The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Funny you mentioned gravity... I was just watching a TV program that was explaining why E dose not necessarily = MC2

Something that a lot of people still believe in and took on faith!

Originally Posted by garryg68 Funny you mentioned gravity... I was just watching a TV program that was explaining why E dose not necessarily = MC2 Something that a lot of people still believe in and took on faith!

Remember Galileo Galilei.

Originally Posted by garryg68 Are you really saying you don't believe injustice is right or wrong, you don't believe subjugation is right or wrong, you don't believe poverty is right or wrong, you don't believe prejudges is right or wrong, you don't have an Pavlovian political response, you don't have an innate moral stance? But all this is determined solely from your understanding of facts?

No. I'm not. Read more carefully. ENORBET was the one who claimed to have no beliefs.

I, like you, am the one disagreeing with him. I am not ENORBET.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I think that the word, "belief," as used in a [Christian] religious context, does have a specific restricted meaning. I think that it means that you accept something to be true, either without evidence that it is true and/or in disregard of evidence that might suggest that it is not. It is, "a leap of faith." As one pastor put it, "belief is what makes Peter step out of the boat and onto the water."

I would agree that is the traditional Christian meaning of the word faith, but I don't think belief is synonymous with it. Belief is a broader term, at least in my experience.

This is one of the problems with the English language. Too many words are 'operator-overloaded'. English is not an ideal language to express philosophical concepts. That's why so many of the great works are in Greek, including the New Testament.

Originally Posted by OregonJim No. I'm not. Read more carefully. ENORBET was the one who claimed to have no beliefs. I, like you, am the one disagreeing with him. I am not ENORBET.

Sorry, that was meant to be for enorbet , whose quote I embedded underneath yours... Maybe not the clearest way to do things!

enorbet had responded to it already at #5694.

Originally Posted by enorbet I don't have opinions on things for which I have no evidence, which includes both primary and secondary.

So, you have expanded your definition of 'belief' to include 'having opinions'.

That's fine with me, but your statement is still just as impossible as it was before.

I won't risk more rabbit trails by giving another example. All I can say is, I don't 'believe' you.

Originally Posted by garryg68 Sorry, that was meant to be for enorbet , whose quote I embedded underneath yours... Maybe not the clearest way to do things! enorbet had responded to it already at #5694.

No problem. This thread *is* rather confusing at times. I'm sure I've contributed to it as well.

Originally Posted by OregonJim So, you have expanded your definition of 'belief' to include 'having opinions'.

not equivalents, just related, but what's the point in going further? You don't get it and apparently I can't make it clear to you.

Originally Posted by OregonJim That's fine with me, but your statement is still just as impossible as it was before.

Obviously I disagree.

Originally Posted by OregonJim I won't risk more rabbit trails by giving another example. All I can say is, I don't 'believe' you.

Your prerogative.

Best wishes....

Originally Posted by garryg68 Hello, enorbet, <snip> I do have one question though. Would you say that, in a very non-religious way, you have 'faith' in your conclusions, after your scrutiny of the facts? Or has that word also been too 'christianised' for you? I don't mean this question in a negative way at all, I'm just curious as to peoples understanding of these terms. If I hear the word 'belief' or (to a lesser extent) 'faith' I don't immediately think it has religious overtures, unless the speaker makes them

Although I can't help but be influenced by all that is around me. including the association of "faith" and "beliefs" with religion but even if somehow religion did not exist I would be against coming o conclusions absent evidence. It should be obvious that I like everyone, was taught many things before I gained the power of critical thought, so some of the process is going back and examining those unsubstantiated concepts. Some of those were an intellectual exercise but most were in reaction to an experience, and realizing I was making assumptions based on unquestioned concepts. So, naturally, I examined those of immediate concern and either researched enough to come to a learned and logical conclusion or drop the subject from my concerns.

I'm not saying that if someone dug deep enough they couldn't uncover some unexamined conclusion. Nobody is perfect and some things are of more importance than others. So all I'm saying is that it is my policy to be brutally honest with myself and strip myself of unwarranted assumptions. Once set in place, such a policy affects all new experience and sets the bar so that reflection handles the past. I did this formally by age 13 but was already on that path my whole life.

To me it is like declaring oneself an "honest person". Does this mean you've never told a single lie in your entire life? even to real or imagined enemies? That seems functionally impossible. What is possible, and in my mind desirable, is to develop a policy that simply recognizes that the Truth is almost always better, that lies tend to spin out of control, destroy relationships, and in general, create avoidable havoc, simply by being truthful, even when it hurts. In other words, offer up honesty until it is discovered some individual will use it as a weapon against you and at least with that person, just shut up and say nothing (or if important enough, stand and fight). It beats lying by a mile. That. to me, is an honest man, not hypothetically, but a functionally honest man. It's interactive and linked to Trust, which is given by default until something shows it has not been earned and must possibly be rescinded.

It is difficult to know what comes across from mere text but I hope this clears it up at least a little bit.

Originally Posted by enorbet not equivalents, just related, but what's the point in going further? You don't get it and apparently I can't make it clear to you.

I do get it, and it is clear to me. I just don't think you're grasping *my* point.

Put another way, bluntly:

I think you are afraid of such terms as 'belief' and 'faith', so you rationalize them away.

You are afraid of them because, by applying them to yourself, you are admitting that your human nature is not superior nor different than that of others - especially those who hold religious beliefs. Somehow you think you are 'above that'.

Why else would you object so strongly to such common terms?

I don't expect you (or any other atheist) to seriously examine yourself to see if this is true, or to admit to such a thing publicly. That's between you and your...well..you. But every atheist I have ever known has exhibited far more 'faith' than I could ever muster, believing in scientific 'truths' that are far more bizarre than anything I, myself, consider rational, reasonable, or plausible. That is, of course, entirely up to you - but at least call it 'faith' in your sources, and not knowledge.

So, we can leave it here, and agree to disagree. Up to you. In any case, best wishes, sincerely.

It's not faith but educated guesses, vastly superior.

Originally Posted by garryg68 Funny you mentioned gravity... I was just watching a TV program that was explaining why E dose not necessarily = MC2 Something that a lot of people still believe in and took on faith!

Scientists and the scientifically minded did not take this nor any scientific theory on faith. It is understood that refinement will always take place over time. Just as Kepler's and Newton's equations have not been proven wrong but rather only applying within a strict set of limits. Kepler, Maxwell, and Newton still work just fine within their limitations. E=MC^2 ( or more fully E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 ) still works just fine as it always did "up here" in the relativistic macro Universe. It is just that on the sub-atomic level, where Quantum Mechanics govern, it must be modified.

At some scales it becomes meaningless to us because we don't yet understand the full nature of Gravity. The concept of Quantum Gravity is in it's infancy and it is much more difficult to make progress because our intuition from living our lives "up here" simply does not apply "down there" and instruments capable of dealing with such tiny scales are far more complicated to even conceive let alone produce.

FWIW in February of 2016 the completion of testing on the reliability of data gathered in the previous September by LIGO proved a prediction that Einstein made almost 100 years ago was dead on accurate when gravity waves were detected for the first time coming from 2 black holes that spiralled in and merged, even including the "ringing", a kind of resonant bounce, that did in fact occur. If you have interest look here LIGO Detects Gravity Waves

Anyway it is most important to understand that not only is faith not required in science, it is anathema.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e It's not faith but educated guesses, vastly superior.

Vastly superior...how?

Do you really think those who have 'faith' haven't done just as much research, and have made just as educated a 'guess'?

No, I doubt you do. You just like throwing arrows in the middle of conversations, judging by the collective sum of your posts.

Originally Posted by OregonJim I do get it, and it is clear to me. I just don't think you're grasping *my* point. Put another way, bluntly: I think you are afraid of such terms as 'belief' and 'faith', so you rationalize them away. You are afraid of them because, by applying them to yourself, you are admitting that your human nature is not superior nor different than that of others - especially those who hold religious beliefs. Somehow you think you are 'above that'. Why else would you object so strongly to such common terms? I don't expect you (or any other atheist) to seriously examine yourself to see if this is true, or to admit to such a thing publicly. That's between you and your...well..you. But every atheist I have ever known has exhibited far more 'faith' than I could ever muster, believing in scientific 'truths' that are far more bizarre than anything I, myself, consider rational, reasonable, or plausible. That is, of course, entirely up to you - but at least call it 'faith' in your sources, and not knowledge. So, we can leave it here, and agree to disagree. Up to you. In any case, best wishes, sincerely.

LOL I don't think my "human nature is superior to others". In fact I can state a number of ways in which it is far "klunkier' and more difficult to deal with in this world. It is far easier to just go along with the crowd and cutting oneself off from instinctive reaction to rely on intellect is a far slower process. My wife can size a person up in a heartbeat in ways that I may never grasp. She knows instinctively that a person can or cannot be trusted in the first few minutes while I must wait until they prove it, often years later and at great loss or expense to me.

I assure you I am not afraid of any words and certainly not "belief" and "faith". They are just pitfalls to be avoided, and a tradeoff at that. I object strongly because it has taken a lifetime of hard work to get here and if I am to suffer the consequences I want the just desserts as well. I prefer to stand or fall upon my own merits and limitations than to squeeze by in a disguise.

You interpret the confidence that the scientifically minded have in Science as Faith simply because that's what you know. It's your frame of reference. You have little or no understanding of the scientific process just as I will never understand religious exhilaration.

And yes, my Best Wishes to you was completely sincere.

You may say Tinkerbell can't fly just because you have faith but it's the same thing...