Bang? Things of that sort? Have you actually gone through all the mathematical equations, evidence and so forth required to come to those conclusions to get even close to having any kind of empirical experience on these issues? Or do you just believe them because scientists, today's wise men, say so with things you cannot understand, and because they make them sound plausible?

How is that so much different from, for instance, a peasant from the Middle Ages listening to a priest go on and on about God? Of course we think our views are much more likely to be true, as our knowledge base is much broader than that of a peasant from the Middle Ages, but most of the time we still base these things on faith. Because it's easier and faster than actually doing everything ourselves, especially if we have no expertise in a field.

If you don't, you're special, and must be commended for your efforts.

You're actually wrong about your third point. They, the deities, were of much use for the human species when they sought understanding on how things work. It was an important part of human evolution. Whether belief in God or gods is useful anymore is debatable.

I'd go as far as to claim that without religion we wouldn't be where we are now. Without our capability to believe... We'd never learn anything, and we would not be able to trust people unless we did everything the way they did to gain empirical knowledge.

If we didn't had religion we wouldn't lose our ability to believe. And I'm not really sure how religion has helped science. Maybe astronomy but other than that I think it has mainly tried to stop science. There are plenty of scientist who were condemned by the church.

I think anybody that belives they are loved takes a reasonable leap of faith don't you?It may be a leap of faith, but not necessarily a reasonable one.

Facts are what we consider them to be. Facts can change. They aren't set in stone. New information can change fact to fiction and fiction to fact.

That is a fact.

Wrong.
Facts will not change with our preception of them, the world has always been round and will be for some time to come. This fact exists without us having any opinion of it whatsoever, it's independent.
What does change is our knowledge of facts and our ability to understand their interactions.



That does not give you definite proof of the existence of the planet's roundness, however. You only see parts of it. And seeing more of the world by climbing a mountain is not really a sign of the world being round - you'd see just as much more if the world was flat. You meant that you see the planet curving slightly, didn't you? That, still, could be considered an optical illusion or something by an adamant believer in the "world is flat" idiocy, and it is by no means definite proof of the world being a round ball-like thingie. That is why I said that one would have to travel actually around the world to gain the empirical information required to turn it from a belief to a fact.

And most people on the planet, I'm sure, have never flown in a plane nor climbed a mountain.

People have thought and "collected facts" for aeons. However, not everyone needs to prove everything to be true for them to believe it is true. That is actually a good thing - as I said, if people had to check everything for themselves, we'd have very little time to do anything else than keep on checking how things are. Leaps of faith are important rather than unreasonable.

No, I was not talking about being able to see the curvature.
Just think for a momnet : If you are standing on a flat surface, you can see to the very edge of it. Provided there are no obstacles, of course. Raising yourself above the surface should not have any effect at all on how much of it you can see.
Only if the surface you're standing on is curved will you be able to see more of it by getting yourself higher up. It doesn't even have to be that much higher, a few meters will be enough, like, say from a treetop or the top floor of a house.
It's simple deduction. The ancient Egyptians had figured out the curvature of the earth that way.



That would be quite a bit different. If someone claimed that and it had reputable scientific backing, yes, I'm sure I would take this leap of faith and believe it is true without actually gathering empirical experience of my own on the issue.

If it was just some guy claiming that he had a bottle of stuff that cures everything, I'd just say he's crazy because I have never heard of anything that could do that.


So, if you take the source as credible you will believe whatever it tells you without question, yet if you deem the source below consideration you will not accept the possibility?
Either way you are not prepared to think for yourself?
That's just sad.


You're actually wrong about your third point. They, the deities, were of much use for the human species when they sought understanding on how things work. It was an important part of human evolution. Whether belief in God or gods is useful anymore is debatable.

I'd go as far as to claim that without religion we wouldn't be where we are now. Without our capability to believe... We'd never learn anything, and we would not be able to trust people unless we did everything the way they did to gain empirical knowledge.

Well, if they have practical use, show me one peice of knowledge or general advancement that was brought about by a deity, or even just a religion.


Then why bring it up in the first place? It was you who spoke of logic and how faith is illogical and so forth.

I did no such thing. I called faith irrational and unreasonable, not illogical.


You can't think of leaps of faith that are reasonable? Do you believe in evolution? Black holes? Big Bang? Things of that sort? Have you actually gone through all the mathematical equations, evidence and so forth required to come to those conclusions to get even close to having any kind of empirical experience on these issues? Or do you just believe them because scientists, today's wise men, say so with things you cannot understand, and because they make them sound plausible?

How is that so much different from, for instance, a peasant from the Middle Ages listening to a priest go on and on about God? Of course we think our views are much more likely to be true, as our knowledge base is much broader than that of a peasant from the Middle Ages, but most of the time we still base these things on faith. Because it's easier and faster than actually doing everything ourselves, especially if we have no expertise in a field.

If you don't, you're special, and must be commended for your efforts.

I have observed evolution during a science project with drosophilae at school.
I don't have the background to form an opinion about the big bang or black holes. From what I understand, they are working theories, used to name observed phenomena while we don't have enough data to outline explicit patterns and find the formulas best to describe what we're observing.

14 years of religious schooling have not presented half as much evidence for god as 2 weeks of breeding fruit flies has shown about evolution.

Thankfully science continuously updates itself and doesn't resort to dogma or superstition.

I never said science is based solely on faith, nor that it did not update itself. I never said science in and out of itself is a religion. Science does not need believers to continue existing. What it requires is people who do research. They can do their research without people going "omigod u r awsum and always right /worship".

I, however, did say that (a layman's) belief in science does take similar faith as it does with a religion. I don't think I said "exactly as strong".

Would you really say that someone who is supporting the first 'theory' is doing the same as the second one? Or that their ideas are equally valid?

I never said that. I said that both take a similar leap of faith. I am sure a clergyman from the Middle Ages could've come up with a bunch of idiotic "proof" for the flatness of Earth, and it would've sounded much more plausible to $random_peasant than the proof we have for the roundness of the planet.

I also never claimed that "world is flat" wouldn't take a larger leap of faith than the other. Or if I did, I didn't mean to. I gotta admit that I at times type a whole lot of filler which I didn't even mean to put there, so it's technically possible. But at least I think I said both need a leap of faith for most people, rather than both requiring an equal leap of faith. :p

So trusting a scientific theory, which has been rigorously tested and has delivered accurate predictions requires the same amount of faith as believing that pi=3 because the bible says so? And logic isn't subjective, which doesn't mean that people can't act irrational or apply logic wrongly.

Do they require the same amount of faith, you ask? Only way for that to be so would be that the "rigorously tested" and "delivered accurate predictions" would actually turn out to be false after people have already believed in its accuracy I'd say. Otherwise... :p

Only way to remove the leap of faith from the picture entirely is to actually test the whole thing yourself from the beginning to the end. But most people aren't equipped to do that with complex stuff. Thus a leap of faith is usually required.

You see? It isn't subjective. It's one of those things that doesn't require faith to have knowledge about.

Human logic is very much subjective. Logic itself when applied to machines and the sorts is not, although it's subjected to possible human error. I think I failed to make the distinction before, but that's what I meant. Sorry 'bout that.

No, not at all. Certain leaps of faith are irrational.
On the other hand you can also rationally take a leap of faith

Indeed. Never said otherwise.

You can't really equate believing in god and believing a scientist, while both do require a leap of faith the first requires a way larger one than the last.

Never said this was the case. I didn't say that belief in God equates believing in what another human being who's an expert in one field is saying - I said both require a leap of faith. The other person was saying that all leaps of faith are unreasonable due to their lack of rationality. You just proved my point and said that this is not the case.

Kind of funny how much "debate" two people can come up with from actually pretty much similar outlook on the issue. :p

And it's that assumption that is the leap. Why not assume that he is fiening love to get his hands on your money, or that he enjoys playing mind games or countless other reasons?

You believe he loves you based on his actions, but you can never have absolute proof, because you can never see inside his brain(so to speak), you cannot know his motives for how he treats you, even if he tells you, you can't discount the fact that he may be lying.

Love is a massive leap of faith.

Again with the proof... I don't believe you can proof anything. But enough evidence one way or another allows us to draw a conclusion without having to resort to blind jumps.
He's got way more money than I have.
If he enjoys it as a mind game, he's a very good actor (and I mean incredibly good actor), and he's been keeping it up consistently for a remarkably long time.
Believe me, I'm not a very trusting person, I've done the whole "What if in truth he's a serial killer"-spiel in my head already. I've rejected the unlikely assumptions, and am now sticking with the most likely one until shown evidnece that will force me to reconsider.

Just lack of any other reasonable explanation, really.
I'm having a terrible cold at the moment, I'm snotty, coughing, puffy-eyed, a terrible sight all in all. And yet my BF kissed me before going to work this morning.
As I'm not particularly rich, I assume he did that cause he loves me.

And it's that assumption that is the leap. Why not assume that he is fiening love to get his hands on your money, or that he enjoys playing mind games or countless other reasons?

You believe he loves you based on his actions, but you can never have absolute proof, because you can never see inside his brain(so to speak), you cannot know his motives for how he treats you, even if he tells you, you can't discount the fact that he may be lying.

Love is a massive leap of faith.

Love is a massive leap of faith.That is not the same as religious faith.

Wrong.
Facts will not change with our preception of them, the world has always been round and will be for some time to come. This fact exists without us having any opinion of it whatsoever, it's independent.
What does change is our knowledge of facts and our ability to understand their interactions.

Now you're changing the entire issue at hand. Sure, there are certain laws that seem to make perfect sense, and as such can't be considered anything else but fact. As per our limited knowledge. Unless, of course, one is of the near-fanatic belief that we know everything there is to know about certain things. Then it's a fact written in stone. And you're wrong again - Earth hasn't always been round. Sol has not always existed. It was once mere dust/rocks/n stuff! :eek:

But you know. Facts change because it's us who define them due to our increase in knowledge. Even if the thing has existed since times immemorial, only once we discover it and begin to understand it does it become factual to us. Before that time, whether it would seem absolutely obvious to a person from the future or not, it's of no consequence to us.

No, I was not talking about being able to see the curvature.
Just think for a momnet : If you are standing on a flat surface, you can see to the very edge of it. Provided there are no obstacles, of course. Raising yourself above the surface should not have any effect at all on how much of it you can see.

Not if the flat surface is absolutely humongous. This should be obvious. And in some ways, due to the curvature of the planet, it actually might look like to some random peasant from the Middle Ages that the world ends out there! Thus, zomgzproof the world is flat.

Only if the surface you're standing on is curved will you be able to see more of it by getting yourself higher up. It doesn't even have to be that much higher, a few meters will be enough, like, say from a treetop or the top floor of a house.
It's simple deduction. The ancient Egyptians had figured out the curvature of the earth that way.

You can simply deduct a whole lot of things from the same proof. The Egyptians made the right call. Early Christians made the wrong one due to their weirdass proof in the Bible. Surely people had climbed mountains, trees and their sorts before Galilei deduced that the Earth is round, even while fully believing that the world is flat.

Still, requires faith.

So, if you take the source as credible you will believe whatever it tells you without question, yet if you deem the source below consideration you will not accept the possibility?
Either way you are not prepared to think for yourself?
That's just sad.

I am prepared to think for myself on issues which matter to me. If it doesn't, I won't care too much and either take it as truth or reject it as false. If I had the time and the willingness to stop to think about everything that is ever presented to me, I'd be a philosopher.

But I'm not. :|

I'm also not a doctor or a medical researcher who would have the expertise to go forth and test everything related to this miracle drug myself.

Well, if they have practical use, show me one peice of knowledge or general advancement that was brought about by a deity, or even just a religion.

One thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

It inspired Hammurabi to make the very first known set of laws!

I did no such thing. I called faith irrational and unreasonable, not illogical.

Irrational, illogical, same thing! :p Not really, but yeah. Replace "illogical" with "irrational" or something in mah stuffs, then at will.

I have observed evolution during a science project with drosophilae at school.

By "evolution" do you mean "human induced mutation" or something? Because that doesn't really count as evolution but rather... Human induced mutation. ;p

Of course, if it was proper evolution, good for you.

I don't have the background to form an opinion about the big bang or black holes. From what I understand, they are working theories, used to name observed phenomena while we don't have enough data to outline explicit patterns and find the formulas best to describe what we're observing.

Gods, sprites, fairies and the sorts used to be used to name observed phenomena while we didn't have enough data to ... You get the drill. Whether religion is useful at this time and age is debatable.

14 years of religious schooling have not presented half as much evidence for god as 2 weeks of breeding fruit flies has shown about evolution.

One could argue, however, that this kind of evolution is actually a part of the species' survival mechanism, rather than a true sign of actual evolution which goes beyond known time. It could be considered to be another case of a person believing the existence of a concept because he or she sees something that compels him/her to believe the thing to be true.

It could also be argued that the person who was 14 years in a religious school did not believe in the existence of God to begin with and rejected Him, so this person could not be filled with the love of God. Or something like that.

And how the hell did this turn into a religion debate? We were talking about leaps of faith, which I believe that everyone does regardless of religion or lack of it because it's a part of the human condition.

Emerika,

I think you'll enjoy this link:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html

It's a brief summary of the limitations of scientific methods and how irrational elements like faith, assumptions, subjectivity, etc. are present in scientific processes.

Have fun.

But you know. Facts change because it's us who define them due to our increase in knowledge. Even if the thing has existed since times immemorial, only once we discover it and begin to understand it does it become factual to us. Before that time, whether it would seem absolutely obvious to a person from the future or not, it's of no consequence to us.Not at all. Reality, i.e. the collection of facts, does not depend on human perception.

That is not the same as religious faith.

Who is saying it is. The OP didn't distinguish, I have not so why do you?

Not at all. Reality, i.e. the collection of facts, does not depend on human perception.

Facts are something we know to be true and there's no shadow of a doubt about their truthfulness. Just random naturally occurring phenomena which we have never observed or don't understand aren't considered fact. They just are.

We're human, you know. So facts, as we understand them, are dependent on human perception.

Facts are something we know to be true and there's no shadow of a doubt about their truthfulness. Just random naturally occurring phenomena which we have never observed or don't understand aren't considered fact. They just are.

We're human, you know. So facts, as we understand them, are dependent on human perception.Nope. The earth being a sphere was a fact long before any human knew about it.

Nope. The earth being a sphere was a fact long before any human knew about it.

You're just working under a different definition of the word than I am. Both are equally correct. Wikaypedia definition:"Generally, a fact is defined as something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation."

You're working under "something that is the case" definition and I'm working under the "something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation" definition. Not that either of us needed this short paragraph, but... :p

Let's leave this "debate" here, please. It's fruitless and won't lead anywhere because we're both pretty much right.

You're just working under a different definition of the word than I am. Both are equally correct. Wikaypedia definition:"Generally, a fact is defined as something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation."

You're working under "something that is the case" definition and I'm working under the "something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation" definition. Not that either of us needed this short paragraph, but... :p

Let's leave this "debate" here, please. It's fruitless and won't lead anywhere because we're both pretty much right.
even the "something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation" does not work in your favor. if someone lacks the ability of evaluation there is no way to come across facts.

And it's that assumption that is the leap. Why not assume that he is fiening love to get his hands on your money, or that he enjoys playing mind games or countless other reasons?

You believe he loves you based on his actions, but you can never have absolute proof, because you can never see inside his brain(so to speak), you cannot know his motives for how he treats you, even if he tells you, you can't discount the fact that he may be lying.

Love is a massive leap of faith.

First of all, you could probably have 'proof' (conclusive evidence) if he really loves you by measuring certain brain activities, chemicals released in his brain and certain reflexes (sweating or pupil dilatation for instance). These are things that can't be faked. But that's besides the question.

You also don't need proof of something to believe in it without making a leap of faith. Empirical evidence is enough. It's also not such a massive leap of faith, how many people do you think actually fake their love? Considering this small chance, the other evidence and the fact that being that suspicious will likely ruin your relationship and maybe your whole life (good relationships is a very important aspect of some people's lives) make believing that your partner loves you a very rational decision.

even the "something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation" does not work in your favor. if someone lacks the ability of evaluation there is no way to come across facts.

Yes, it does work in my favor. The ability to evaluate things is ever changing. Thus facts themselves are ever changing. That was my claim. Facts change because our ideas about the world around us change due to an increase in knowledge. One has to have one method of evaluation to begin this evolution of evaluation. People can come across "true" facts even without OUR distinct level of ability when it comes to evaluation. :p But they are far less likely to consider our facts fact rather than their own facts.

And if you wanna go down that path, you're ignoring the fact (lawl) that facts are human constructs made to describe the world around us based on our current level of knowledge rather than something that actually happens in the world.

Thus, my point stands zomgz!111

Nope. The earth being a sphere was a fact long before any human knew about it.
Except that it's not a fact. We currently think earth is a spheroid, not a sphere.

Except that it's not a fact. We currently think earth is a spheroid, not a sphere.

Levels of nitpicking on this thread just reached critical mass! :D

But yeah, it's true.

Levels of nitpicking on this thread just reached critical mass! :D
Just pointing out that his idea of "fact" is flawed. Entirely appropriate in the context. :p

It depends: induction can be a priori or a posteriori. See Kant.

Layman's terms there are some things you already know and some things that you don't.

For the original question, a leap in faith is indeed out of reason since faith becomes involved. Faith and Reason are mutually exclusive.

Nope. The earth being a sphere was a fact long before any human knew about it.

This may sound stupid but prove the earth is actually a sphere. I.e im hinting at scepticism over senses - weak solopsism. How do you know what you see, touch, taste, hear and smell are real? Do they actually come with an original authenticity stamp signed by King Senses himself? Answer me that, and you sir have the key. One can never prove senses are real so therefore we need a leap of faith to believe simply ANYTHING

Answer me that, and you sir have the key. One can never prove senses are real so therefore we need a leap of faith to believe simply ANYTHING

Non-sequitr. Either the senses are entirely false as you heavily suggest through your Descartes influence, or they actually *do* exist. It's NOT a leap faith since it is already known to you what the circumstances are regarding your senses. We can even continue along here with the Matrix scenario as presented by Descartes and argue that the senses interpreted by your brain from being plugged into a computer are 'real' because you are directly experiencing them.

Non-sequitr. Either the senses are entirely false as you heavily suggest through your Descartes influence, or they actually *do* exist. It's NOT a leap faith since it is already known to you what the circumstances are regarding your senses. We can even continue along here with the Matrix scenario as presented by Descartes and argue that the senses interpreted by your brain from being plugged into a computer are 'real' because you are directly experiencing them.

When did Descartes use the Matrix scenario?:confused:
Do you mean the "evil demon"?

Thankfully science continuously updates itself and doesn't resort to dogma or superstition. *Point 1



But it takes a far greater leap to believe in something like "the earth is flat", a notion without any evidence, instead of "the earth is sphere-like" with plenty of evidence favoring it. Would you really say that someone who is supporting the first 'theory' is doing the same as the second one? Or that their ideas are equally valid?



So trusting a scientific theory, which has been rigorously tested and has delivered accurate predictions requires the same amount of faith as believing that pi=3 because the bible says so? And logic isn't subjective, which doesn't mean that people can't act irrational or apply logic wrongly.
For instance:
A = B
B = C
==> A = C

You see? It isn't subjective. It's one of those things that doesn't require faith to have knowledge about.



No, not at all. Certain leaps of faith are irrational. For instance a person who believes that once he drops a stone it will shoot into the air. All stones he has dropped have fallen to the ground, so it would be irrational to believe that this stone will fall towards the air.
On the other hand you can also rationally take a leap of faith, since you have certain options and amongst those options you choose the one which requires the smallest leap. For instance believing that the earth is flat requires a bigger leap than believing the earth is round, since there is a lot of evidence favoring the last and none favoring the first.

You can't really equate believing in god and believing a scientist, while both do require a leap of faith the first requires a way larger one than the last

Point 1. Superstition can be determined as a leap of faith. Your argument trips itself up. You state that science doesnt resort to any leaps of faith, non superstituous or dogmatic, yet at the end you admit science does take a leap of faith? I'm confused.

Point 2. Although this may have been the case so far, you simply cannot pass off thinking the stone may go up instead of down as irrational - there is a small chance it could. Science is empirical and says all stones drop to the floor due to gravity, yet it ignores the fact that there can be infinite experiments on such a subject. Theoretically, in any one of these infinite experiments of dropping a stone, the chance for the stone to fly up does remain - as it is in the future tense and cannot be discarded.

Point 3. As previously stated, how can we trust our senses? Just because we have perceived distant galaxies far away, fluorescent fish under the sea, a blue sky, does not mean they are real. Simply trusting the senses (naive realism) takes a leap of faith. Rendering the "Science has better (sense percieved) evidence than God" argument useless. It is just as reasonable to believe in God as it is in science. Any evidence for either has the same level of scepticism ----- How can we honestly trust our senses and know they tell us what the real world is like?

Just adding my own comments where I felt they were appropriate...

That, my friend, doesn't matter. A leap of faith is a leap of faith even if you think it's rational or not. In fact, I'd say that whether something is rational or not is a matter of perspective.

Remember, people believed that the world was flat for quite some time, and it was thought that it's irrational to think the world's round. People had just as much empirical information on both. Most still do.

Leap of faith.
Actually, no. Flat earth wasn't nearly as dominant a belief as you may think it was. I refer you to the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology) on the matter. Hell, even Eratosthenes calculated the approximate size of the earth!

Now, as to evidence for the roundness of the earth?
The fact that you can see further along the horizon as you gain elevation is actually evidence of a round earth. The phases of the moon are evidence of a round earth. (The round shadow cast by the earth is what causes them)


Not really... see, if a scientific idea is proven false in a major aspect (say, the infalibitliy of the bible), it is rejected. Lamarck was basically thrown out of the window for that reason.
When a religious idea is shown to be false, religion claims it's just a metaphor anyway and happily walks away whistling.

That's a stereotype! Not all religions do that...

Some just deny the evidence all together.


Still, for most people, belief in a round world takes just as much faith as belief in a flat one. For something to not be a leap of faith, you need empirical experience on the issue. Without leaps of faith our entire civilization would ground to a halt as everyone would be checking every damn thing they've taken for granted all their lives. As long as you haven't tested it yourself, you are taking a leap of faith when you believe something. Anything. No matter how logical it sounds to you.
I disagree. It's not really a leap of faith to trust that the scientific community produces fairly accurate results because the process does much to eliminate them. Peer review encourages good methodology; if a scientist is shown even once to have faked results or whatever, then they won't be taken seriously ever again. So they're careful to not do that.


People always forget that us humans aren't logical by nature. If you think that something is "logical" and as such it must be true-er than something else, you're still working on faith and aren't really that much better than the other guy who believes differently, "illogically" in your view. Hell, there are lots of people who consider that believing in whatever deity of their choosing is in fact perfectly logical.

True, people don't always act logically. But this doesn't mean faith and reason are equally valuable; it means that people do not always act optimally.


And there we have it. Human logic is subjective. Never try to base your case on something as fickle as that.

Actually, it just shows that humans don't always apply logic correctly. Logic is straightforward and objective. But something being logical doesn't always mean it's reasonable, however often the two are equated, and however much reason uses logic.


(Yes, I personally believe in God, but I don't find it hard to believe that there are people who don't. :p But claiming that one is completely without faith in anything is stupid and childish. Everyone believes something at face value, without bothering to actually test it himself/herself. Leaps of faith happen. You can call them something else if you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that it's exactly the same as any other leap of faith if you just believe something without making sure it's actually true yourself.

And I'm fine with that. I can live without checking certain things and just believing that the results others have gotten are truthful enough. Leaves me more time to do other stuff, like posting in this forum. Think of religion as a side-effect of this human condition if you must.)
I disagree, again, that accepting that the experts are, in most cases, correct about things is a leap of faith. Past evidence that experts in a field, applying reason and researching that field, tend to have a pretty good idea of what they're talking about.

An astronomer couldn't show you a black hole in a telescope. No one has ever actually seen a black hole on anything. It's a theory that there are black holes because of the way things work. It'd make little sense in our current system of understanding things if there weren't black holes. Same with that dark matter. No one has really seen it, but it's supposed to be there.

Leap. Of. Faith.

Nobody has ever seen a black hole, true, but people have seen solid evidence that they exist; they fit with the evidence and we do not have any better explanation. Gods, on the other hand, have no evidence in favor. Everything that they're proposed to explain, they do no better than evidence-based explanation. It used to be that gods were the only explanation for the origin of life, until Darwin came along.


Based on my response just above this one, you just called yourself irrational! Which I think we, as humans, are by default. :p So nuffin wrong with that.
(emphasis mine)
Sure, people tend to be irrational. That doesn't mean that faith and reason are equally likely to arrive at correct conclusions, and that's the key. A decision-making process is valuable in that it arrives at correct conclusions, and reason has shown itself to be far more reliable in this regard than faith. That is, reason is superior to faith.



<snip>

That does not give you definite proof of the existence of the planet's roundness, however. You only see parts of it. And seeing more of the world by climbing a mountain is not really a sign of the world being round - you'd see just as much more if the world was flat. You meant that you see the planet curving slightly, didn't you? That, still, could be considered an optical illusion or something by an adamant believer in the "world is flat" idiocy, and it is by no means definite proof of the world being a round ball-like thingie. That is why I said that one would have to travel actually around the world to gain the empirical information required to turn it from a belief to a fact.

Actually, you're wrong.

With a flat earth, the reason you'd see a horizon would be one of two reasons, once you get to the point where you have an unobstructed view.

Reason One: You see the edge of the eart
Reason Two: Beyond the horizon is simply too far for the unaided eye to be able to see.

But with both of these reasons, gaining elevation would not allow you to see further. The reason this is true for reason one is, I should hope, obvious, but for two, I have quickly thrown together a (very) rough diagram:

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5133/diagramts1.png
(Apologies for it not being a particularly good diagram; I just quickly did it in paint to make a point)

Look at the two people with the flat earth diagram. The guy who has the line of sight at A can only see as far as the line, for past that is just beyond his eye's ability to see. If the person above him looks out into the distance at the same angle, he can see equally as far (B).

But, for what we're talking about, it'd most likely be somebody looking down from the height! (Looking down from the mountain, aeroplane, etc. to see further.) In this case (C), he'd be able to see less far than A, because he has to "waste" some of his distance to look down! (If you formed a right triangle between the higher viewer, the lower viewer, and the object being viewed, the line from the object to the higher viewer would be the hypotenuse.

However, with the round earth, consider lines of sight for a person at D and a person at E. The guy at D can clearly see further than the guy at E, because he has a better angle.

Now, I know you know the earth is round; I'm not trying to prove that to you. What I am showing is that there is actually evidence that can be seen by any person willing to think about it a bit-- seeing a further horizon at a higher altitude would actually not fit at all with a flat earth-- it'd be impossible!


And most people on the planet, I'm sure, have never flown in a plane nor climbed a mountain.

I don't know about that, I'd say most people have either been on a plane or at least taken a trip to the mountains before.


People have thought and "collected facts" for aeons. However, not everyone needs to prove everything to be true for them to believe it is true. That is actually a good thing - as I said, if people had to check everything for themselves, we'd have very little time to do anything else than keep on checking how things are. Leaps of faith are important rather than unreasonable.

Well, I will, once again, disagree that putting a certain degree of trust in experts isn't really a leap of faith, so long as you don't blindly follow them. I will even concede, however, that I think short term leaps of faith are okay-- there's not always time to think everything through rationally.

However, in forming your beliefs, you should rationally evaluate everything to the best of your abilities, and not draw conclusions that the evidence doesn't point to, even if it means admitting ignorance in certain areas.


That would be quite a bit different. If someone claimed that and it had reputable scientific backing, yes, I'm sure I would take this leap of faith and believe it is true without actually gathering empirical experience of my own on the issue.

If it was just some guy claiming that he had a bottle of stuff that cures everything, I'd just say he's crazy because I have never heard of anything that could do that.

Ah, that illustrates my point quite well. Reputable scientists are quite often correct about their fields-- it's not a leap of faith to believe that they are, quite probably, correct or close to it. Past evidence indicates that experts collecting evidence in their fields tend to get closer to the truth and gain more knowledge.


You're actually wrong about your third point. They, the deities, were of much use for the human species when they sought understanding on how things work. It was an important part of human evolution. Whether belief in God or gods is useful anymore is debatable.

I'd go as far as to claim that without religion we wouldn't be where we are now. Without our capability to believe... We'd never learn anything, and we would not be able to trust people unless we did everything the way they did to gain empirical knowledge.

What scientific advances would not have been possible with deities?



You can't think of leaps of faith that are reasonable? Do you believe in evolution? Black holes? Big Bang? Things of that sort? Have you actually gone through all the mathematical equations, evidence and so forth required to come to those conclusions to get even close to having any kind of empirical experience on these issues? Or do you just believe them because scientists, today's wise men, say so with things you cannot understand, and because they make them sound plausible?

Having engaged in certain of these debates, and having had an education that wasn't a complete failure, I actually have been exposed to much of the evidence in favor of scientific theories.

How is that so much different from, for instance, a peasant from the Middle Ages listening to a priest go on and on about God? Of course we think our views are much more likely to be true, as our knowledge base is much broader than that of a peasant from the Middle Ages, but most of the time we still base these things on faith. Because it's easier and faster than actually doing everything ourselves, especially if we have no expertise in a field.

Ah, but we must consider where the scientist and the priest get their authority from. The scientist collects evidence, debates with other scientists, and generally does things that are useful for uncovering truth. The priest, on the other hand, is right "just because."

The essential problem with faith, as I see it, is that faith, unlike reason, isn't self-correcting. Yes, you might sometimes end up being wrong by following evidence and reason, and you might sometimes end up being right by just blind guessing and having faith in that guess. (I've never heard any explanation for what faith to choose to have faith in, so I can only assume it's a guess.) However, you must look at what happens when you get it wrong.

With faith, you keep being wrong. New evidence pops up that would indicate something else? So what! You have faith, and that bit was just metaphorical, or the evidence is just wrong, or Satan is testing you, or whatever.

With evidence, you say "oh, it seems I was wrong! I better change my views, then!"

Admittedly, nobody is perfect in this regard. I know I'm not! I may sometimes cling stubbornly to refuted ideas. But that's a vice of mine; it's something I strive to eliminate as much as possible!
And again, admittedly, in the short term, I might have to make certain leaps to function-- I can't always immediately evaluate any situation rationally, because proper reasoning takes time. But when forming my beliefs, I strive to use reason and evidence and I always try to look back in retrospect upon those situations where I had to take a (short term) leap of faith and see if reason would have led to the same conclusion or not so that I can determine whether I should act similarly in the future.

True, this means that all my beliefs are, to a certain (often small) extent, tentative beliefs-- I recognize that, while the evidence supports them, it's possible that any given belief will have to change. (And it's overwhelmingly probable that, generally, I will have to change some of them!) But I'm okay with that, and I cannot understand why a tentative worldview like that frightens so many people.

Okay fair enough with the earth sphere thing. But your forgetting one thing, they are still using senses to calculate size of the earth - senses cannot be trusted - period. Cogito ergo sum, thats the only thing someone can trust.

When did Descartes use the Matrix scenario?:confused:
Do you mean the "evil demon"?

Descartes used it when he was describing the characteristics of wax and how it changes when exposed to heat. He also did this with the perceptions of things at a distance.

Thats true, but in reality how many of us do?

The reasonable among us do.

Cogito ergo sum, thats the only thing someone can trust.
There's more you can trust in Descartes' Demon than that. Both Descartes and Berkeley (a really interesting philosopher, if you can get over his quaint religious zeal) used the notion of God as a work-around, but actually, all you need to do is acknowledge that if the I exists and there is a separation between the I and the other then considering the other as a single (albeit potentially deconstructable) source has a similar effect.

Actually, no. Flat earth wasn't nearly as dominant a belief as you may think it was. I refer you to the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology) on the matter. Hell, even Eratosthenes calculated the approximate size of the earth!

I used the generalization to simplify things. I did mention "Christians" there somewhere because in Judaism, you have the whole flat Earth thing due to the stupid stuff in the Old Testament.

Now, as to evidence for the roundness of the earth?
The fact that you can see further along the horizon as you gain elevation is actually evidence of a round earth. The phases of the moon are evidence of a round earth. (The round shadow cast by the earth is what causes them)

I know that. You know that. $random_peasant_from_the_Middle_Ages who believes in a flat Earth does not. See my point?


That's a stereotype! Not all religions do that...

Some just deny the evidence all together.

As for that thing, I don't see what's wrong with claiming things to be metaphors once it is found out that it's categorically untrue. Especially when you are supposed to think that the book (Bible in this case) is supposed to be the Word of God. If people who do science are allowed to change their views as theories are accepted/rejected, new information is found and so forth, why wouldn't religions have the same luxury?

Cabra West's views on religion are quite... Limited.

I disagree. It's not really a leap of faith to trust that the scientific community produces fairly accurate results because the process does much to eliminate them. Peer review encourages good methodology; if a scientist is shown even once to have faked results or whatever, then they won't be taken seriously ever again. So they're careful to not do that.

A person from the middle ages could have said the same about the various priests and so forth. It's not a leap of faith for the scientist who does this for a living, sure. It is, however, a leap of faith for a layman person who really has very little idea what's actually going on, but believes something nonetheless, because some folks say it's true based on what seems to make sense in his eyes.

Note that people used to think that possessions by the Devil made sense, too. After all, people who had learned in actual schools said so! Of course, due to their superior knowledge, they had to be right.

True, people don't always act logically. But this doesn't mean faith and reason are equally valuable; it means that people do not always act optimally.

Faith and human reason walk hand in hand. This is evidenced by the simple fact that humans have found religious beliefs very reasonable for thousands of years, and only in the last few hundred years have people begun to question this. What is reasonable tends to change with the times, much like faith itself does.

Actually, it just shows that humans don't always apply logic correctly. Logic is straightforward and objective. But something being logical doesn't always mean it's reasonable, however often the two are equated, and however much reason uses logic.

I think that one has to make a distinction between human logic and human reason, and "actual" logic and reason because of this. They are different things, as this human condition interferes with these issues. Yarr.

I disagree, again, that accepting that the experts are, in most cases, correct about things is a leap of faith. Past evidence that experts in a field, applying reason and researching that field, tend to have a pretty good idea of what they're talking about.

Again, a person from the Middle Ages could have said the same about their priests and the sorts based on past evidence etc. Just because we think that what these experts say makes sense based on our current knowledge base doesn't make it any less a leap of faith if we take it as truth without checking it ourselves. Sure, it takes a lesser leap of faith for a person of this day than belief in, say, God, due to "evidence" shown by a priest. But that would probably not be the case for a person from the Middle Ages. In fact, I think it would be harder for this person to believe what we are saying than what this Learned Priest Guy (tm) is saying.

Nobody has ever seen a black hole, true, but people have seen solid evidence that they exist; they fit with the evidence and we do not have any better explanation. Gods, on the other hand, have no evidence in favor. Everything that they're proposed to explain, they do no better than evidence-based explanation. It used to be that gods were the only explanation for the origin of life, until Darwin came along.

Yes, yes. I did say that it wouldn't make sense for black holes not to exist based on our current knowledge. But consider a person from an earlier age who did not have our knowledge base. For him, God or gods were as true as the Earth orbiting the Sun is for us. What I've been trying to say is that the mechanism of belief in science is similar to the belief in a religion. Both have made just as much sense during their time. I do believe that we've been "wired" that way - it'd make life a lot more difficult if we weren't.

And no... I don't think that leaps of faith which are based on science are "as bad as" leaps of faith based on possibly crazy religious ideas, especially today when we know so much more than the folks who lived in past centuries. I never said that. I just said that both require a leap of faith no matter how you look at it.

(emphasis mine)
Sure, people tend to be irrational. That doesn't mean that faith and reason are equally likely to arrive at correct conclusions, and that's the key. A decision-making process is valuable in that it arrives at correct conclusions, and reason has shown itself to be far more reliable in this regard than faith. That is, reason is superior to faith.


Actually, you're wrong.

However, with the round earth, consider lines of sight for a person at D and a person at E. The guy at D can clearly see further than the guy at E, because he has a better angle.

In theory, yes. But it just doesn't work the same in real life. There's always obstructions, be they physical or gaseous. Earth, also, is, you know, quite large. You won't see that much more than the guy who's a little bit below you as a result - the planet is just too large. Coming to the wrong conclusions is entirely possible. If the world was really small like in your example and the mountain was absolutely gigantic... Yes, then you'd really see it being round-ish.

And I never said that people wouldn't be able to see that the world is round from orbit, which is basically wher your higher guy is. It's just that there's just a few people who have actually done that.

Now, I know you know the earth is round; I'm not trying to prove that to you. What I am showing is that there is actually evidence that can be seen by any person willing to think about it a bit-- seeing a further horizon at a higher altitude would actually not fit at all with a flat earth-- it'd be impossible!

Read response to the quote one step higher. :p

I don't know about that, I'd say most people have either been on a plane or at least taken a trip to the mountains before.

There's six billion of us. If most people had been on a plane or taken a trip to the mountains, we'd really be screwed!

Well, I will, once again, disagree that putting a certain degree of trust in experts isn't really a leap of faith, so long as you don't blindly follow them. I will even concede, however, that I think short term leaps of faith are okay-- there's not always time to think everything through rationally.

And I do think it requires a leap of faith if you believe it even if it's from a supposedly reputable source. For it to not be a leap of faith it would require you to actually go through the entire process yourself. Every damn time you hear something and are inclined to believe it. I seriously don't think that people have time for that, and as such, are more inclined to just take some things on faith rather than go off checking them themselves.

However, in forming your beliefs, you should rationally evaluate everything to the best of your abilities, and not draw conclusions that the evidence doesn't point to, even if it means admitting ignorance in certain areas.

I think that's what people have done since day one. Rationally evaluating everything to the best of their abilities. Just that rationalizations may go to a weird place when you don't have the knowledge required to understand certain things.


Ah, that illustrates my point quite well. Reputable scientists are quite often correct about their fields-- it's not a leap of faith to believe that they are, quite probably, correct or close to it.

Without personal empirical experience, you can't be sure about it being really true or not. You just take it as true as the guy/gal who, to you, seems reputable.

What scientific advances would not have been possible with deities?

Durr, based on certain religions, ALL of them, of course. :p If God created Man in His image, then all Man has done has been only possible due to God. Whether this is true is debatable, and I won't debate it.

Although, it has been said that scientific research as we know it begun because people figured that if an orderly God created an orderly Universe, everything should be measurable and so forth.

Having engaged in certain of these debates, and having had an education that wasn't a complete failure, I actually have been exposed to much of the evidence in favor of scientific theories.

Yeah, yeah. What I'm trying to point out is that we're still human, and having faith in something has been pretty much proven to be a human thing. You know, gods, people, things... Science. A human being can believe himself to be sick or fit, for Christ's sake.

As a result, I truly believe that leaps of faith happen, even if they are more based on probable fact now than just some guy's ramblings about random stuff. "Probable fact", because I think it's very arrogant to think that we now know the Ultimate Truths (tm) of the Universe, even though theories and everything keep changing and getting corrected on a regular basis.

Ah, but we must consider where the scientist and the priest get their authority from. The scientist collects evidence, debates with other scientists, and generally does things that are useful for uncovering truth. The priest, on the other hand, is right "just because."

Remember that the priest used to be considered to be correct because he had God's authority. People didn't think it was "just because". Just because our knowledge base has broadened, it hasn't turned us into another bunch of creatures. We're still human and we're still quite capable of the same things those people were.

Such as believing certain things without actually checking them out ourselves, hence we do (largely non-religious) leaps of faith even today. Note that reading some guy's theory and possible findings isn't the same as actually having checked the thing for yourself.

The essential problem with faith, as I see it, is that faith, unlike reason, isn't self-correcting. Yes, you might sometimes end up being wrong by following evidence and reason, and you might sometimes end up being right by just blind guessing and having faith in that guess. (I've never heard any explanation for what faith to choose to have faith in, so I can only assume it's a guess.) However, you must look at what happens when you get it wrong.

[uote]With faith, you keep being wrong. New evidence pops up that would indicate something else? So what! You have faith, and that bit was just metaphorical, or the evidence is just wrong, or Satan is testing you, or whatever.[/quote]

Actually, the thing turning into a metaphorical story is an obvious sign of self-correctment within a religion. Religions aren't exact sciences, and stories are still stories even if they aren't exact accounts of what has happened.

Religions are perfectly capable of changing with the times. Otherwise there'd be no Protestantism, Inquisition would be running strong... ANd so on.

With evidence, you say "oh, it seems I was wrong! I better change my views, then!"

In an optimal situation. But some people never change their views even after an earlier scientific fact is proven false. Hell, some people still cling to "CIGARETTES DON'T CAUSE LUNG CANCER BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THERE'S SOME SERIOUS CORRELATION ETC. I DON'T BELIEVE IT" even though it has been pretty much proven that it does.

And again, admittedly, in the short term, I might have to make certain leaps to function-- I can't always immediately evaluate any situation rationally, because proper reasoning takes time.

So there's nothing you have heard that you haven't personally thought extensively of, checked out all the facts and so forth so you have only managed to make "short term" leaps of faith? Commendable, I guess. A bit creepy, too. :p

True, this means that all my beliefs are, to a certain (often small) extent, tentative beliefs-- I recognize that, while the evidence supports them, it's possible that any given belief will have to change.

And then in the end you say you do make leaps of faith. :| Zomgz make up your mind already! A leap of faith doesn't just mean "o rly? I WILL FOREVER ONLY BELIEVE THIS!!!!" It could be just, "o rly? OK, guess that sounds believable enough. I'll fink this as true (unless something new shows up)."

But I'm okay with that, and I cannot understand why a tentative worldview like that frightens so many people.

Yeah, so am I. I dunno why we are even debating this thing, though. Are we even debating? I think we're just typing stuff out of the fun-ness of typing stuff.

As for my religious position... I do believe in God. If someone can prove Him to not exist, I'll change my belief. Why do I believe in Him? Because I do. I also believe that evolution is the closest thing we have right now to the correct version of how we got here. I believe the world is round(ish, since it's not supposedly PERFECTLY round!). I do think that black holes probably exist because as I said, it'd make little sense if they didn't based on what I've heard. :p Same with dark matter.

But I'm also saying that because I haven't really gone off and checked every damn thing about these issues, I'm making a sort of leap of faith with them as I choose to believe these folks who have expertise in issues that I don't. And I can live with that.

Why can't others live with the fact that I think that that they are taking leaps of faith just as much in the same issues? Is it because they are atheists (or agnostics, or who knows whats who don't hef religion) and can't stand the word "faith"? :p If so, get over it! IT'S A WORD.

I think this debate has been debated to its death already.

As for that thing, I don't see what's wrong with claiming things to be metaphors once it is found out that it's categorically untrue. Especially when you are supposed to think that the book (Bible in this case) is supposed to be the Word of God. If people who do science are allowed to change their views as theories are accepted/rejected, new information is found and so forth, why wouldn't religions have the same luxury?

Cabra West's views on religion are quite... Limited.

Ok, I didn't want to get back to this, cause it's been done to death, and more than once, but here goes :

The bible (or the Q'ran, or the Bagvadghitta, or the Thora) are supposedly the word of god. God, as any follower of the respective religion will assure you, is infallible.
Yet, apparently, once parts of the word of god are disproven by observation and thought, those parts are metaphors. Only those parts, mind, the rest remain the "Gospel truth" and cannot be taken in anything but the exact literal sense.

A scientific theory that gets disproven by new evidence, or by incorrect predicitions made based on it, will get a complete overhaul or will be rejected entirely (I quoted Lamarck on you there). No part of it suddenly becomes a mere metaphore, it's called what it is : wrong.

See the difference?

In theory, yes. But it just doesn't work the same in real life. There's always obstructions, be they physical or gaseous. Earth, also, is, you know, quite large. You won't see that much more than the guy who's a little bit below you as a result - the planet is just too large. Coming to the wrong conclusions is entirely possible. If the world was really small like in your example and the mountain was absolutely gigantic... Yes, then you'd really see it being round-ish.

And I never said that people wouldn't be able to see that the world is round from orbit, which is basically wher your higher guy is. It's just that there's just a few people who have actually done that.

No, a normal tree is usually high enough to notice a clear difference in the observable distance. And no, there is not always an obstruction. Just pick the biggest tree on the plain, or the highest hill.

As for gaseous obstructions, considering that the person higher up in the flat model actually has to look through more gas to see the ground would indicate that climbing trees or hills to command a good look of the surroundings would be essentially counterproductive.

And people DID know that from higher up you can see more. Or have you never wondered why old castles and defenses are ALWAYS on a high hill?

Yet, apparently, once parts of the word of god are disproven by observation and thought, those parts are metaphors. Only those parts, mind, the rest remain the "Gospel truth" and cannot be taken in anything but the exact literal sense.

Yes. Things like "that guy did this" will remain "gospel truth" as they are near impossible to refute. It's nearly impossible to say did $random_guy_who_supposedly_did_something really exist or not unless he was a man of power within an empire or something.

I don't see why a religion acknowledging a part of the possibly ancient book it follows being factually incorrect in the sense of what truly happened and saying that it is a metaphor is a bad thing, however.

Do you really think that you could explain evolution and so forth in a way that he would truly understand it to a man who lived, say, 4000 years ago? The metaphor idea, in this light, makes perfect sense, actually. The thought of God telling some guy who barely knows how to read/write about EVOLUTION and stuff seems kinda trippy. :p

A scientific theory that gets disproven by new evidence, or by incorrect predicitions made based on it, will get a complete overhaul or will be rejected entirely (I quoted Lamarck on you there). No part of it suddenly becomes a mere metaphore, it's called what it is : wrong.

See the difference?

A theory that gets disproven by new evidence *may* get overhauled entirely, rejected entirely, or then it may be changed to work with the new framework instead with mere slight alterations. There's not just "either/or", there's also "FIX IT A LITTLE SO IT FITS THE NEW VIEW". :p

Then there's the whole issue of religion not being an exact science - and our knowledge base having grown from the days the Old Testament (which is the source of most weird beliefs in the Western world) was written.

No, a normal tree is usually high enough to notice a clear difference in the observable distance. And no, there is not always an obstruction. Just pick the biggest tree on the plain, or the highest hill.

You do realize that that could be caused just by differences in altitude? It doesn't disprove the planet being a flat one that easily. You'd need more than just that. Unless you are of the predisposition that the world is round, and that is all the proof you need.

Which I bet we both are of. I don't know why we are even debating this issue, though.

As for gaseous obstructions, considering that the person higher up in the flat model actually has to look through more gas to see the ground would indicate that climbing trees or hills to command a good look of the surroundings would be essentially counterproductive.

Then climbing up would be even more counter productive when you're on a round object, because you have even more gas to see through than on a flat object. When distances grow large enough, seeing becomes difficult no matter the shape of the object you are on. Due to the obstructions this world is full of, one of them being our own eyes... It becomes near impossible to prove that the world is round from a mountain/tree/whatever unless you already assume the world to be round, as your field of vision just doesn't cover enough ground.

You might conclude that it's round due to certain things, but you could also conclude that you can't be sure because of the same issues. A flat area so huge that you can't see the sides and with enough differences in altitude might make you think it's round while it's actually flat.

Kind of like how some folks would end up thinking that a round object is flat.

And people DID know that from higher up you can see more. Or have you never wondered why old castles and defenses are ALWAYS on a high hill?

Have you ever played an FPS game or something? In them, the map is usually of the flat variety, without things caused by curvature of the planet.

Yet, when you go higher, you generally see people coming farther away as they don't get muddled in the background as much and can't hide behind things as easily due to the simple fact that you can see past the structure.

I'd say that even in a flat world it would make much more sense to build your castles on a hill rather than anywhere else. :|

So, what's the weather like there? It's unseasonably warm here!

Yes. Things like "that guy did this" will remain "gospel truth" as they are near impossible to refute. It's nearly impossible to say did $random_guy_who_supposedly_did_something really exist or not unless he was a man of power within an empire or something.

I don't see why a religion acknowledging a part of the possibly ancient book it follows being factually incorrect in the sense of what truly happened and saying that it is a metaphor is a bad thing, however.

Do you really think that you could explain evolution and so forth in a way that he would truly understand it to a man who lived, say, 4000 years ago? The metaphor idea, in this light, makes perfect sense, actually. The thought of God telling some guy who barely knows how to read/write about EVOLUTION and stuff seems kinda trippy. :p

I don't think so, really.
See, they already were farmers back then. They already had the cultural experience of breeding dogs from wolves, domestic chicken from wild chicken (which, afaik, cannot interbreed any more), and they already knew that you can cross a donkey and a horse, but the offspring will be infertile.
They had all the evidence Darwin later had, they just found the reply "god did it" sufficient and didn't think further.


A theory that gets disproven by new evidence *may* get overhauled entirely, rejected entirely, or then it may be changed to work with the new framework instead with mere slight alterations. There's not just "either/or", there's also "FIX IT A LITTLE SO IT FITS THE NEW VIEW". :p

Then there's the whole issue of religion not being an exact science - and our knowledge base having grown from the days the Old Testament (which is the source of most weird beliefs in the Western world) was written.

Careful, calling religion a science can get you torn to shreds on this fourm ;)

The difference is, science accepts that this rejection by evidence can happen with absolutely anything and to every theory they've got. Religion will propagte its message as the one, only, ultimate, undisputable truth... until clearly proven otherwise. And even then, well. Even then, well....


You do realize that that could be caused just by differences in altitude?

*roflmao
Of COURSE it's to due with differences in altitudes. That's the whole point.
But a difference in altitude on a flat surface does f*ck all for you. It only increases visibility if the object you're on is round.


It doesn't disprove the planet being a flat one that easily. You'd need more than just that. Unless you are of the predisposition that the world is round, and that is all the proof you need.

Which I bet we both are of. I don't know why we are even debating this issue, though.

Nope. It's all the ancient Egyptians needed, and the ancient Greek....


Then climbing up would be even more counter productive when you're on a round object, because you have even more gas to see through than on a flat object.

You were the one saying that gas might obstruct view on a flat surface, and elevating might give you clearer view, remember?
Since we both KNOW that you can see further when you're higher up, I take I hope you'll reach the logical conclusion that gas doe not obstruct views on flat planes.

When distances grow large enough, seeing becomes difficult no matter the shape of the object you are on. Due to the obstructions this world is full of, one of them being our own eyes... It becomes near impossible to prove that the world is round from a mountain/tree/whatever unless you already assume the world to be round, as your field of vision just doesn't cover enough ground.

You might conclude that it's round due to certain things, but you could also conclude that you can't be sure because of the same issues. A flat area so huge that you can't see the sides and with enough differences in altitude might make you think it's round while it's actually flat.

Kind of like how some folks would end up thinking that a round object is flat.

Wow, talk about clinging to faith here.
You've been shown diagrams, you've most certainly had the experience of taking in a view from an elevated point, and yet you can't reach the conclusion that this has to do with the shape of the obejct you're standing on... funny how people thousands of years ago could reach that conclusion, and based on it came up with pretty accurate calculations of the size of the planet.


Have you ever played an FPS game or something? In them, the map is usually of the flat variety, without things caused by curvature of the planet.

Yet, when you go higher, you generally see people coming farther away as they don't get muddled in the background as much and can't hide behind things as easily due to the simple fact that you can see past the structure.

I'd say that even in a flat world it would make much more sense to build your castles on a hill rather than anywhere else. :|

So, what's the weather like there? It's unseasonably warm here!

Erm... you ARE aware that these games, despite being flat, are based on the normal conditions in planet earth, right? Are you seriously argueing that the world could be flat despite better visibility higher up because someone designed a GAME to act that way???

These discussions remind me of my Renaissance History class. Particularly of reading "The Cheese and the Worms", by Carlo Ginzburg. For reference, check this article that helped when I had to do an assay about it.

MENOCCHIO (http://research.yale.edu/wwkelly/pubs-archive/WWK_1983_J-Peasant-Studies_11-1.pdf)

There's more you can trust in Descartes' Demon than that. Both Descartes and Berkeley (a really interesting philosopher, if you can get over his quaint religious zeal) used the notion of God as a work-around, but actually, all you need to do is acknowledge that if the I exists and there is a separation between the I and the other then considering the other as a single (albeit potentially deconstructable) source has a similar effect.

Fair do's. Thats Idealism if I'm not mistaken. Idk, the good old plain and simple rationalism tends to work more for me. How do we know how to breathe when we are born?