Can Atheist Arguments Ever Convince a Devout Theist?

[Ivan Seeking]

Russell has faith in his defintion.

 

[Brin]

Science itself requires a "leap of faith" - we assume that the universe is constant. Based on what? We use our past experiences as inductive evidence for the future - don't know about you, but that sounds like a "leap of faith."

None the less, it seems to have worked out for us so far.

I'd like to bring up the topic of "The Spaghetti Monster," and Santa Clause. I am going to assume you are all somewhat acquainted with these figures, and I want to know why anyone would not believe in these? Why is a god so much more believable over the existence of the Spaghetti Monster? Or Santa Clause? Especially to any single one individual here...

 

[DaveC426913]

Science itself requires a "leap of faith" - we assume that the universe is constant. Based on what? We use our past experiences as inductive evidence for the future - don't know about you, but that sounds like a "leap of faith."

No. The difference is that science as a principle welcomes the opportunity to be wrong.

We assume the universe is the same every where merely because it is the best road to more knowledge. The moment some aspect of that assumption turns out to be false, science as a principle is modify its outdated models.

I'd like to bring up the topic of "The Spaghetti Monster," and Santa Clause. I am going to assume you are all somewhat acquainted with these figures, and I want to know why anyone would not believe in these? Why is a god so much more believable over the existence of the Spaghetti Monster? Or Santa Clause? Especially to any single one individual here...

For the same reason that we follow The Standard Model rather than Mr. Gravity-is-a-Push; there is a preponderance of evidence that points towards The Standard Model, and that is factored in.

As with deities, there is a preponderance of evidence that weighs heavily in favour of God over the FSM.


Note: I am not saying preponderance means it's conclusive or inescapable, I'm just saying that it does point to a good place to put your bets and away from a bad place to put your bets.

 

[Doc Al]

For the same reason that we follow The Standard Model rather than Mr. Gravity-is-a-Push; there is a preponderance of evidence that points towards The Standard Model, and that is factored in.

As with deities, there is a preponderance of evidence that weighs heavily in favour of God over the FSM.

What evidence? Popularity and familiarity does not represent evidence. Bad example with the Standard Model, which has oodles of hard-core experimental evidence to back it up.

 

[LightbulbSun]

You mean that you ran out of objections, and you know that existence can't be explained.

That's right. It's a choice based on faith either way.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ScienceVFaith.jpg/ScienceVFaith-full.jpg"

Debunked.


Now you can choose to ignore all the scientific knowledge that has been incremented over the centuries and it doesn't change a thing. Reality doesn't require you to have faith in it.

 

[Hurkyl]

So, in your silly science versus faith flowchart... which side are we using if we have the idea

The scientific method can be used to help us explain the universe​

and we continue to keep that idea, despite all of the errors it had previously led us to believe?

 

[LightbulbSun]

So, in your silly science versus faith flowchart... which side are we using if we have the idea

The scientific method can be used to help us explain the universe​

and we continue to keep that idea, despite all of the errors it had previously led us to believe?

What errors exactly? Are you creating the strawman claim that science should automatically be omniscient to begin with otherwise it's useless? Religious people use that strawman all the time.

 

[Hurkyl]

What errors exactly? Are you creating the strawman claim that science should automatically be omniscient to begin with otherwise it's useless? Religious people use that strawman all the time.

No. I'm making the claim I actually implied.

When science runs into problems (e.g. incompatability of GR and QFT), do you even consider the possibility that science itself is the flawed idea? Or do you retain an unwavering faith in science itself, and insist that a new scientific theory will be discovered that doesn't have the known problems?

 

[GleefulNihilism]

What that we should give up using a rational, naturalistic attempt to find the secrets of the universe? To ridicule and cast aside that which raises us above the beasts, our ability to be rational and objective?

Hell no.

Plus, Science has built in self-improvement protocalls- flaws are hunted down and cut out daily.

 

[LightbulbSun]

No. I'm making the claim I actually implied.

When science runs into problems (e.g. incompatability of GR and QFT), do you even consider the possibility that science itself is the flawed idea? Or do you retain an unwavering faith in science itself, and insist that a new scientific theory will be discovered that doesn't have the known problems?

Now why would science be the flawed idea and not the theory being proposed itself? I don't have any unwavering faith. Scientific theories and laws are not meant to be sacrosanct. Look at that flowchart again. Do you see an end on the science side?

 

[Hurkyl]

Now why would science be the flawed idea and not the theory being proposed itself?

The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.

I don't have any unwavering faith. Scientific theories and laws are not meant to be sacrosanct. Look at that flowchart again. Do you see an end on the science side?

I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.

The left hand flow chart indeed has no end -- which means there is no provision for the possibility that science itself is flawed. When contradictory evidence appears, you blissfully go back to your "Get an idea" box on the left hand flow chart -- that is the means by which you "keep idea forever".

 

[LightbulbSun]

The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.

I don't. There isn't a better methodology than science, and until there is one then why should I consider it?

I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.

I don't. If there's a better methodology that can successfully replace science someday then I will use that methodology instead.

The left hand flow chart indeed has no end -- which means there is no provision for the possibility that science itself is flawed. When contradictory evidence appears, you blissfully go back to your "Get an idea" box on the left hand flow chart -- that is the means by which you "keep idea forever".

That's not necessairly true. Look at the flowchart again. You only go back to "get an idea" if the new evidence can't modify a theory. See how it's a self-correcting process while faith does not need to self-correct itself?

 

[Hurkyl]

Now why would science be the flawed idea and not the theory being proposed itself?

The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.

I don't.

There is your faith.

 

[LightbulbSun]

There is your faith.

That's not faith. That's recognizing the fact that against all other methodologies that it's the best one, and will be until another methodology can surpass it. As a sports analogy if I say team X was the best team in a particular season because they won it all would you consider that faith or would you simply recognize it as me reasoning that against all other teams they were the only team that fulfilled their goal of winning the championship?

 

[Hurkyl]

That's not faith. That's recognizing the fact that against all other methodologies that it's the best one,

Nuh-uh. I'm not letting you squirm out of it that easily.

You said that you don't even consider the possibility that science is flawed. That's not the same thing as simply going along with science because you think it's better than the alternatives.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Nuh-uh. I'm not letting you squirm out of it that easily.

You said that you don't even consider the possibility that science is flawed. That's not the same thing as simply going along with science because you think it's better than the alternatives.

You've misinterpreted my quote then. Here's what I said, followed with an exposition.

I don't. There isn't a better methodology than science, and until there is one then why should I consider it?

Exposition

What I meant was against all the other current methodologies it's the best one so science would be the last methodology that I would consider flawed. If a methodology that can successfully surpass science comes along in the future then I can compare what the two methodologies conclude on certain topics and see where science goes awry.


I'm not trying to squirm away from this topic. You just cherry picked my last quote down to two words and then tried to label that as faith.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think Hurkyl's point is that, if you don't consider the possibility that science is flawed, then you have no method by which you will examine any other methodologies that come along.

In order to consider alternatives, you must allow that there's a reason to even look at them.


It's a pretty fine point. Seems to me that Hurkyl could say you are hoisted on your own pitard, while you could point out that, with a pitard only three feet tall, it less 'hoisting' you than merely poking you in the belly while you eat your sandwich.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I think Hurkyl's point is that, if you don't consider the possibility that science is flawed, then you have no method by which you will examine any other methodologies that come along.

You can only consider it flawed if a better methodology is produced and let's the scientific methodology know where it went awry. This has not come along yet. If it does, I will not deny it's existence and take a look into it. Faith doesn't have that self-correcting mechanism attached to it which was my point. Self-correcting when reasonable to do so is not faith by any stretch of the imagination.

In order to consider alternatives, you must allow that there's a reason to even look at them.

Right. See my post above because I just explained it.

It's a pretty fine point. Seems to me that Hurkyl could say you are hoisted on your own pitard, while you could point out that, with a pitard only three feet tall, it less 'hoisting' you than merely poking you in the belly while you eat your sandwich.

I don't see how his points are fine as he has yet to prove any of the following claims:

1) That science relies on faith.
2) That I'm relying on faith because I use the scientific methodology (which is the best currently out of all the other current methodologies) to explain the universe.

 

[DaveC426913]

Question: do you examine other methodologies to see if they are better? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Moridin]

Actually, you and I agree on this point. AFAIC, the word "supernatural" has no meaning. If there is a God, then it would be natural. But at this time we have no way to address or test the claims of a deity.

The term supernatural certainly has meaning; it is simply something above nature, or for our intent, above scientific inquiry. It is certainly possible that there are entities above the scope of science or above the natural world. Anything other would almost constitute as scientism. If the Abrahamic deity exists, then it would certainly be supernatural.

We certainly have ways to address and test some claims of the features of certain deities, such as special creation, age of Earth and so on.

I am saying that you can choose science as a religion, or not. Do you only believe what your mother tells you when she offers scientific proof [for example], or do you make leaps of faith every day?

I think this is a somewhat fussy statement. An operational definition of religion could be "a social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. (Dennett 2006), even though this is not set in stone. Science would not qualify as a religion.

Another operational cluster definition of religion is worship of the supernatural, sacred versus profane places, times and events, rituals dealing with these, forms of spiritual communication etc. I do not see how science fulfills these, even 'sort of'. You might be confusing religion with strong evidence-based trust?

One point that I suspect is lost on many here is that people do have reasons for their beliefs. People don't believe just because someone said so. They couple the history of religion with their own experiences and feelings. People go to church and pray because they feel that when they do, they can sense the presence of God. For them, this is evidence.

Be so that it may, not all possible deities can be true; some 4 billion people on Earth would therefore have a delusion no matter how you put it.

We do take gravity on faith. Theories can only be falsified; they cannot be proven true.

No, you take gravity on evidence. Tons and tons of mutually supporting evidence that you experience every day. You be convicted of the reality of gravity, but you certainly do not accept it without evidence.

No one is claiming that science can prove something beyond truth, but it is all about the evidence. The evidence makes a certain position reasonable and others less reasonable. Just because you cannot prove something to be true does not make it any less approximately correct in its explanatory and prediction power.

If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.

Be so that it may, if it can be shown that religion is a natural construction, any attempts at inference or justification via religion becomes less convincing.

I should add that gravity doesn't exist [well, not the classic idea]. There is spacetime curvature...that is if spacetime exists. One day we may have have a more sophisticated description of whatever it is.

Indeed, GTR makes more accurate predictions than NM, but according to instrumentalism, all that matters is its explanatory and prediction power. That is why we still make use of Newtonian Mechanics today. To my knowledge, the first shuttle that landed on the moon made use of NM, exclusively.

What bothers people here is the idea that we are not logically bound as humans to accept only scientific evidence. But, if you think about it, you will certainly conclude that it's not even possible to live this way. We have to make judgements about what we choose to believe every day.

Not quite - your brain makes constant updates on your life and future based on the available evidence - even if you do not consciously think of it.

Russell has faith in his defintion.

Faith as in conviction; not faith as in blind acceptance without evidence. This is a crucial semantic difference.

When science runs into problems (e.g. incompatability of GR and QFT), do you even consider the possibility that science itself is the flawed idea? Or do you retain an unwavering faith in science itself, and insist that a new scientific theory will be discovered that doesn't have the known problems?
[...]
I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.

The left hand flow chart indeed has no end -- which means there is no provision for the possibility that science itself is flawed. When contradictory evidence appears, you blissfully go back to your "Get an idea" box on the left hand flow chart -- that is the means by which you "keep idea forever".

No faith in science is needed, since methodological naturalism has demonstrated its enormous potency as well as the knowledge gained by it. We can certainly treat science as enormously powerful because of its demonstrated success; the same cannot be said for various types of religion or general supernaturalism.

Discussions on whether the methods of science is valid or not is certainly a big part of science / philosophy of science and is treated with the same approach as scientific theories are. If some part of the philosophy of science is demonstrated to be false or less good as an approximation (such as logical positivism or verficationism), it will be replaced.

You said that you don't even consider the possibility that science is flawed. That's not the same thing as simply going along with science because you think it's better than the alternatives.

We do not need to consider science flawed because of the enormous power of scientific methodology and the massive amount of knowledge gained by it. That is a large plateau to stand on. Naturally, as time goes on new methods, ideas and results will appear; if they are shown to be successful, they will simply incorporate them into science and proceed.

Methodological naturalism has put forward a general challenge to any types of supernaturalism. Today, thousands of years later, none have successfully stepped up to the plate. MN is waiting.

Question: do you examine other methodologies to see if they are better? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Even though this was not directed at me, I will give my thoughts on it.

I think that there are at least 3 questions any form of supernaturalism must address before trying to call the shots:

i. methodology (by what methods are knowledge reached?)
ii. epistemology (what separates, say, a valid revelation from a false and why?)
iii. evidence (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)

Methodological naturalism has two major things going for it; its power and the massive amount of verifiable knowledge that it has discovered. Methodological naturalism have well-defined methodology, epistemology and ideas of evidence.

Naturally, I am always open for attempts to answer these fundamental questions.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Question: do you examine other methodologies to see if they are better? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes, I do. And a big part of my criteria is to examine how well each methodology can explain our universe. All the other ones I have examined have fallen flat on their faces in that category.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The term supernatural certainly has meaning; it is simply something above nature, or for our intent, above scientific inquiry.

Do you mean magic? Sorry, I don't believe in magic, and you certainly can't produce any evidence that it exists. It is also a leap of faith to conclude that if a deity exists, it can't be described by science. In fact we have already attempted to do so with Type IV civilizations. It is said that a type IV being would meet our expectations for a deity.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

We certainly have ways to address and test some claims of the features of certain deities, such as special creation, age of Earth and so on.

These are indirect tests for a deity. But if your point is that such efforts might produce indirect evidence of a deity, then perhaps that is true.

I think this is a somewhat fussy statement. An operational definition of religion could be "a social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. (Dennett 2006), even though this is not set in stone. Science would not qualify as a religion.

New-agers don't seek any approval. They seek universal harmony and awareness of the divine. There are also religions groups like the Unitarians who make no specific demands for belief.

Here is one definition for religion:

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The point was that one can make a religion out of science. I'm not saying that in itself science qualifies as a religion.

Be so that it may, not all possible deities can be true; some 4 billion people on Earth would therefore have a delusion no matter how you put it.

Perhaps the problem is the perception and not the essence of that allegedly perceived.

No, you take gravity on evidence. Tons and tons of mutually supporting evidence that you experience every day. You be convicted of the reality of gravity, but you certainly do not accept it without evidence.

No one is claiming that science can prove something beyond truth, but it is all about the evidence. The evidence makes a certain position reasonable and others less reasonable. Just because you cannot prove something to be true does not make it any less approximately correct in its explanatory and prediction power.

There is no guarantee that gravity will work tomorrow as it did today. We take it on faith based on the history of repeatability. Do we have good reason to have faith? Of course.

Be so that it may, if it can be shown that religion is a natural construction, any attempts at inference or justification via religion becomes less convincing.

I was only pointing out that there are no beliefs that I know of in which the existence of a deity is observer dependent.

Indeed, GTR makes more accurate predictions than NM, but according to instrumentalism, all that matters is its explanatory and prediction power. That is why we still make use of Newtonian Mechanics today. To my knowledge, the first shuttle that landed on the moon made use of NM, exclusively.

However, you know as well as I do that observations can be made that violate our original Newtonian concept of gravity. The point is that our concepts may grow more sophisticated - the day may come when gravity is considered an archaic concept. And in some ways this is already true.

Not quite - your brain makes constant updates on your life and future based on the available evidence - even if you do not consciously think of it.

I have faith that I will survive the day, that my house will be here tonight, that my wife won't leave me, that my father is telling the truth, that the world won't end... We make dozens or even hundreds of little leaps of faith a day... all the way down to having faith in other drivers on the road and that the traffic signals are working properly.

Faith as in conviction; not faith as in blind acceptance without evidence. This is a crucial semantic difference.

Not at all. He [Russell] was completely in error. There is plenty of evidence for a deity, but afaik there is no scientific evidence.

Note also that Twain was making a complete leap of faith. By his defintion, no one has faith in anything real, which is clearly false.

The rest of your responses do not apply to me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Something else struck me today that was funny [well, at least to me]. It can be argued that people choose religion because they find it to be a model that produces good results. One of the promises made by churches is that faith will improve your life. Millions of people will tell you that based on their own experience, this is absolutely true. So in this sense belief is a logical choice and not one based only on a leap of faith.

 

[Kristy234]

Something else struck me today that was funny [well, at least to me]. It can be argued that people choose religion because they find it to be a model that produces good results. One of the promises made by churches is that faith will improve your life. Millions of people will tell you that this is absolutely true. So in this sense it is a logical choice and not one based only on faith.

i can see what you mean, but can't it also be a logical choice based on some faith. Also, i have a different definition of faith than what has been generally said here. My understanding of faith is that faith is the 'substance of things hoped for' and 'the evidence for things not seen'

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is hope logical? Now there's a question!

I will have to stew on this, but for now I can say that we can always justify buying a lottery ticket. As a worst case, I see that as being no different than hoping that 4000 years of history is not all false. Of course a lottery always produces a winner, and faith in a God may not ever pay off, but the idea of having faith in spite of logical long odds certainly applies.

 

[Moridin]

Do you mean magic? Sorry, I don't believe in magic, and you certainly can't produce any evidence that it exists. It is also a leap of faith to conclude that if a deity exists, it can't be described by science. In fact we have already attempted to do so with Type IV civilizations. It is said that a type IV being would meet our expectations for a deity.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

So you believe that there is nothing above scientific inquiry? The term supernaturalism is defined as 'above scientific inquiry'. This says nothing about whether supernaturalism actually exists.

Indeed, but it is false to claim the reverse, that magic (or any form of supernaturalism) is distinguishable simply future technology.

There is no guarantee that gravity will work tomorrow as it did today. We take it on faith based on the history of repeatability. Do we have good reason to have faith? Of course.

We can certainly know that gravity will continue to work tomorrow, although not by the application of induction. If gravity failed, we would have all sorts of nasty consequences. As long as there are none of those nasty consequence, we can be sure that gravity will continue to work.

If you have a good reason to have faith, then you do not need faith. We have good reasons to have faith as in a conviction, but not faith as accepting things blindly without evidence.

Perhaps the problem is the perception and not the essence of that allegedly perceived.

Perhaps, but it is impossible to escape the dilemma, all forms of deity worship cannot be correct.

I have faith that I will survive the day, that my house will be here tonight, that my wife won't leave me, that my father is telling the truth, that the world won't end... We make dozens or even hundreds of little leaps of faith a day... all the way down to having faith in other drivers on the road and that the traffic signals are working properly.

I would call it approximate predictions based on the available evidence. If more evidence comes in, your brain updates this prediction.

It can be argued that people choose religion because they find it to be a model that produces good results. One of the promises made by churches is that faith will improve your life. Millions of people will tell you that based on their own experience, this is absolutely true. So in this sense belief is a logical choice and not one based only on a leap of faith.

Indeed, I am sure that religion and faith provide comfort in a world torn apart by religion and faith. Literally hundreds of millions of people have died as a direct result of it as well.

"The fact that a religious man is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that that a drunken man is happier than a sober one" Kipling, I think.

Would being an alcoholic be a logical choice because alcoholics think their drinking improves their life? I am sure that millions of people believe this as well?

 

[Kristy234]

"The fact that a religious man is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that that a drunken man is happier than a sober one" Kipling, I think.
Would being an alcoholic be a logical choice because alcoholics think their drinking improves their life? I am sure that millions of people believe this as well?

I can see your point, but people make their choice based on other things than an improved life quality. People also make decisions on what they believe is right, not in the good and bad sense but in what they think is the truth.

Link deleted by Ivan: Please refrain from posting religious links. I am really pushing my luck here but if we all be good the thread will be allowed to continue. We have to stick to the logic and sociological considerations.

 

[mjsd]

If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.

Not at all. The people depend on faith. According to most beliefs, God was around before there was anyone to have faith.

Explain existence without using faith.

ah ha, an interesting point... methink.
The existence of something without any entities asking the question (about the validity of existence) or have any knowledge of the something is a fascinating idea... well perhaps debatable.

perhaps the term "existence" needs a bit of clarification first before any more meaningful (or perceived to be meaningful within the powers of the human mind) discussion on it and its relation to faith can be constructed.

anyway, I have slightly different idea (which you may say I took a big leap of faith in it in order to construct this argument..well.. we have to start somewhere otherwise we can't go anywhere ), if a duck or a dog invents their brand of science based on their own logical system or simply, let them define what is rational thinking, wouldn't it make human's version of science or logical/rational thinking any more/less important?

And suppose, they don't have the concept about God, simply because their brains can't handle it or whatever, does it then make it meaningless to talk about God ar all?

my point is that human tends to believe that their way of thinking or system of logic is the most proper. And that rational, simply means that human's version of rational, and should not be taken as the universal version of rational. IT is highly possible that there are other more advanced creatures with brain powers far beyond ours who will again see things differently (cf. the duck and dog analogy) and that in their mind all we do/think are absolute B***s***! As a result, the discussion on scientific evidences vs faith etc, it perhaps almost meaningless within the context of the wider and yet undiscovered world.

Until we can dis-entangle ourselves with ourselves we can in principle never (based on our own limited logic) explain ourselves fully.

as a result, many of the so-called objective arguments (including some of my own) are not so objective after all and some are simply meaningless (owning to the limit of the human brain). On most issues, we can at best say is they are inconclusive or Yes-and-No.

And one advice to the OP, your logic is different from the theists' logic. And we all know that cars don't run on the sea.

 

[Gokul43201]

According to most beliefs, God was around before there was anyone to have faith.

The belief had to exist for the God to have pre-existed. The believers had to exist for the belief to exist. Ergo, the believers are a neccesary condition for the pre-existence of the deity.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is no guarantee that gravity will work tomorrow as it did today. We take it on faith based on the history of repeatability.

And you take a deity on faith based on what?

4000 years worth of untestable claims?

This despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of these claims also come with baggage that is scientifically refutable by a high-schooler.

Does it not worry you that over these 4000 years, more and more magical things that have been attributed to the divine hand of a deity have subsequently been shown to have natural explanations?

Does it not worry you that more people today than the entire total that existed over most of the last 4000 years, will tell you they are certain that man was made before insects...and they are as certain of this as they are of the existence of the deity?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And you take a deity on faith based on what?

4000 years worth of untestable claims?

First of all, I didn't say what I do or don't accept. Next, no one is claiming that anecdotal evidence is more compelling than scientific evidence. Are you disputing the specific point about gravity?

This despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of these claims also come with baggage that is scientifically refutable by a high-schooler.

Does it not worry you that over these 4000 years, more and more magical things that have been attributed to the divine hand of a deity have subsequently been shown to have natural explanations?

Does it not worry you that more people today than the entire total that existed over most of the last 4000 years, will tell you they are certain that man was made before insects...and they are as certain of this as they are of the existence of the deity?

I think that you are confusing doctrine with faith. There has been no attempt to support or dispute specific religious beliefs. In fact I think that a review of religious beliefs would demonstrate that the basis for faith usually has very little to do with specific beliefs.

If you are saying that all claims of miracles or "divine intervention" are false, then you are making a simple leap of faith. And I hardly see how historical claims could have been tested or attributed to natural explanations. If you are talking about people who see apparitions in a slice of toast or in a shadow on a wall, then I wouldn't worry because I doubt that toast has ever created a convert.

Should we judge science by the crackpots as well?

 

[LightbulbSun]

First of all, I didn't say what I do or don't accept. Next, no one is claiming that anecdotal evidence is more compelling than scientific evidence. Are you disputing the specific point about gravity?



You are confusing doctrine with faith. Threre has been no attempt to support or dispute specific religious beliefs. In fact I think that a review of religious beliefs would demonstrate that the basis for faith usually has very little to do with specific beliefs.

If you are saying that all claims of miracles or divine intervention are false, then you are making a simple leap of faith. And I hardly see how historical claims could have been tested or attributed to natural explanations. If you are talking about people who see apparitions in a slice of toast or in a shadow on a wall, then I wouldn't worry because I doubt that toast has ever created a convert.

The basis of faith is a mixture of solace, a false sense of entitlement, stubbornness and ignorance.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are entitled to your faith.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I am closing this thread because it is in the PF Social Science forums, and very little of it seems to have to do with the social science aspect of the topic. (This is a general observation and not aimed at anyone specifically). Please PM me if you want it reopened, and state your reasons. Thanks.