4 ms·

> claims without evidence I think there is plenty of evidence. I don't feel like I'd change your mind in an Internet comment by laying out particulars, but I j

> claims without evidence I think there is plenty of evidence. I don't feel like I'd change your mind in an Internet comment by laying out particulars, but I just wanted to note that plenty of people of faith don't ascribe to the idea of blind faith. > what is moral is a scientific question What evidence do you have to support this statement? I can see how you could start with that assumption and find ways to justify it, but I don't see how you can conclusively prove the initial premise. My point is that it seems like you have a moral code that states that all things can be proven within the bounds of science and what is observable by humans, no?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
> I think there is plenty of evidence. I am speaking of observation, not revelation. > I just wanted to note that plenty of people of faith don't ascribe to the idea of blind faith. People don't say "it's faith" when they can find any other reason why they consider something to be true, "it's faith" is the fallback when they don't have any other reason. Whether they then find some reason for why "it's faith" is a good reason is secondary to that simple observation. You just don't hear "it's raining outside!" - "how do you know?" - "it's faith!", but you do hear "god exists!" - "how do you know?" - "it's faith!" or "homosexuality is sin!" - "how do you know?" - "it's faith!". > What evidence do you have to support this statement? Well, what evidence do you have that the question whether falling from a tall building increases your well-being is a scientific one (I assume you think that it is?)? That question is hard to answer because it's difficult to tell what it is that you actually want to know, but the answers to those two questions should be similar. > I can see how you could start with that assumption and find ways to justify it, but I don't see how you can conclusively prove the initial premise. I think the more interesting question is: Do you disagree and if so, why? Whether I can prove that premise depends on which assumptions/axioms you accept. With some assumptions, I can prove it, with others, I can't. But if you chose axioms under which I can't prove it, I can instead disprove lots of things you consider to be true, which might make you rethink your axioms. > My point is that it seems like you have a moral code that states that all things can be proven within the bounds of science and what is observable by humans, no? Nope, I don't. However, in that statement I do recognize a common misunderstanding of methodological naturalism (which is basically the defining philosophy of science), so let me try and explain: Science is the idea of developing a model of the world that mirrors reality as best as currently possible by constantly testing the model against reality and throwing out/changing anything where tests give a different result than the model would suggest, and gradually accepting parts of the model as tentatively reliable the more tries to produce contradictions in tests have failed (that is to say: the more tries to produce a different result than the model suggests do result in what the model suggests nonetheless). What it in particular is not is a set of facts (any science "fact" is open to demonstration that it's actually not so and will be thrown out if that happens, though that doesn't normally happen for well-tested parts of the model), and it's also not a dogma: There is nothing that science disallows from being tested, and no method that is disallowed to perform the testing, as long as it can be shown that it can be expected to fail if the hypothesis to be tested is wrong in some aspect. It's a perfectly fine scientific hypothesis that prayer improves health outcomes after operations, and it's perfectly reasonable to then test this hypothesis in an experiment that involves praying for people and then checking whether any effect on health outcomes can be observed. Actually, that particular hypothesis has been suggested, and has been tested--and the test didn't show anything that would support the hypothesis, which is why it's not part of the scientific model of the world, but the point is that there is no dogma in science that would have prevented this hypothesis from becoming a well-regarded scientific theory, had it been demonstrated to work, in which case prayer now presumably would be a standard part of medical procedures. So, in that sense, science doesn't actually subscribe to a distinction between the "natural" and the "supernatural": If there is any claimed observable effect, science is willing to take a look at whether the claimed observable effect can indeed be observed, and if it can, you have a scientific theory, whether it's masses moving in gravitational fields, germs causing diseases, or prayer healing the ill. However, it is important to note that science does not proclaim that if you can't observe something, it therefore isn't. Claiming that something does not exist is just as much a scientific claim as claiming that it does, and so, if you claim non-existence, you have to perform tests to show that that claim is true just as when you wanted to show existence. As long as you haven't demonstrated some claim to either be true or to be false, you simply don't know whether it is true, and thus don't get to claim either way. Note that this is not to be confused with a claim that something won't ever be known (which again would be a claim that needs to be demonstrated)--what is unknown might well become known at a later point, but as long as it's unknown, it is unknown, and thus has to be treated just as every other claim of which the truth is unknown. So, no, I don't claim that everything can be proven within the bounds of science and observation, but that if (and as long as) scientific methodology (which would ultimately mean some form of observation) does not provide any evidence, it is unreasonable to believe a claim. There might well be claims that are true that cannot (yet) be demonstrated to be either true or false. But as long as there is no evidence either way, I can't distinguish the ones that are true from the ones that are false, so I withhold belief on all of them. All of that has little to do with morals. Morals, however, can be figured out using that same methodology. Sensible morals are all about consequences that one person's actions have on other people, and those consequences can be observed.
- Brendinooo 11y ago
  Thanks for taking the time to reply and speaking civilly! I've really come to enjoy discussions on Hacker News more than anywhere else. > I am speaking of observation, not revelation. Me too. There were lot of observations about people and events in first-century Palestine that were then recorded and preserved over time. I was just in a meeting today. Let's say I write a blog post about it and that post is read 2000 years later. While it can't be the sole basis for answering the question of whether or not that meeting happened, I think it should be given a lot of respect and precedence when considering the question. But don't discount revelation outright! If I want someone to understand me better, I'd rather tell them myself rather than having them resort to observations and experiments, and I'd probably give them more information in an hour of talking than they ever could figure out on their own. > "it's faith" is the fallback when they don't have any other reason If you can explain it completely, it's not faith. So that makes sense. The concept of a triune God is one that kinda ends up this way. I can pontificate all I want about how I'm a father, a son, and a brother all while being a single entity, but at the end of the day it's like explaining depth to Flatlanders - it's tough to truly understand something that doesn't exist on your level. So, what goes beyond my comprehension requires faith. Can it be used as a cop-out or an intellectually lazy answer? Sure! The Bible even suggests that faith is hard - a man once said to Jesus "I believe; help my unbelief!" But that doesn't mean it's not a valid state of mind. I like the chair metaphor for this sort of talk. Sitting in a chair requires a measure of faith that it'll hold my weight. If I'm sitting in the chair, the question is already answered so no more faith is required (unless I wanted to question the idea that the chair would continue to hold my weight!). If I couldn't sit in the chair because it's behind a glass wall in a museum, then I can choose to believe it will/won't hold me or I can choose to not make a decision because, who cares? And for a chair that's okay, because it's not being prescriptive or dealing with anything existential. But ultimately, the chair can either hold you or it can't. One of those outcomes is true. Just because you can't sit on the chair doesn't mean that there isn't an absolute answer. I think you understand that after parsing your response a bit more, just wanted to call the point out specifically. > However, it is important to note that science does not proclaim that if you can't observe something, it therefore isn't. Yes! I understand this. But I do think that because science is so great at explaining so many things, people will tend to mentally fall into assumptions like 'science is the only way to prove something' or 'if science cannot prove something, I won't believe it'. This could be strawmanning though. If I understand you correctly you're saying that, from a purely scientific standpoint, a belief in the Abrahamic God is no different than believing that we're a little simulation run by the Q Continuum. And that's a fair point. But I would contend again that science is not the only way to prove something. Historical record, internal logic and narrative, testimony of others, personal experience, revelation...these can be less easy to parse and trust than a clear-cut scientific method, but that doesn't invalidate them as methods of persuasion. And perhaps that is our greatest difference. You (if I am understanding correctly; feel free to correct me) believe that belief should be withheld on things that cannot be quantified with scientific methodology. I do not ascribe to this, and this divergence puts us in pretty different places. >>> what is moral is a scientific question >> I can see how you could start with that assumption and find ways to justify it, but I don't see how you can conclusively prove the initial premise. > I think the more interesting question is: Do you disagree and if so, why? If I understand the intent of this exchange, then I think I do disagree. Take something like eugenics; if we observed two societies doing it and one refraining, we might find benefits in both society. An individualistic society might be glad they refrained because they see the intrinsic value of each human life, regardless of their shortcomings, while a collectivistic, Spartan-like society might be glad they kept their stock strong and didn't have to do stuff like buy glasses or spend money on sick/disabled people. Point being, observation and the conclusions that are drawn from it could end up being inconclusive or relativistic depending on the underlying values of the society. One of the things I believe about God is that he knows everything about us, and as such would be the most qualified to prescribe the best courses of action for my life and for society. Or, since we're on HN, the guy who programmed the app knows the codebase better than anyone, and if he wants others to understand it he writes documentation for others to follow, or maybe goes to a conference to talk about it. And who knows, maybe God has reasoning that would fit within the realm of scientific methodology. I don't know, but..."it's faith!"

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago

> I think there is plenty of evidence. I am speaking of observation, not revelation. > I just wanted to note that plenty of people of faith don't ascribe to the idea of blind faith. People don't say "it's faith" when they can find any other reason why they consider something to be true, "it's faith" is the fallback when they don't have any other reason. Whether they then find some reason for why "it's faith" is a good reason is secondary to that simple observation. You just don't hear "it's raining outside!" - "how do you know?" - "it's faith!", but you do hear "god exists!" - "how do you know?" - "it's faith!" or "homosexuality is sin!" - "how do you know?" - "it's faith!". > What evidence do you have to support this statement? Well, what evidence do you have that the question whether falling from a tall building increases your well-being is a scientific one (I assume you think that it is?)? That question is hard to answer because it's difficult to tell what it is that you actually want to know, but the answers to those two questions should be similar. > I can see how you could start with that assumption and find ways to justify it, but I don't see how you can conclusively prove the initial premise. I think the more interesting question is: Do you disagree and if so, why? Whether I can prove that premise depends on which assumptions/axioms you accept. With some assumptions, I can prove it, with others, I can't. But if you chose axioms under which I can't prove it, I can instead disprove lots of things you consider to be true, which might make you rethink your axioms. > My point is that it seems like you have a moral code that states that all things can be proven within the bounds of science and what is observable by humans, no? Nope, I don't. However, in that statement I do recognize a common misunderstanding of methodological naturalism (which is basically the defining philosophy of science), so let me try and explain: Science is the idea of developing a model of the world that mirrors reality as best as currently possible by constantly testing the model against reality and throwing out/changing anything where tests give a different result than the model would suggest, and gradually accepting parts of the model as tentatively reliable the more tries to produce contradictions in tests have failed (that is to say: the more tries to produce a different result than the model suggests do result in what the model suggests nonetheless). What it in particular is not is a set of facts (any science "fact" is open to demonstration that it's actually not so and will be thrown out if that happens, though that doesn't normally happen for well-tested parts of the model), and it's also not a dogma: There is nothing that science disallows from being tested, and no method that is disallowed to perform the testing, as long as it can be shown that it can be expected to fail if the hypothesis to be tested is wrong in some aspect. It's a perfectly fine scientific hypothesis that prayer improves health outcomes after operations, and it's perfectly reasonable to then test this hypothesis in an experiment that involves praying for people and then checking whether any effect on health outcomes can be observed. Actually, that particular hypothesis has been suggested, and has been tested--and the test didn't show anything that would support the hypothesis, which is why it's not part of the scientific model of the world, but the point is that there is no dogma in science that would have prevented this hypothesis from becoming a well-regarded scientific theory, had it been demonstrated to work, in which case prayer now presumably would be a standard part of medical procedures. So, in that sense, science doesn't actually subscribe to a distinction between the "natural" and the "supernatural": If there is any claimed observable effect, science is willing to take a look at whether the claimed observable effect can indeed be observed, and if it can, you have a scientific theory, whether it's masses moving in gravitational fields, germs causing diseases, or prayer healing the ill. However, it is important to note that science does not proclaim that if you can't observe something, it therefore isn't. Claiming that something does not exist is just as much a scientific claim as claiming that it does, and so, if you claim non-existence, you have to perform tests to show that that claim is true just as when you wanted to show existence. As long as you haven't demonstrated some claim to either be true or to be false, you simply don't know whether it is true, and thus don't get to claim either way. Note that this is not to be confused with a claim that something won't ever be known (which again would be a claim that needs to be demonstrated)--what is unknown might well become known at a later point, but as long as it's unknown, it is unknown, and thus has to be treated just as every other claim of which the truth is unknown. So, no, I don't claim that everything can be proven within the bounds of science and observation, but that if (and as long as) scientific methodology (which would ultimately mean some form of observation) does not provide any evidence, it is unreasonable to believe a claim. There might well be claims that are true that cannot (yet) be demonstrated to be either true or false. But as long as there is no evidence either way, I can't distinguish the ones that are true from the ones that are false, so I withhold belief on all of them. All of that has little to do with morals. Morals, however, can be figured out using that same methodology. Sensible morals are all about consequences that one person's actions have on other people, and those consequences can be observed.

Brendinooo 11y ago
Thanks for taking the time to reply and speaking civilly! I've really come to enjoy discussions on Hacker News more than anywhere else. > I am speaking of observation, not revelation. Me too. There were lot of observations about people and events in first-century Palestine that were then recorded and preserved over time. I was just in a meeting today. Let's say I write a blog post about it and that post is read 2000 years later. While it can't be the sole basis for answering the question of whether or not that meeting happened, I think it should be given a lot of respect and precedence when considering the question. But don't discount revelation outright! If I want someone to understand me better, I'd rather tell them myself rather than having them resort to observations and experiments, and I'd probably give them more information in an hour of talking than they ever could figure out on their own. > "it's faith" is the fallback when they don't have any other reason If you can explain it completely, it's not faith. So that makes sense. The concept of a triune God is one that kinda ends up this way. I can pontificate all I want about how I'm a father, a son, and a brother all while being a single entity, but at the end of the day it's like explaining depth to Flatlanders - it's tough to truly understand something that doesn't exist on your level. So, what goes beyond my comprehension requires faith. Can it be used as a cop-out or an intellectually lazy answer? Sure! The Bible even suggests that faith is hard - a man once said to Jesus "I believe; help my unbelief!" But that doesn't mean it's not a valid state of mind. I like the chair metaphor for this sort of talk. Sitting in a chair requires a measure of faith that it'll hold my weight. If I'm sitting in the chair, the question is already answered so no more faith is required (unless I wanted to question the idea that the chair would continue to hold my weight!). If I couldn't sit in the chair because it's behind a glass wall in a museum, then I can choose to believe it will/won't hold me or I can choose to not make a decision because, who cares? And for a chair that's okay, because it's not being prescriptive or dealing with anything existential. But ultimately, the chair can either hold you or it can't. One of those outcomes is true. Just because you can't sit on the chair doesn't mean that there isn't an absolute answer. I think you understand that after parsing your response a bit more, just wanted to call the point out specifically. > However, it is important to note that science does not proclaim that if you can't observe something, it therefore isn't. Yes! I understand this. But I do think that because science is so great at explaining so many things, people will tend to mentally fall into assumptions like 'science is the only way to prove something' or 'if science cannot prove something, I won't believe it'. This could be strawmanning though. If I understand you correctly you're saying that, from a purely scientific standpoint, a belief in the Abrahamic God is no different than believing that we're a little simulation run by the Q Continuum. And that's a fair point. But I would contend again that science is not the only way to prove something. Historical record, internal logic and narrative, testimony of others, personal experience, revelation...these can be less easy to parse and trust than a clear-cut scientific method, but that doesn't invalidate them as methods of persuasion. And perhaps that is our greatest difference. You (if I am understanding correctly; feel free to correct me) believe that belief should be withheld on things that cannot be quantified with scientific methodology. I do not ascribe to this, and this divergence puts us in pretty different places. >>> what is moral is a scientific question >> I can see how you could start with that assumption and find ways to justify it, but I don't see how you can conclusively prove the initial premise. > I think the more interesting question is: Do you disagree and if so, why? If I understand the intent of this exchange, then I think I do disagree. Take something like eugenics; if we observed two societies doing it and one refraining, we might find benefits in both society. An individualistic society might be glad they refrained because they see the intrinsic value of each human life, regardless of their shortcomings, while a collectivistic, Spartan-like society might be glad they kept their stock strong and didn't have to do stuff like buy glasses or spend money on sick/disabled people. Point being, observation and the conclusions that are drawn from it could end up being inconclusive or relativistic depending on the underlying values of the society. One of the things I believe about God is that he knows everything about us, and as such would be the most qualified to prescribe the best courses of action for my life and for society. Or, since we're on HN, the guy who programmed the app knows the codebase better than anyone, and if he wants others to understand it he writes documentation for others to follow, or maybe goes to a conference to talk about it. And who knows, maybe God has reasoning that would fit within the realm of scientific methodology. I don't know, but..."it's faith!"