On 29 Jan, 11:40, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Besides, there was a time when most people were sure that the Sun revolved around the Earth. But their belief/faith was wrong. Science has a strength in its falsifiability but it can also be a weakness, in that, just because something is not falsifiable CURRENTLY does not imply that it is not falsifiable. Many things currently viewed as not falsifiable and, therefore, not scientific, may become so later; thus proving that they were, in fact, always. I still say we should launch a teapot named 'Russell' in orbit around Mars and end that little argument forever. ;-) > 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.-Hidequoted 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 -- 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.
