What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[Drich]

If you remember your original position was there was Nothing scientific about the claim that time was the 4th dimension. when in fact there is a whole discipline of science dedicated to this study.

In proving this my argument is complete. Why? because my argument contends science is ever changing and by nature takes a measure of faith to believe whatever you believe about it. in this case do you believe Einstein or Carl sagen either take the same leap of faith God requires.

I posted that time was NOT considered a 4th dimension, and also posted an article backing up my claim.  You were correct, I was ignorant of the Minkowski work.  So I thank you for leading me to further research.

It is a globally-accepted fact that science is ever-changing.  "Faith", however, is defined is claiming to know something that you cannot possibly know - claiming to know something that has absolutely no verifiable data to prove its veracity.  Therefore, the term "faith" to me is insulting.  I also do not "believe" Sagan, Einstein, Hawking, etc.  I respect their hard-earned skills, work ethic, and abilities.  I find them to be admirable and reputable sources of information.

There are no such reputable sources of information for the existence of a deity, or of non-corporeal entities of any sort.  I see no evidence for the existence of a god.  "Belief" has no place in my world.  If you need such things in your life, fine.  Do not dare to assume that I need them in mine.

Peace.

Faith is not defined in such a way.

Faith is belief without complete knowledge. it does not say faith is belief in something you can not know.

That is a lie and foolish belief in order to try and ground science and put god out of reach.

In truth for both science and belief in God one starts out without complete knowledge of both. however with both if you properly emerse yourself you will find proof to support your beliefs. now the only difference is that when you find proof of God those 'facts' never change. however in this very case belief in something as foolish as the idea that time is a dimensional form of measurement is based on which group of 'scientists you want to believe in. are you with enstien or are you with the list of people you listed which if I remember correctly included carl sagen and steven hawkin...

How can you be so foolish or blind as to see your beliefs are based on what the most popular in a given field believes.... 

I wish you could ask old "speak and spell" what he believes now about God. I'm sure it would not make a difference because you would simply find another group of like minded people to blindly follow.

[Whateverist]

It is a globally-accepted fact that science is ever-changing.  "Faith", however, is defined is claiming to know something that you cannot possibly know - claiming to know something that has absolutely no verifiable data to prove its veracity.  Therefore, the term "faith" to me is insulting.  I also do not "believe" Sagan, Einstein, Hawking, etc.  I respect their hard-earned skills, work ethic, and abilities.  I find them to be admirable and reputable sources of information.

Faith is not defined in such a way.

Faith is belief without complete knowledge. it does not say faith is belief in something you can not know.

Interesting point.  I agree with the good doctor that it is insulting to suggest that belief in the conclusions of science is on par with having faith in the articles of faith subscribed to by a religion.

But I agree with Drich that faith isn't well described as any kind of claim regarding knowledge.  I personally think of faith as trust in or reliance on that which you cannot demonstrate or completely justify.  I believe we all have articles of faith in that sense.  But that doesn't mean there is nothing at all that one can demonstrate or fully justify.  Not everything is on the same epistemic footing as religious faith, but some things are.  Science just isn't one of them.

[drfuzzy]

I posted that time was NOT considered a 4th dimension, and also posted an article backing up my claim.  You were correct, I was ignorant of the Minkowski work.  So I thank you for leading me to further research.

It is a globally-accepted fact that science is ever-changing.  "Faith", however, is defined is claiming to know something that you cannot possibly know - claiming to know something that has absolutely no verifiable data to prove its veracity.  Therefore, the term "faith" to me is insulting.  I also do not "believe" Sagan, Einstein, Hawking, etc.  I respect their hard-earned skills, work ethic, and abilities.  I find them to be admirable and reputable sources of information.

There are no such reputable sources of information for the existence of a deity, or of non-corporeal entities of any sort.  I see no evidence for the existence of a god.  "Belief" has no place in my world.  If you need such things in your life, fine.  Do not dare to assume that I need them in mine.

Peace.

Faith is not defined in such a way.

Faith is belief without complete knowledge. it does not say faith is belief in something you can not know.

That is a lie and foolish belief in order to try and ground science and put god out of reach.

In truth for both science and belief in God one starts out without complete knowledge of both. however with both if you properly emerse yourself you will find proof to support your beliefs. now the only difference is that when you find proof of God those 'facts' never change. however in this very case belief in something as foolish as the idea that time is a dimensional form of measurement is based on which group of 'scientists you want to believe in. are you with enstien or are you with the list of people you listed which if I remember correctly included carl sagen and steven hawkin...

How can you be so foolish or blind as to see your beliefs are based on what the most popular in a given field believes.... 

I wish you could ask old "speak and spell" what he believes now about God. I'm sure it would not make a difference because you would simply find another group of like minded people to blindly follow.

I accept current facts and findings.  I do not "believe" in anything that cannot be measured, seen, touched, and defined.  It's that simple.  If the time should come when someone proves that a soul, or any spirit of any type exists, then I will accept that as true and change my stance.  My definition of faith comes from Peter Boghossian, I like his books.  "In truth for both science and belief in God one starts out without complete knowledge of both."  True . . . but science is generally gathering information on something that exists, and "studying" god is simply indulging in fantasy.

[Drich]

Faith is not defined in such a way.

Faith is belief without complete knowledge. it does not say faith is belief in something you can not know.

Interesting point.  I agree with the good doctor that it is insulting to suggest that belief in the conclusions of science is on par with having faith in the articles of faith subscribed to by a religion.

But I agree with Drich that faith isn't well described as any kind of claim regarding knowledge.  I personally think of faith as trust in or reliance on that which you cannot demonstrate or completely justify.  I believe we all have articles of faith in that sense.  But that doesn't mean there is nothing at all that one can demonstrate or fully justify.  Not everything is on the same epistemic footing as religious faith, but some things are.  Science just isn't one of them.

why not?

can you explain every scientific aspect in which you believe?

or is there a measure of faith involved to accept that the whole universe was condensed down to the size of a basket ball before the big bang?

Faith is faith when it comes to God/not religion. (The faith religion calls for is bunk.) God said all we need is the smallest amount and we can move mountains of doubt with what He will show/do for us.

---

Faith is not defined in such a way.

Faith is belief without complete knowledge. it does not say faith is belief in something you can not know.

That is a lie and foolish belief in order to try and ground science and put god out of reach.

In truth for both science and belief in God one starts out without complete knowledge of both. however with both if you properly emerse yourself you will find proof to support your beliefs. now the only difference is that when you find proof of God those 'facts' never change. however in this very case belief in something as foolish as the idea that time is a dimensional form of measurement is based on which group of 'scientists you want to believe in. are you with enstien or are you with the list of people you listed which if I remember correctly included carl sagen and steven hawkin...

How can you be so foolish or blind as to see your beliefs are based on what the most popular in a given field believes.... 

I wish you could ask old "speak and spell" what he believes now about God. I'm sure it would not make a difference because you would simply find another group of like minded people to blindly follow.

I accept current facts and findings.  I do not "believe" in anything that cannot be measured, seen, touched, and defined.  It's that simple.  If the time should come when someone proves that a soul, or any spirit of any type exists, then I will accept that as true and change my stance.  My definition of faith comes from Peter Boghossian, I like his books.  "In truth for both science and belief in God one starts out without complete knowledge of both."  True . . . but science is generally gathering information on something that exists, and "studying" god is simply indulging in fantasy.

so big bang... evolution... black holes (as gravity wells) and a whole host of other theoretical science... you don't believe in any of it?

[Whateverist]

Interesting point.  I agree with the good doctor that it is insulting to suggest that belief in the conclusions of science is on par with having faith in the articles of faith subscribed to by a religion.

But I agree with Drich that faith isn't well described as any kind of claim regarding knowledge.  I personally think of faith as trust in or reliance on that which you cannot demonstrate or completely justify.  I believe we all have articles of faith in that sense.  But that doesn't mean there is nothing at all that one can demonstrate or fully justify.  Not everything is on the same epistemic footing as religious faith, but some things are.  Science just isn't one of them.

why not?

can you explain every scientific aspect in which you believe?

"Believe in .." isn't an expression I use to describe anything I believe to be true.  Belief isn't something I toss toward things I wish for.  I believe always and only that which I have the best reason to think true given what I know and past experience.  I can certainly be wrong, but just no to that expression.

I'm inclined to believe the conclusions/theories of science because I understand the process which leads to them.  I know that the best scientific theory at any time is always subject to revision or replacement, but that is part of why I trust it.  My wife's grandfather was a botany professor received the best available medical advice available at the time from Stanford to treat his heart disease by increasing consumption of cream, butter and other dairy in order to lube the arteries.  We do have to depend on the research of others, not all of which we are likely to understand, in order to make real decisions.  But my money will always be on science for reasons clear to anyone who understands the scientific method and peer review.

I don't believe in supernatural things because I know those beliefs always and only stem from the murky hunches people cling to, either because they were brought up that way or because they misapprehend the 'internal otherness' of the unconscious mind and project it out there - way overestimating it in the case the xtian god.

or is there a measure of faith involved to accept that the whole universe was condensed down to the size of a basket ball before the big bang?

I doubt if anyone invests a great in that sort of speculation.  It is interesting but not useful for any decision I make in my life.  But there are plenty of more down to earth empirical matters I rely on all the time, and I take those from science.  If I was drilling for water, I wouldn't bring in someone with a divining stick, I'd contact a geologist or engineer with the relevant experience.

Faith is faith when it comes to God/not religion. (The faith religion calls for is bunk.) God said all we need is the smallest amount and we can move mountains of doubt with what He will show/do for us.

You think you're better than the religious because you go directly to God rather than trust the officialdom at the temple.  But so long as you start out assuming you already know what God is, what He wants and how much that should matter to you .. meh, no difference.

[drfuzzy]

---

Interesting point.  I agree with the good doctor that it is insulting to suggest that belief in the conclusions of science is on par with having faith in the articles of faith subscribed to by a religion.

But I agree with Drich that faith isn't well described as any kind of claim regarding knowledge.  I personally think of faith as trust in or reliance on that which you cannot demonstrate or completely justify.  I believe we all have articles of faith in that sense.  But that doesn't mean there is nothing at all that one can demonstrate or fully justify.  Not everything is on the same epistemic footing as religious faith, but some things are.  Science just isn't one of them.

---

---

why not?

can you explain every scientific aspect in which you believe?

or is there a measure of faith involved to accept that the whole universe was condensed down to the size of a basket ball before the big bang?

Faith is faith when it comes to God/not religion. (The faith religion calls for is bunk.) God said all we need is the smallest amount and we can move mountains of doubt with what He will show/do for us.

---

---

I accept current facts and findings.  I do not "believe" in anything that cannot be measured, seen, touched, and defined.  It's that simple.  If the time should come when someone proves that a soul, or any spirit of any type exists, then I will accept that as true and change my stance.  My definition of faith comes from Peter Boghossian, I like his books.  "In truth for both science and belief in God one starts out without complete knowledge of both."  True . . . but science is generally gathering information on something that exists, and "studying" god is simply indulging in fantasy.

so big bang... evolution... black holes (as gravity wells) and a whole host of other theoretical science... you don't believe in any of it?

How are we missing such an easy point here?  Big Bang, Evolution, Black Holes, etc., -- a lot of measurable data exists for all of it.  
Theory - basic scientific definition:  A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Theories are respectable science that is ongoing.  There is no "belief" required, just study.  
I don't need to "believe" that the Big Bang happened, and if our knowledge of it was updated tomorrow, great, but it doesn't affect my daily life.  I don't need to "believe" evolution happened, I accept the large volume of archaeological, biological, geological, migration, development, DNA, and other types of data that have been collected supporting it.
"Belief" is not necessary, we have data.   The concepts of "belief" and "faith" are not welcome in my world.

[robvalue]

Right. Science is falsifiable. Theories are falsifiable. So the alternative explanation is one of these:

1) No one has noticed these theories are not falsifiable

2) No has noticed that data falsifies these theories

3) There's some worldwide scientific conspiracy that silences people who notice that theories are not falsifiable, or can be falsified by data

How likely are these scenarios? In my estimation, these are so incredibly unlikely that they can be safely discounted. It's more likely that I'm actually crazy/asleep/hallucinating all this, and science makes sense only within the context of this experience. Even if that's the case, it still makes sense internally, and these figments of my imagination aren't doing a good job of persuading me otherwise within my virtual reality. Bad figments.

[stretch3172]

How are we missing such an easy point here?  Big Bang, Evolution, Black Holes, etc., -- a lot of measurable data exists for all of it.  
Theory - basic scientific definition:  A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Theories are respectable science that is ongoing.  There is no "belief" required, just study.  
I don't need to "believe" that the Big Bang happened, and if our knowledge of it was updated tomorrow, great, but it doesn't affect my daily life.  I don't need to "believe" evolution happened, I accept the large volume of archaeological, biological, geological, migration, development, DNA, and other types of data that have been collected supporting it.
"Belief" is not necessary, we have data.   The concepts of "belief" and "faith" are not welcome in my world.

I agree completely with this. That said, the scientific process by which we develop theories is founded on some key assumptions. For one, we are assuming that our means of observing the world (i.e. the natural senses, measuring instruments, etc.) are accurate and reliable in the information they convey. Also, the realm of phenomena that can actually be studied empirically could very well be infinitesimally small compared to all of reality. We are limited by our senses and the sensitivity of our own scientific instruments. On some level, then, we must have faith in our own senses and methodological approaches or it wouldn't be possible to draw any scientific conclusions.

[robvalue]

I'm not sure what you mean by "have faith in our senses". I could be insane or dreaming right now, but scientific techniques work within the structure of whatever this is. That's the point of science, it comes up with models that work. And it's the repeatable evidence of them working that shows that they work. My personal conclusions, or scientific theories, are not supposed to apply to all reality or to be completely accurate. They are meant to be our best attempt to model "reality", whatever it may be. They are always open to new information, and will be reconsidered if they are found not to fit it. Of course, reality could be totally different to how we perceive it. But what we're really modeling is our perception of reality, if you want to get technical. We can't model actual reality because we have no data about it.

So I don't get what you mean that we can only draw conclusions by having faith in our senses. If I am in some deluded state, then my conclusions still make sense and work within the delusion, and that's all they need to do. No one would suggest that any models created for one kind of reality would automatically apply to a different one.

Edit: also, if the approaches were wrong, the results wouldn't work. We wouldn't be building computers and flying planes if our methodology was too flawed to produce workable conclusions. So what is the alternative? The methodology is in fact flawed but we've just been extremely lucky over and over again? I'm not suggesting any methodology we have is perfect. Just that it's good enough for purpose, and that's all we could ever achieve. The conclusions can be tested, unlike any religious ideas.

[The Grand Nudger]

To the religious, everything seems like a religion.