(March 17, 2014 at 9:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 8:57 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Furthermore, I have faith that equivocating between faith in the supernatural and faith based on inductive processes and empiricism is utter bullshit.

Congratulations, you made it to level 2

So, they are equal, then? The same?

(March 17, 2014 at 6:45 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Alex K Wrote: It has proven to be reliable.

science is reliable because it has proven to be reliable...


Fail...

Try again, and please no tautologies.

Good morning, sorry for the delay, I must have dozed off there for a few hours. Good thing I was in bed.

Ah gloating wannabe philosopher for breakfast, hmm!
Sorry, that's not a tautology. You meant to say: hey, but you use the scientific method to find whether the scientific method is reliable (aha!). And I say: in a sense that is correct, for what I can check is self-consistency of its findings. It cannot in principle be possible to prove it correct in any way because there is the possibility of solipsism. However, the scientific method is not an artificial construct entirely separate from our everyday experience, it is a slight formalization of the mode of operation in which you live your life. To deny it on grounds of our inability to prove its validity from first principles therefore has the profound consequence of sliding into solipsism. The hypothesis "the scientific method is unreliable" is unfalsifiable, but living your life accepting it means denying the reality of your life. You can do it, but there is no reason to do it. Now I understand that you can't actually want to accept it (the hypothesis of unreliability), because you are arguing with us. Thus, you want not only to reject it, given that we reject it as well, you call this move faith-based. In a philosophical piggy back, you then declare that 1. we are no better than the theists, 2. because we live faith based lifes. The latter is true, but almost trivially so, as we are forced to make working assumptions in order to act (the point of your schtick is calling those faith)- the former is not, for you either make a huge unnecessary additional assumption for which there is no evidence in the sense of the scientific method which you already accept, or you want to take theism as the alternative, in which case you deny all of reality and this conversation does not take place.

Your next stop from here is presuppositionalism, have fun

(March 18, 2014 at 1:12 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 9:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Congratulations, you made it to level 2

So, they are equal, then? The same?

I guess you're just going to have to attend class to find out!

Quote: If you would look closely at the discussion you would see that I am demonstrating why atheists are men and women who trust things they cannot prove despite them denigrating Christians who do the same.

Why?

I mean seriously, even if you HAD demonstrated what you set out to, what would that achieve? You think anyone's going to say "by gum he's right! Science Is faith thus faith is science thus I can now believe in God?!"

What's your objective here?

He somewhat believes that scientific discoveries and applications are on the same level as religious beliefs. Its a common tactic used by many crazy religionists. Science tells us that lava is hot, I guess this guy thinks it only burns if you believe it burns

I don't have a problem with the word "faith" except when it comes to my lack of belief in deities; a lack of belief is pretty much the opposite of faith. I trust (or have confidence or, well, faith) in the fact that my roommate's puppy will get into the garbage if I don't take it out or put it up, and that the sunset is going to be absolutely beautiful every day here on the California coast. I have that confidence (faith, if you must) because it's been tested every day.

I tested prayer and the Bible and Christianity for thirty years. None of them have rung true; therefore, I don't have faith in them.

As for science, the whole point of it is the pursuit of accuracy. If science isn't accurate, why can I sit on my ergonomically-correct sofa with the mutt who looks nothing like any dog I've ever seen- but somehow I just know she's a dog- while I drink craft beer and type this message, and people ten thousand miles away will be able to read it the millisecond I hit "post reply"? Every thing and activity I just mentioned has relied on the scientific method in order to be engineered or explained.

Number of points:

As others have said you don't have to be a believer in science to reject belief in God or gods.

Whilst you can argue that implies faith in reasoning I see this as a weakness of this philosophical line of questioning as tends towards solipsism.

There has to be a fundamental difference between faith in the everyday and faith that demands worship of something unseen, unproven and un-disprovable.

The philosophical approach appears to assume that science evolved out of philosophy itself. I'd argue not, that science developed out of a try it and see approach as in, I have a problem I'd like to solve so I'll try a number of solutions until such time as I find something that works.

Over time this has yielded solutions but more than that it has yielded complex methodologies that appear to work time and time again.

As our lives are today it is hard to go a single minute without utilizing science and its related disciplines - the mattress you sleep on, the alarm clock that wakes you, the water you wash with, the kettle you boil...

Again, however, we must return to the idea that science doesn't require worship - it is free to change to better explanations of things as they are discovered. Its rigorous methods are based entirely on the best and most reliable results and it doesn't claim perfection.

In summary then - accepting science is a reasonable approach as it gives every appearance of working. This is not true for religious faith, which, even if it did work, hides any evidence to support it.

(March 17, 2014 at 8:23 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 8:16 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Disc, you are aware that my wife possesses a quality which is not apparent in any god, right?

What quality is that? A body of flesh and bone?

All my senses work on her...
And none work on any god.

Why are we even having this discussion? Even if we grant this argument on every point, these guys are still equivocating by saying that all faith is equal. It's just demonstrably not; me having "faith" in things that have evidence doesn't suddenly make believing things on faith that have no evidence more rational.

We should any of us feel the need to rebut an argument that is, at its heart, dishonest?

I wish to know what these unprovable axioms that he claims science rests on are.