Is 'faith' really a 'great cop-out'?

[Darwinian]

One thing seems clear to me: the various molecules are doing things in an ‘ordered’ way which then results in a living ‘creature’. Why do these molecules replicate, break off, move in one direction rather than another etc?

They seem ordered but that's only because we are here to be able to 'see' them. You could also make that statement about the fact that our planet is the size it is, the fact that it is where it is and various other conditions that allow us to be here.

If they where different then we would not be here to ask these questions in the first place.

[CoxRox]

So to take the example of a cell- the various parts that work in harmony with each other, all having their own jobs to do is not a kind of 'ordering'. Ummmm, I'm struggling to see how this is not 'order' (or if I'm really daring 'purpose'). I am here to ask these questions, or to observe these processes and it could be that my observations are leading me to a faulty conclusion, but at this moment in time I do not believe this is the case. I'm still wondering what drives, or causes the processes to occur? Can you help me with this observation?

[Darwinian]

The only thing that drives these processes to occur is the fact that they help the organism to pass it's genes on to the next generation.

There have been billions of 'processes' that were very unsuccessful but we don't see those as they never survived.

So all you see today is the culmination of billions of little mutations that have, in some way, allowed an organism to survive. It's very tempting too see this as being designed or to be part of a plan but in reality it is simply the product of evolution over eons of time. You never see the mistakes only the successes!

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yes but I wouldn't call believing that he sun will come up "having faith" I would call that just a matter of understanding. Not absolute knowledge. Just understanding. You may not have to understand "Why?" the sun comes up, you just have to understand that it does. Perhaps you trust that the sun comes up you could say.

Ultimately it's just words, the English language is probably the most flexible because not only has it absorbed many words from many other languages, not only does it pretty much rule supreme as a technical language but there are many words for the same idea and many ideas for one word ... it makes it flexible. So yes, faith, I think is a correct word for what I was saying as long as it is clear (and I think I made it so) that that faith is not the faith of the religious kind. Obviously my understanding of why the sun rises in the east helps

Kyu

---

Would you say that you have faith that 'religious' faith is nonsense?

Religious faith is understandable within a given framework that framework being one of scientific ignorance or wishful thinking.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Ultimately it's just words, the English language is probably the most flexible because not only has it absorbed many words from many other languages, not only does it pretty much rule supreme as a technical language but there are many words for the same idea and many ideas for one word ... it makes it flexible. So yes, faith, I think is a correct word for what I was saying as long as it is clear (and I think I made it so) that that faith is not the faith of the religious kind. Obviously my understanding of why the sun rises in the east helps

Yeah it is just words. I just think faith is the wrong word to use because its like a more religious version of "trust" and probably even more religious than "believe" at least in my opinion.
I understand than the sun comes up every day, I don't need faith for that, there isn't really any doubt because I don't really have any reason to doubt it. Its not that there isn't doubt because I "put my faith in it"...belief is not a matter of policy. I don't choose to disbelieve God, I believe in what there is a reason to believe in. I believe in evidence and probability, I don't choose to believe/disbelieve things.
Like I said belief is not a matter of policy.

[CoxRox]

Darwinian- I'd like to quote you from another thread if I may:
'I believe that the world is about 4.5 billion years old and that all life originated from a clever little chemical reaction which then handed everything over to evolution'

http://atheistforums.org/thread-247-page-3.html

You've put into words what I was trying to say: that chemicals, molecules etc are 'clever' or rather what arises from the reactions and I'm still wondering how they were able to 'hand' all this over to evolution?

regards Catherine

[Darwinian]

Hi Catherine

I'm afraid that this is my fault for using words like clever. From our point of view they are clever but I'm not imbuing these processes with any form of consciousness nor am I implying that there is any kind of design behind their behaviour.

What happened, probably, was that a certain chemical reaction took place all those billions of years ago that produced something that was able to crudely replicate itself.

This is pure chemistry. Evolution then took over simply because it is an inevitable consequence of replicating chemicals.

So.. The chemicals and processes themselves are not clever, they are simply obeying the laws of physics. However, from our point of view we see them as clever. This is more to do with our perspective and how we see the world around us.

The Universe looks designed and thought out simply because we design things and we like to anthropomorphisise things.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hi Catherine

I'm afraid that this is my fault for using words like clever. From our point of view they are clever but I'm not imbuing these processes with any form of consciousness nor am I implying that there is any kind of design behind their behaviour.

What happened, probably, was that a certain chemical reaction took place all those billions of years ago that produced something that was able to crudely replicate itself.

This is pure chemistry. Evolution then took over simply because it is an inevitable consequence of replicating chemicals.

So.. The chemicals and processes themselves are not clever, they are simply obeying the laws of physics. However, from our point of view we see them as clever. This is more to do with our perspective and how we see the world around us.

The Universe looks designed and thought out simply because we design things and we like to anthropomorphisise things.

Yeah, I understand that you were using "clever" in a metaphorical sense, just as biologists such as Dawkins use "purpose" in a metaphorical sense, like "what is the purpose of a wing?" when what Dawkins really means is "What is the evolutionary advantage of a wing?"

[CoxRox]

I was being mischievious, I know you meant it in a metaphorical sense, (but obviously I don't see why it can't be in a literal sense). The fact that there are chemical reactions (and laws of physics) at all is what I'm trying to understand. Do you believe there was 'matter' or 'energy' before the big bang?

[chatpilot]

My opinion is that faith/God is an easy answer for those things we dont yet understand.So I would say that yes,faith is a great cop out.Example:Where did we come from?How did the universe and the planets come to be?
Answer:God did it
Now wasn't that easy?