3 ms·

> Faith requires, by definition, that one accept as truth universal aspects with no evidence. FWIW I'd disagree with this definition. To give a really simple e

by kbd 9y ago

> Faith requires, by definition, that one accept as truth universal aspects with no evidence. FWIW I'd disagree with this definition. To give a really simple example: believing in an intelligent creator based on design in nature. That's not "no evidence". Holding to a naturalistic theory of origins that explains apparent design by a long sequence of chance occurrences is equally a faith commitment. > Over coffee with one of these chaps i'll never forget his saying "Well, there's my professional system of belief, and there's my personal awareness, and I strive to keep them separate at all times." Just for the record, i couldn't manage to do that. I agree there. One of the underlying causes of the scientific explosion around the Renaissance is the idea that the universe follows rules and can be understood, and it's because it's created by God that motivated many Christian scientists like Newton, Kepler, Pascal, and others to believe that we can fruitfully explore and understand its workings. It's bizarre to me that someone would try to hold in mind a universe where different aspects are actually at odds with each other. Edit: for instance, here's an example of Kepler's motivations for scientific discovery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Christianity

longerthoughts 9y ago
>To give a really simple example: believing in an intelligent creator based on design in nature. That's not "no evidence". Holding to a naturalistic theory of origins that explains apparent design by a long sequence of chance occurrences is equally a faith commitment. I agree that modern science still requires faith as much of what we believe is inherently difficult to definitively prove. What I'm struggling to understand is how you can say that these competing theories require an equal faith commitment. By what measurement? How are the competing theories equally plausible? I actually agree when you say that the complexity of nature is "not 'no evidence'" and would add that the notion of an intelligent creator was probably the most plausible explanation available when the notion was conceived. However, plausibility has to be reevaluated and compared in the face of contrary evidence supporting other plausible theories, and I simply can't see how the competing evidence can be judged as supporting equally plausible theories.
- tareqak 9y ago
  I can give you an example/analogy that I personally believe in: I think that science and religion (the part that comes directly from scripture without intermediaries) are two ends of a really tangled morass long rope/thread. They might be different colours, thicknesses, and different textures, but they ultimately converge to being the one same thing. I think of religion as being a sort of mission statement (the why) with a some general guidelines of how to behave and what to expect (e.g. a interface in object-oriented programming), and science being a sort of detailed, meticulous set of steps (the how) to extract information from the environment and observable objects (e.g a concrete class that is supposed implementing the interface). Unfortunately/fortunately, the compiler doesn’t yell at you if you aren’t implementing the interface correctly, so you have to figure it out for yourself.
  - lomnakkus 9y ago
    > directly from scripture without intermediaries Either scripture itself was written down by intermediaries or you're already presupposing the existence of deities. (Those deities also require an explanation or you really are just talking about faith without evidence.)
renox 9y ago
> FWIW I'd disagree with this definition. To give a really simple example: believing in an intelligent creator based on design in nature. Except that this doesn't answer the question: how this intelligent creator came to exist? Religious people either react furiously to this question or do the equivalent of "I can't hear you", scientific people look for an alternative theory.

by kbd 9y ago

longerthoughts 9y ago

>To give a really simple example: believing in an intelligent creator based on design in nature. That's not "no evidence". Holding to a naturalistic theory of origins that explains apparent design by a long sequence of chance occurrences is equally a faith commitment. I agree that modern science still requires faith as much of what we believe is inherently difficult to definitively prove. What I'm struggling to understand is how you can say that these competing theories require an equal faith commitment. By what measurement? How are the competing theories equally plausible? I actually agree when you say that the complexity of nature is "not 'no evidence'" and would add that the notion of an intelligent creator was probably the most plausible explanation available when the notion was conceived. However, plausibility has to be reevaluated and compared in the face of contrary evidence supporting other plausible theories, and I simply can't see how the competing evidence can be judged as supporting equally plausible theories.

tareqak 9y ago
I can give you an example/analogy that I personally believe in: I think that science and religion (the part that comes directly from scripture without intermediaries) are two ends of a really tangled morass long rope/thread. They might be different colours, thicknesses, and different textures, but they ultimately converge to being the one same thing. I think of religion as being a sort of mission statement (the why) with a some general guidelines of how to behave and what to expect (e.g. a interface in object-oriented programming), and science being a sort of detailed, meticulous set of steps (the how) to extract information from the environment and observable objects (e.g a concrete class that is supposed implementing the interface). Unfortunately/fortunately, the compiler doesn’t yell at you if you aren’t implementing the interface correctly, so you have to figure it out for yourself.
- lomnakkus 9y ago
  > directly from scripture without intermediaries Either scripture itself was written down by intermediaries or you're already presupposing the existence of deities. (Those deities also require an explanation or you really are just talking about faith without evidence.)

renox 9y ago

> FWIW I'd disagree with this definition. To give a really simple example: believing in an intelligent creator based on design in nature. Except that this doesn't answer the question: how this intelligent creator came to exist? Religious people either react furiously to this question or do the equivalent of "I can't hear you", scientific people look for an alternative theory.