Science, Religion, and the Surrounding Confusion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Well, at the risk of arguing semantics, I disagree. Faith is jumping right in and believing something without any proof that the belief is valid. Science, on the other hand, demands proof. I can say that I place my faith in science, but what I'm really saying is that logical reasoning leads me to accept the conclusions of science.

So what's the problem? Are you incapable of determining where faith vs proof should be applied?
I will grant you, some people seem to have that handicap, but it's not by any means mandatory. Therefore I disagree with juju's assertion that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So what's the problem? Are you incapable of determining where faith vs proof should be applied?

The problem is that there is no way to determine a situation where faith *should* be applied, ostensibly because there isn't one.

Faith-based people and proof-based people start out thinking in similar methods. They observe the present (lets say we are looking at a bird), and both attempt to determine the reason for its existance.

A faith-based person concludes that God made it, while a proof-based person attempts to deduce a chain of events which would bring about such an end result. The proof-based person requires that this chain of events have clear causation between them, while the faith-based person requires no evidence.

At this point the problem with the faith-based approach becomes painfully clear. If proof is not required to conclude God is responsible for the bird, it is equally valid to conclude that the bird was brought into being by a cinder block. A faith-based approach is in essence the decision that answers do not matter, and fantasy is as equally valid as reality.


What astonishes me the most is that society functions as well as it does with large swaths of the population choosing to be selectively bat-shit crazy.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

The problem is that there is no way to determine a situation where faith *should* be applied, ostensibly because there isn't one.

I disagree.

Faith-based people and proof-based people start out thinking in similar methods. They observe the present (lets say we are looking at a bird), and both attempt to determine the reason for its existance.

A faith-based person concludes that God made it,

No, I say that bird evolved from a dinosaur, because that's the way God set the system up.

while a proof-based person attempts to deduce a chain of events which would bring about such an end result. The proof-based person requires that this chain of events have clear causation between them, while the faith-based person requires no evidence.

No, I require evidence that the bird evolved from the dinosaur, and not a platypus, but that doesn't affect my faith.

At this point the problem with the faith-based approach becomes painfully clear. If proof is not required to conclude God is responsible for the bird, it is equally valid to conclude that the bird was brought into being by a cinder block. A faith-based approach is in essence the decision that answers do not matter, and fantasy is as equally valid as reality.

The only thing that is "painfully clear", is you are trying to pigeon hole billions of people into the constricts that you've formed in your head, on how anyone with faith should think.

What astonishes me the most is that society functions as well as it does with large swaths of the population choosing to be selectively bat-shit crazy.

Then by your own reasoning, maybe it's you that's "bat-shit crazy, for assuming you know what that large swath of the population thinks.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, I say that bird evolved from a dinosaur, because that's the way God set the system up.
…
No, I require evidence that the bird evolved from the dinosaur, and not a platypus, but that doesn't affect my faith.

A crazy person believes that the cinder block created the bird. A really crazy person believes that because they know the bird came from an egg, their belief that the egg was created by a cinder block is the better for it.

The point isn’t *where* you choose to fill in reality from your imagination, the point is that you are doing it at all. There are many things in this world we do not yet know, and many more things that we will learn. Filling in the gaps in our knowledge with make-believe for no good reason is counterproductive to say the least.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Then by your own reasoning, maybe it's you that's "bat-shit crazy, for assuming you know what that large swath of the population thinks.

Are you suggesting that large swaths of the population hold unfathomable beliefs? Or perhaps that faith itself is unfathomable and so immune to question? I don’t know what the term is, but I am pretty sure calling a logical “no man’s land” like that isn’t sound debate.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Since you're the only person I've ever heard say a bird comes from a cinder block, I have to wonder about your thought process.

If I remember correctly, you are the one saying, "that large swaths of the population hold unfathomable beliefs". If they are unfathomable to you, but you choose to deride and belittle them anyway, that's not debate, that's ignorance.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Since you're the only person I've ever heard say a bird comes from a cinder block, I have to wonder about your thought process.

On what grounds to you disparage my cinder block, yet tout your magic sky wizard? After all, both have as much hard evidence to support their creative abilities, but many more would acknowledge the existence of my block than your wizard.

By the way, you are using a straw man argument here. The block analogy was intended to show how unreasoning belief leads to absurd consequences; attempting to attribute it as the core of my argument is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If I remember correctly, you are the one saying, "that large swaths of the population hold unfathomable beliefs". If they are unfathomable to you, but you choose to deride and belittle them anyway, that's not debate, that's ignorance.

Again, this is a straw man. I never said that their beliefs were unfathomable; rather, you implied that they were and I objected. My original proposal stated that their beliefs were completely fathomable, and critically flawed.

Allow me to quote you:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

…for assuming you know what that large swath of the population thinks.

Here you basically state that I cannot possibly understand common beliefs, and now less than an hour later you are trying to attribute *your* statement to me; and then ridicule me for it! Either you need to work on reading comprehension or you are purposefully attempting to use logical errors to support your position.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

On what grounds to you disparage my cinder block, yet tout your magic sky wizard? After all, both have as much hard evidence to support their creative abilities, but many more would acknowledge the existence of my block than your wizard.

You say the bird came from a cinder block, with no evidence. I said the bird evolved from dinosaurs, for which there is evidence.
The fact that I also believe in God, doesn't alter the evidence.
You also make the assertion that God is a man and God is in the sky, which I did not... another assumption on your part about what other people think.

By the way, you are using a straw man argument here. The block analogy was intended to show how unreasoning belief leads to absurd consequences; attempting to attribute it as the core of my argument is a fallacy.

No, the cinder block is your strawman.

Again, this is a straw man. I never said that their beliefs were unfathomable; rather, you implied that they were and I objected. My original proposal stated that their beliefs were completely fathomable, and critically flawed.

Originally Posted by Phlage0070

Are you suggesting that large swaths of the population hold unfathomable beliefs?

You're the one that described them as unfathomable, not I.

Here you basically state that I cannot possibly understand common beliefs, and now less than an hour later you are trying to attribute *your* statement to me; and then ridicule me for it! Either you need to work on reading comprehension or you are purposefully attempting to use logical errors to support your position.

First you say I "basically" made a statement I didn't. Secondly, above I've shown it was your statement that introduced "unfathomable".
Your basic problem is believing that all people of faith, subscribe to a set of "common beliefs" you have cataloged in your head.
This pigeon, among others, don't fit that hole.