On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:40 AM, 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. > > 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? >
Aha!, he says...I've got him! But not so much, my friend. This is the same argument that's been bandied about forever; I'm surprised you don't have my response memorized. In scientific axioms, we do accept that the data provided by someone else is accurate. We have the option, however, to approach that experiment for ourselves, and measure and test those axioms using the scientific process. The hallmark of empirical observation is reproducibility, and we know that a billion times out of a billion, dropping this rock in my controlled laboratory will result in it landing on the floor. Ah, but wait! Isn't it possible that on the billion and first try, it might float? We have a certain surety in our empirical processes due to the reproduction factor, but since we accept that our knowledge is not absolute, we (or our proxies) continue to study and test the data, perform more complex observation, and keep a healthy sense of skepticism with regards to ALL of our learned scientific knowledge. A notable difference between scientific thought and religious thought is that scientific thought does not in any way claim to be complete; it is ever evolving and growing as the volume of total observations grows. Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists (by default) changes to the ideology. > > 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%[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%[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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- 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.
