No conflict between faith and science, eh?

[Aroura]

So if I were a doctor, I could say - "I can't recommend prayer as a substitute for surgery because, looking at the cancer deaths, it doesn't seem to work for most people"?

My husband has a lot of medical people in his family, and my understanding is that yes, they can say the don't recommend it because they don't have any evidence it works. 

I don't know what most docs would say though, probably recommend both surgery and prayer, to appease the patient if nothing else. //

[Spooky]

I actually feel sorry for her.

[Pyrrho]

I actually feel sorry for her.

So do I.  But she is still being idiotic.  Probably, though, she was indoctrinated to her lunatic views as a child, when she was young and impressionable, and has just not been smart enough to break free.  And if that is the case, she did not deserve that happening to her in childhood.

The position one finds oneself in is largely due to forces beyond one's control.  One does not decide when and where to be born, into which family, nor does one choose the way one is raised.

Had she been raised better, she very likely would not be making such an idiotic choice now.  And that is unfortunate.

[The Reality Salesman01]

A woman that used to work with my wife posted this on FB yesterday, and I couldn't help but wonder how her kids would feel if they saw this years from now when they find out that their mom had every chance to remove the tumor that killed her, but rather than listening to the people that can see inside her skull,  she decided to invest in a magical fantasy for the chances of her survival. No conflict here...

---

---

Future Darwin award nominee.

That's so funny you said that! Before posting this, I had messaged it to Whateverist on FB with the same caption.

[Whateverist]

I'd be wary about using a term like 'true faith' though, since everyone uses it slightly differently.  I'm using 'faith' as 'belief in a proposition without evidence', like some people have 'faith' that prayer works or that their healing crystals help their asthma.

It is an uphill battle but I am trying hard to drive a wedge to separate conviction in a belief from faith that the truth will win out.  The former is what we continually encounter here.  Only faith as in endorsement of the truth in advance of it being fully revealed deserves the name.  I'm sure others have written about it.  I heard it first from Allan Watts in "The Wisdom of Insecurity".

I have no problem with people believing things about themselves that are unconfirmable to us other people, because we have no way of investigating what it's like to be another person.  I'm talking about claims about the reality that we all share, outside of ourselves. The OP is talking about science specifically, and since science isn't in the business of making claims about peoples' intrapersonal beliefs (or even truth statements, for that matter), and is focused on describing and discovering the external reality we all seem to share, I'm not sure what use bringing in intrapersonal beliefs serves.

Well don't forget, it is the intra dimension where the valuation of what science reveals takes place.  Feeling and emotion attach to it all and intellectually we have to endorse or reject our own valuation.  But science can't help us with that.

I think most atheists are more faithful in the sense of being open to the truth/reality as we find it.

Again, that's no definition of faith I've ever encountered.  Believing something only once evidence is provided isn't 'faith', it's just being rational.  

Maybe so but valuing something takes place first and that comes from within.  What we act on is also filtered by our intellect but feeling and emotion provide the initial sort and continue to be consulted by reason as it should be.

The downfall of atheists tends to come from adopting a "nothing-but" stance.

I can agree with you here in the sense that I don't think science will solve everything, but the methods of investigation and confirmation and verification that science employs have been proven throughout history to be the single most reliable way of obtaining the closest things to facts about reality that we've ever been able to grasp, so far.  I'm not saying there couldn't be a better method somewhere, and to use your words I'm open to reality and improvement as we find it, but that's nowhere near anything I'd call 'faith'.

I may have to plunk down a thread on the true meaning of faith in the Christian thread.

The trick is to embrace all kinds of truth, intra-personal as well as inter-personal, while knowing where and how each applies.

I'll refer to my above comments, I'm not really too interested in verifying or debunking 'intrapersonal truths' as by definition they're different from individual to individual, and its rather useless for me to try and 'test' something you believe to be true about yourself.

Self knowledge is huge and effects many things (everything?) you do.  It deserves as careful consideration as external reality.

You can't and shouldn't ignore the observer (you) any more than you do empirical observations.  A full life needs to include both.

Sure, but I myself as an observer can be extremely flawed, and while I certainly do have confidence in my own ideas and judgments, I always attempt to compare those ideas and judgments not only to other peoples' judgments, but also any sort of verifiable evidence (if there is any, depending on the claim).

Important where inter-personal reality is concerned.  Much less so where self knowledge is concerned.  There the risk is inescapable.

Theists stop at belief in doctrine rather than remaining faithful to the truth they humbly do not fully possess.  I wonder if atheists who take a nothing-but empirical evidence stance are also afraid of something.

I'll admit I'm not quite sure what that means.

I'm referring to the self knowledge piece again.  Without help of science or other authorities to back us up, we're all pretty much on our own here.  Those who require a great deal of certainty might well be uncomfortable in this arena, or just dismiss it as sour grapes.  

But not you my friend.  I delayed answering your post for fear of saying what could be misinterpreted as critical of yourself or the many others I respect here.  (Also, all such criticisms extend as much to myself as anyone else.)  But I do like dancing up to that line, don't I?

[Faith No More]

Fair enough, just curious.

I am, too, but you have to understand my dad and our relationship to understand why I don't pry.  Let's just say that he is incapable of revealing anything personal about himself, and he basically just internalizes everything.  At first glance, he appears to be an emotionless robot.

---

I suspect the religious beliefs he holds are on par with beliefs we hold about who we are and what we value.  True "faith" is about embracing the truth as you find it.  Religious "belief" tend to be more specific.  Belief is at odds with faith.  I think most atheists are more faithful in the sense of being open to the truth/reality as we find it.  The downfall of atheists tends to come from adopting a "nothing-but" stance.  The trick is to embrace all kinds of truth, intra-personal as well as inter-personal, while knowing where and how each applies.  You can't and shouldn't ignore the observer (you) any more than you do empirical observations.  A full life needs to include both.

I'd wager that the largest contributing to factor to his beliefs is being raised in 1950's rural Texas.

[Whateverist]

Sounds like my father.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Mine too!

---

Well...not 50s, but the religious climate in Texas really hasn't changed all that much.