Question about "faith"

[Sal]

Just like I do not have to consciously rule out gods as an explanation for the universe, I need justification to rule it in.

That's not how we do science ironically enough, quite the opposite.

Clarify. How do we do science then?

[Gwaithmir]

---

how about telling us what you think is wrong with his definition of faith.

That's been addressed over and over on this thread.

No it hasn't because I just posted it.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Clarify. How do we do science then?

Falsification.

[HappySkeptic]

Clarify. How do we do science then?

Falsification.

Sure, but scientists don't write up 1000 stupid hypotheses and then go about attempting to falsify them.  They stand on the work that is already done.  There may be a lot of crap in that current model, but the scientist uses the current model to create a hypothesis and then tests it.  When something fails, they go back and look at whether the model is wrong.

No models include ghosts as the cause of strange sounds.

Scientific method is about finding the most probable explanation, or at least the one that explains the most with the least arbitrary baggage.  There are many tools in the toolkit, and one of those is to dismiss extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.  On the basis of probability, this is the correct behavior.  However, once evidence is presented and is validated, the scientist has to re-evaluate the current models.  Burden of proof is "a thing".

So yes, one needs a "reason" (extraordinary evidence) to start postulating ghosts as the reason for anything.  They are a low probability hypothesis given the lack of a model to explain them and lack of evidence.

Just like any particular god.

[Belacqua]

---

That's been addressed over and over on this thread.

No it hasn't because I just posted it.

The specific quote from that specific fat ugly third-rate entertainer was just recently posted.

The same idea was posted early on in the thread, more than once. It has been addressed.

[Sal]

Clarify. How do we do science then?

Falsification.

Very well then.

I just saw a rainbow across some mountains, seemingly going in an arc, and this arc of the rainbow went past the mountain, ending behind a hill. Clearly this is caused by leprechauns! There was slight rain in the mountains, and the sunlight shone through the clouds behind me. Clearly this is evidence that the leprechauns want me to find their pot of gold! I can see the pot of gold clearly in my mind. We will be rich!

In another occasion, while going for a walk in a forest, the trees whispered to me! It was unintelligible, so I was filled with fear and ran back home. Clearly the tree wisps didn't want me there! It was summer, there was some brisk wind while walking in the forest, in the evening. I must respect the tree wisps wishes and not disturb them.

...

I can concoct more examples of this kind, if you want to play. Tell me what you think is wrong, if you actually think they're wrong, with those 2 events - or maybe there are leprechauns and tree wisps. Who knows? I chose those renditions, because people actually believed in these kind of supernatural "explanations" in the past. I guess something changed about their convictions.

Falsifiability isn't just some random doodad about experiments and science, or how we device modeling to explain those experiments.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Sure, but scientists don't write up 1000 stupid hypotheses and then go about attempting to falsify them.

Science progresses through conjecture and refutation. By conjecturing you are in fact coming up with 1,000 different propositions and attempting to refute them.

Conjecture is by it's very nature inductive, it goes beyond what you know. You are free to think outside the box. Once a theory is formulated, hypotheses are deduced, and experiments are conducted to falsify the conjecture.

To approach God scientifically you need to start with God first, and then attempt to falsify it. You cannot start from zero and attempt to prove your way up to God.

This is because you would be affirming the consequent in your experimental design: If you hypothesize that "If ghosts exists, then lights will flicker at the cemetery" and you take a light to the cemetery and it flickers, that information is insufficient to conclude ghosts exists because other explanations are possible (dead battery).

But if the light doesn't flicker at the cemetery, we can conclude that ghosts don't exist. For that reason science never aims to prove it aims to disprove.

[The Grand Nudger]

You could start from zero and "prove your way up". Sounds like an issue of competence, not possibility, to me. Frankly, it would have to at least be possible in order to call your faith reasonable, and you do, don't you.

[Gwaithmir]

No it hasn't because I just posted it.

The specific quote from that specific fat ugly third-rate entertainer was just recently posted.

The same idea was posted early on in the thread, more than once. It has been addressed.

All I require is a simple answer, yet you keep obfuscating. What is the number of the post that included this definition? What is the number of the post that mentioned Aron Ra by name? What is the number of the post that specifically addressed this definition?

[Mister Agenda]

When something is based on evidence and reason, I find that I need not exert any will to believe it.

Provided the evidence and reasons meet your personal threshold. And of course, your biases against a proposition undoubtedly raise your acceptance threshold, and biases in favor lower it.

The forum seems unaware that people's thresholds differ; and they judge another's threshold by contrasting it to their own. To use a potentially wrong analogy: for some people the existence of Black Holes is reasonable based solely on the math; for others it is reasonable only when gravitational waves are measured; and still others find it unreasonable until a Black Hole is observed directly.

When it comes to God: for some people, existence alone is sufficient to make the proposition reasonable; for others, nothing short of directly observing God makes it reasonable. And between these ends lies an entire spectrum of thresholds that are as diverse as the brains in which they occur. 

As such my only concern is not to convince anyone here that God exists, but getting them to see how someone else might find it reasonable, and to respect that.

Is it good to have a low threshold? Is it a virtue to have to exert will to believe something is true?

The people who are convinced existence alone is sufficient to make the proposition reasonable are making the fallacy of affirming the consequent:

If God, then the universe.
The universe, therefore God.

If there's no gas in the car, it won't run.
The car won't run, therefore there's no gas in it.

---

Sure, but scientists don't write up 1000 stupid hypotheses and then go about attempting to falsify them.

Science progresses through conjecture and refutation. By conjecturing you are in fact coming up with 1,000 different propositions and attempting to refute them.

Conjecture is by it's very nature inductive, it goes beyond what you know. You are free to think outside the box. Once a theory is formulated, hypotheses are deduced, and experiments are conducted to falsify the conjecture.

To approach God scientifically you need to start with God first, and then attempt to falsify it. You cannot start from zero and attempt to prove your way up to God.

This is because you would be affirming the consequent in your experimental design: If you hypothesize that "If ghosts exists, then lights will flicker at the cemetery" and you take a light to the cemetery and it flickers, that information is insufficient to conclude ghosts exists because other explanations are possible (dead battery).

But if the light doesn't flicker at the cemetery, we can conclude that ghosts don't exist. For that reason science never aims to prove it aims to disprove.

A hypothesis is not mere conjecture, it is a proposed explanation for available evidence, and that explanation has to be falsifiable. Guess what ghosts aren't.