“…Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists (by default) changes to the ideology.” – chris
I know of precious few religions that make such a claim. Almost no one claims to know what god actually is. On Jan 29, 6:38 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > <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> > > <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.
