Is this correct Chris? There is no faith required in an emprical stance? I don't think it is you know. We all belive that the Earth revolves around the sun despite not having personaly conducted any experiments ourselves. We belive instead the data from those who have perfomed such experiments.
So then I personly have no experiance of the above yet it is certianly what I belive to be true. I must belive it because I trust the works of others, there is a little faith in that surley? To love also, yes we can see and test emotions, but as every teenager will know some times when a person say 'I love you' they may not be telling the truth. I am loved, my wife oves me, of this I am certian. By her words, by her actions, know all of this, empricaly I know it. She could though be living a lie, there is really no way for me know that for sure, other than her telling me. So I belive that all of her words and all of her actions that have lead me to the conclusion that she loves me are true. There is certianly an element of faith in that too. Ultimatly though, we will all belive as we will, for good or for ill, logic, empricalism, faith, can you really tell me which methoed of though is best? Can you then show me the evidance why you belive this? Can you show me certian objective evidance? Myself, I 'belive' that all three are important for all of us, I deny that anybody can live by logic, empircalism, or faith alone, and further I 'belive' that to even try to do so does a person no good. Hah but that is just a belief of mine, based on some faith, some logical deductive reasoning and some empircal experiance. On 28 Jan, 14:39, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > On each of those topics, no faith is required in an empirical stance. > Emotions exist, are measurable, have an underlying physiological mechanism, > which can be fine tuned or adjusted via externalities. Intuition is > subconscious analysis. We do it, it's observable, and as would be expected, > is certainly nothing like "ESP". Vitality, attention? I don't understand > their inclusion. By vitality, do you mean how energetic someone is, or how > healthy? Why would that be a matter of faith? Same with attention...how is > focus a faith issue? Charm? Do you mean an accelerated understanding and > capability within interpersonal ritualistic behaviour? Love is easy as > well...assuming you're willing to define it first. > > Those who think that science doesn't cover all the tenets and facets of > human behaviour, aren't viewing those things from a scientific perspective, > which makes sense...once you begin to analyze them from a scientific > perspective, they lose their mystery, and there is an appeal to the mystery, > for those who need faith. > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:31 AM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > I wonder about “having faith in” things like: emotions, intuition, > > vitality, attention, charm etc. How does that work? Does one require > > having ‘empirical’ proof of such things? Note that I’ve left ‘love’ > > off of the list too. > > > On Jan 28, 5:57 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, Pat, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know. > > > > However, you're mistaking the empiricist stance, as so many theists do. > > > > I will believe something when I am presented with empirical evidence for > > its > > > existence. Until such time, I do not expend belief. There is no empirical > > > evidence for a soul, therefore I do not believe in such a thing. You have > > > faith that souls are comprised of fields of energy. I do not. You have > > faith > > > that humans possess souls to begin with. I do not. This is not a faith > > based > > > stance; it's a faithless stance. I'm not sure why that concept is so > > > difficult for those with faith to understand. Did you start out with > > faith, > > > and simply can't conceive of not believing in something not implicitly > > > proven? Neither Ian nor I have implicitly stated "There is no soul, there > > is > > > no God". We simply note that lacking evidence for such, we can't have > > faith > > > in it. > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Pat <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On 28 Jan, 12:55, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 28 January 2010 12:30, Pat <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > So, it boils down to the fact that you have faith that there is no > > > > > > 'soul'. Okey doke, I can accept that. > > > > > > Got a name for that straw man, Pat? :) > > > > > > I don't want to make a tyrant of logic here, but if someone claims > > the > > > > > existence of non-material soul then evidence for that claim must be > > > > > supplied. Russell, teapot, etc. > > > > > > Ian > > > > > And I asked you on what basis you derived your belief that ther eis no > > > > soul. It boiled down to your faith rather than any evidence. There > > > > is no Russell's Teapot! Besides, my definition of a soul is a 'field > > > > of energy' and if you refute fields of energy, well... Yes, I know > > > > that particular one hasn't been empirically proven...yet, but that > > > > does not mean that it does not exist; rather, it only means it hasn't > > > > been discovered yet. If you recall, there was a time when Uranus and > > > > Neptune hadn't been discovered; did they only pop into existence when > > > > the telescope landed there? And the whole Russell's Teapot thing is > > > > so naff I'm surprised anyone falls for that logic. As I've said > > > > before many times, just because you have not detected something is not > > > > evidence that it does not exist. > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
