Theistic Evolution - Insight & Answers

[madness]

JoeDawg, I can understand your point, but I think you are using a strong form the word faith. Is it not possible for someone to believe in God, but to accept the possibility that their belief is wrong, and be willing to accept new evidence? This would really be no different to believing in freewill. Of course if you define faith to mean that they believe it unquestioningly and beyond normal reason then it is a different matter.

 

[swat4life]

Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, not belief.
Having faith in something means, no amount of evidence or logic would change your mind.


As long as one is willing to accept new information on a subject, its not a matter of faith. Even if one is extremely agnostic on the subject and doesn't believe knowledge of said thing is really possible. All scientific belief is tentative, even when we have huge amounts of evidence. All logic is based on premises, which are simply assumptions of one kind or another. The fact a person has confidence based on evidence or logic, is not the same as faith. If one has faith is something, the matter is closed, because it has been divinely revealed as truth.

People who compare religious faith to belief based on evidence or logic usually do so to justify their faith. Faith has no justification. You either believe or you don't.

Not believing requires no such commitment. I could 'not believe' in Jesus, simply because I have never heard of him. That is hardly the same as faith.

God this is insightful. Thanks for sharing!

I swear without any jest that I'm going to print this out in about 30 seconds.


The thing that struck me harder than the old Eurostar train is this statement:

"All scientific belief is tentative, even when we have huge amounts of evidence. All logic is based on premises, which are simply assumptions of one kind or another."

The ideas that immediately came to mind are:
-Life in general is largely built on a set of assumptions so deeply held we hardly ever question them

-How often does the average person question the fundamental, deeply held assumptions they hold surrounding almost any aspect of life - esp. scientific assumptions?


-How emotionally attached are scientists to the assumptions they've pretty much accepted as true and how much of scientific progress, enlightenment, etc. is diminished or enhanced by scientists' willingness or unwillingness to question standard assumptions (esp. if the individuals, institutions, etc. who came up with those assumptions are the ones who are called upon to change them!)

Thanks again for this most enlightening post...

 

[swat4life]

this is a logic talk about that issue by a guy called rajabali
[you can skip the religious introduction and start from about 7:10]

I'm watching this now. Part of the reason why I do this is to expand my mind. There are so many misconceptions and stereotypes about muslims,as I am not one, I know that see stuff like this helps me fill my mind with alternative bits of information to combat the junk that's no doubt in there due to societal osmosis.

Secondly, I'm paying close attention to his logical arguments and fundamental premises...

 

[JoeDawg]

Was it ethical for Sparta to kill babies deemed unfit to be Spartans?

Those evil spartans.

Have you read the Bible or the Qur'an?
How ethical is it for a god to kill the first born children of entire cities?
Or have its followers kill every living thing in a city, right down to babies, pets and livestock?
This is ethics?

How about the inquisition? Was that ethical?
How about hurricanes, parasites, diseases, and earthquakes, which maim and kill endless numbers of people and animals?

These are the ethics we get from gods?
If so, the spartans may have been right.

If you say God does not exist, then you have committed an act of faith.
If you say God does exist, then you have committed an act of faith.

I say there is a huge amount of evidence that gods are the result of human psychology and social dynamics and nothing more.

I also think there is a huge amount of evidence unicorns are imaginary. So I don't believe in them either.

 

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg, I can understand your point, but I think you are using a strong form the word faith.

We can certainly use the word 'faith' to mean something like simple belief/hope, but that is just not the way the word is used historically with regards to theology and religions. So when talking about religions, its at best confusing, and at worst dishonest. You can't ignore history.

If you're talking about your favorite baseball team... that would be different.

Add to that the fact that many religious people use the 'you have faith in science' as a way of disparaging science and implying that belief in science is no more grounded that belief in gods... and that is not only dishonest, its a rhetorical attack on science.

Is it not possible for someone to believe in God, but to accept the possibility that their belief is wrong, and be willing to accept new evidence?

Well sure, but that means you lack faith, or as they say, ye have little faith.

This would really be no different to believing in freewill.

Well not really, I've never observed a god, but I have observed myself and others making decisions. I can still be skeptical of freewill, but freewill, whatever it is, is part of my experience.

Of course if you define faith to mean that they believe it unquestioningly and beyond normal reason then it is a different matter.

Just to be clear, this is not my definition, Abraham and Isaac, was all about Faith.
Would you kill your son if god asked you to?
Abraham is the source of all three monotheistic religions, and that's the standard for true 'faith'.

 

[JoeDawg]

I swear without any jest that I'm going to print this out in about 30 seconds.

Ha, thanks, just make sure you spell my name right... and you might want to run a spell check before commiting it to paper :-)