Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder:

This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread.

Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

Thanks.

 

[Number37]

Scientific fact. No faith required.


There's a couple of scientific hypotheses / theories as to how that might have occurred. There prevailing one is of course the Big Bang hypothesis / theory as well as the Steady State Theory or Oscillating Universe Theory.

There's 2 theories but they both can't be true.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Whales do sing, notably Humpback whales. They aren't mythical.

They won’t sing if gas pipelines are laid, apparently. But they have no problem with wind turbines.

 

[Gethelred]

I understand that you have to 'trust in the process'.
But what is that?
If it's not faith?

... seems to me that you're not arguing with me, but with a dictionary definition of what faith is.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. The scientific process is a series of explanations concerning observable phenomenon based on continued observation and experiment, with anything that cannot be repeated or serves as a lesser explanation to be discarded or altered as more information or more applicable theories come into prominence. The two are not equivalent, nor are they even inverse or opposite.

I genuinely do not know how to spell the difference out more clearly. Perhaps we need a general Faith/Theology thread, to discuss this sort of thing.

What if 'the process' is wrong and we find a new 'process' that does give us answers?

Then the scientific process itself would be replaced with a superior model that provides us more accurate answers, by its own judgement.

Does that mean that you (not you specifically) have believed/trusted in a falsehood?

No, because it's not faith. It's understanding of a process and recognition that the outcomes observed have a superior explanation.

How is that different to religious faith?

Pretty significantly.

In both cases you 'have faith'/trust that the answer is X but the answer is actually Y.

No, I don't. I really don't. I trust the process to arrive at the correct result, but the degree to which I trust any given result is predicated on the degree to which I've looked into the research. I am more likely to trust a result I've looked into personally and understand better, but when/if new information that changes things appear I'll have a look and follow with interest.

Knowledge is interesting in and of itself, and it is sourced from an acknowledgement that I don't have the answer or explanation for a natural phenomenon.

On observable phenomena.
We can observe things that doesn't mean we understand that which we are observing.

... sorry, that's the point: being unable to explain something, searching for answers then testing those answers against the phenomena.

Feynman would have a bit of a giggle at your reasoning here.

We only understand things based on things we know, or think we know.

... and?

I think we're getting far afield.

If you just say 'trust in the process' doesn't that sound a lot like football coach speak?

... yeah, this isn't really relevant.

 

[Gethelred]

They won’t sing if gas pipelines are laid, apparently. But they have no problem with wind turbines.

Yeah, bye now.

 

[Number37]

... seems to me that you're not arguing with me, but with a dictionary definition of what faith is.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. The scientific process is a series of explanations concerning observable phenomenon based on continued observation and experiment, with anything that cannot be repeated or serves as a lesser explanation to be discarded or altered as more information or more applicable theories come into prominence. The two are not equivalent, nor are they even inverse or opposite.

I genuinely do not know how to spell the difference out more clearly. Perhaps we need a general Faith/Theology thread, to discuss this sort of thing.

I am not talking about the scientific process.
I am talking about people's belief/trust/faith whatever you want to call it in the scientific process.

You are conflating the 2.

No, because it's not faith. It's understanding of a process and recognition that the outcomes observed have a superior explanation.

But you have believed a falsehood.
There is no escaping that.

No, I don't. I really don't. I trust the process to arrive at the correct result, but the degree to which I trust any given result is predicated on the degree to which I've looked into the research. I am more likely to trust a result I've looked into personally and understand better, but when/if new information that changes things appear I'll have a look and follow with interest.

Knowledge is interesting in and of itself, and it is sourced from an acknowledgement that I don't have the answer or explanation for a natural phenomenon.

... sorry, that's the point: being unable to explain something, searching for answers then testing those answers against the phenomena.

I don't have 'faith' in science, I have something which isn't faith.

What is this 'not faith' that you speak of?
I am supposed to believe it just is, you don't have an explanation for it?

Isn't that what you said faith is?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I am not talking about the scientific process.
I am talking about people's belief/trust/faith whatever you want to call it in the scientific process.

You are conflating the 2.



But you have believed a falsehood.
There is no escaping that.




I don't have 'faith' in science, I have something which isn't faith.

What is this 'not faith' that you speak of?
I am supposed to believe it just is, you don't have an explanation for it?

Isn't that what you said faith is?

People who don't understand basic science are the ones who struggle like you seem to be.
Who should i believe?
Oh this preacher sounds convincing.

Blah blah Newtonian...blah blah..speed of light...blah blah....nah not buying that gibberish.

 

[Gethelred]

I am not talking about the scientific process.
I am talking about people's belief/trust/faith whatever you want to call it in the scientific process.

You are conflating the 2.

... this feels like semantics, like you're proposing a distinction which is not meaningful.

Can you make it - the difference between the scientific process and people's trust in it - more worthy of distinction? Because I'm not seeing a worthwhile difference here.

But you have believed a falsehood.
There is no escaping that.

... that's the point, to correct the falsehood. It's genuinely lifechanging, the ability to realise that you were wrong and there's suddenly a cavalcade of possibilities open to you.

I cannot count the number of times I've been wrong, N37. I like finding it out, because knowing is better than not knowing.

I don't have 'faith' in science, I have something which isn't faith.

Yes, because words that don't mean the same thing don't mean the same thing.

Really, go argue with Sam Johnson if that's your complaint. I ain't got no time to play semantics.

What is this 'not faith' that you speak of?
I am supposed to believe it just is, you don't have an explanation for it?

I've told you how it's constructed, how I obtained it, and how I arrive at my destinations through it. I genuinely cannot be clearer than I'm being.

I've equated it closer to trust than faith, because trust in the process is thoroughly different to trust in the outcome. I've told you how closely I cling to the theories which are the outcomes of that process - to be shed at a moment's notice, should contrary information become available - and I've spoken to you how faith doesn't allow one to behave that way.

Faith does not allow one to discard its fundamentals, merely the processes by which you arrive at them. From a faithful perspective, as long as god is your answer, you are asking the right questions.

Isn't that what you said faith is?

It's pretty clear to me, even if it isn't to you.

Seriously, if you can enunciate the distinction asked for above I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[Total Power]

I've equated it closer to trust than faith, because trust in the process is thoroughly different to trust in the outcome. I've told you how closely I cling to the theories which are the outcomes of that process - to be shed at a moment's notice, should contrary information become available - and I've spoken to you how faith doesn't allow one to behave that way.

Faith does not allow one to discard its fundamentals, merely the processes by which you arrive at them. From a faithful perspective, as long as god is your answer, you are asking the right questions.

I half agree here.

Belief can be summed up in 3 different ways IMHO:

• Belief based on SOLID evidence. I have a belief that the sun will come up tomorrow. The evidence supports this. The sun has come up every morning in human history. We understand orbital mechanics and have explanations about why it happens.
• Belief in things that we don't have evidence for. If you tell me you have a cat I will probably believe you despite lack of evidence. I know people own cats. And the stakes are low if I am wrong. So in that case I will believe you until proven wrong
• Belief in things that contradict the evidence. A creation story that involves a talking snake comes to mind. Or story of Mo, flying to the moon on a winged horse.

All forms of belief are not equal. Believing the sun will come up in the morning is not the same as believing in a story about splitting the moon.

 

[Number37]

People who don't understand basic science are the ones who struggle like you seem to be.
Who should i believe?
Oh this preacher sounds convincing.

Blah blah Newtonian...blah blah..speed of light...blah blah....nah not buying that gibberish.

LOL

What the hell are you on about?
Who the hell is telling you to believe a preacher?
Not me.

You seem very defensive.
Is it because you can't explain your position?
Your strawmen cum ad-homs don't advance your point of view.

 

[Number37]

... this feels like semantics, like you're proposing a distinction which is not meaningful.

Can you make it - the difference between the scientific process and people's trust in it - more worthy of distinction? Because I'm not seeing a worthwhile difference here.

... that's the point, to correct the falsehood. It's genuinely lifechanging, the ability to realise that you were wrong and there's suddenly a cavalcade of possibilities open to you.

I cannot count the number of times I've been wrong, N37. I like finding it out, because knowing is better than not knowing.

Yes, because words that don't mean the same thing don't mean the same thing.

Really, go argue with Sam Johnson if that's your complaint. I ain't got no time to play semantics.

I've told you how it's constructed, how I obtained it, and how I arrive at my destinations through it. I genuinely cannot be clearer than I'm being.

I've equated it closer to trust than faith, because trust in the process is thoroughly different to trust in the outcome. I've told you how closely I cling to the theories which are the outcomes of that process - to be shed at a moment's notice, should contrary information become available - and I've spoken to you how faith doesn't allow one to behave that way.

Faith does not allow one to discard its fundamentals, merely the processes by which you arrive at them. From a faithful perspective, as long as god is your answer, you are asking the right questions.

It's pretty clear to me, even if it isn't to you.

Seriously, if you can enunciate the distinction asked for above I'd be interested in reading it.

You told me that there is a word for believing in things that aren't true. Faith.

What is the word for believing in a thing that is true, but turns out to be false?

What is the difference between believing something that isn't true and believing in something that turns out not to be true?

Science/the scientific method is not always right. That's the beauty of science, as you have already stated.
Knowing that science isn't always right and yet still believing science...what is it that makes you believe despite knowing that there is a possibility that it might not be true?

Isn't it faith?
Your only objection to it being labelled faith is that you confine faith to things religious. Conveniently IMO.

 

[evolved2]

Do you think parents that send their children to religious schools should be sanctioned?

That's an odd question.

No. Do you?

 

[Gethelred]

You told me that there is a word for believing in things that aren't true. Faith.

What is the word for believing in a thing that is true, but turns out to be false?

It depends on what you do from there.

Do you:

• abandon that prior belief, after having been provided evidence that either denied your original understanding or has promoted an alternative understanding?
• continue on as if nothing happened?

If it's the latter, then it qualifies as faith. If your response is the former, then you aren't faithful.

What is the difference between believing something that isn't true and believing in something that turns out not to be true?

Your reaction upon finding out. Your decisions make you who you are.

Science/the scientific method is not always right. That's the beauty of science, as you have already stated.
Knowing that science isn't always right and yet still believing science...what is it that makes you believe despite knowing that there is a possibility that it might not be true?

Because it's not a trust/belief - and I'm using your own words for the sake of argument, mind; I still don't agree that belief is the right word here - in the hypothesis but a trust in a procedure that has resulted in truth over a long time span. In short, it has produced results in the past, and has a firm reason why it might continue to produce results in future.

Isn't it faith?

I still don't think so.

Your only objection to it being labelled faith is that you confine faith to things religious. Conveniently IMO.

This is an interesting idea. I'll have a think and get back to you.

 

[evolved2]

How about the rainbow serpent and the singing whales? They are powerful mythical entities actually capable of delaying or preventing national resource projects! Do you debunk these fairytales too?

I focus my attention on Abrahamic mythology rather than indigenous beliefs as I see it as a far bigger threat to things that are important to me.

 

[evolved2]

Atheists have faith that they are correct about no higher power existing

Atheism is a belief like baldness is a hair colour.

And they can be just as rabid about it as a religious person

Usually for different reasons than religious people, such as politics.

I don't care whether people believe in stupid shit so long as their imaginary friend doesn't impact me.

I'm sure you can relate on some level. Why should someones religious belief that a zygote is worth the same as a baby impact a womans right to choose?

 

[evolved2]

I am not talking about the scientific process.
I am talking about people's belief/trust/faith whatever you want to call it in the scientific process.

You are conflating the 2.



But you have believed a falsehood.
There is no escaping that.




I don't have 'faith' in science, I have something which isn't faith.

What is this 'not faith' that you speak of?
I am supposed to believe it just is, you don't have an explanation for it?

Isn't that what you said faith is?

Religious faith is a belief in (a) absence of evidence or (b) opposition to evidence.

Belief in scientific methodology is formed on the basis of physical evidence. It's flexible while religious belief is often rigid.

If you choose medicine, surgery, or vaccination over prayer from church elders, you've chosen science instead of faith.

You're trying hard to conflate two different forms of belief, rather unsuccessfully I might add.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You told me that there is a word for believing in things that aren't true. Faith.

What is the word for believing in a thing that is true, but turns out to be false?

What is the difference between believing something that isn't true and believing in something that turns out not to be true?

Science/the scientific method is not always right. That's the beauty of science, as you have already stated.
Knowing that science isn't always right and yet still believing science...what is it that makes you believe despite knowing that there is a possibility that it might not be true?

Isn't it faith?
Your only objection to it being labelled faith is that you confine faith to things religious. Conveniently IMO.

Einstein proved that Newtonian physics was wrong.
However Newtonian physics is still right.... up to a point.

Neither examples required faith.
And when it turned out to be false , no-one was really wrong for believing it.

When a new scientific principle is touted, other scientists don't just say " ok , we know you are clever, we believe you ".
They say "prove it ". They test the theory, actively trying to disprove it.
That is the process of science.
When new evidence comes to light they modify their theories.

Absolutely nothing like religion , where you are often not allowed to question the thoughts gleaned thousands of years ago. Where you resist change.

 

[Roylion]

There's 2 theories but they both can't be true.

No they can't. So until overwhelming empirical evidence is found to support one or the other, we don't accept either one as truth.

 

[Number37]

No they can't. So until overwhelming empirical evidence is found to support one or the other, we don't accept either one as truth.

So what is your point?

 

[sr36]

You said to be 'scared of the irrational' was rational.
It's not.

Having faith is different to believing in the spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn or Allah.
Perhaps you don't understand the distinction.

I would have thought that someone, like you, who is anti-religion, would understand that because your primary argument against religion is that it is a con.
If religion never existed, people would still have faith.

Even atheists have faith.
Their faith is in things like science and objective truths, but it is still faith.
Scientific knowledge changes everyday. Everyday we learn new things.
If you 'believe', or have faith, in science, what are you believing in? Just the objective truths we know today? Or the objective truths we are still to learn?

If it's the former, how is that different to religion?
If it's the latter, how is that different to religion?

The answer is, the difference is the subject matter of the faith, not faith itself.
Other than that is it not any different.
It's no different to faith in the spaghetti monster, unicorns or Allah.

Science isn't faith, it views everything as a theory which is either supported or not supported by evidence obtained within the scientific process. The scientific process is the opposite of faith as it requires the questioning of everything. It positions "truth" as always being testable and never certain or proven.

 

[Number37]

Einstein proved that Newtonian physics was wrong.
However Newtonian physics is still right.... up to a point.

Neither examples required faith.
And when it turned out to be false , no-one was really wrong for believing it.

When a new scientific principle is touted, other scientists don't just say " ok , we know you are clever, we believe you ".
They say "prove it ". They test the theory, actively trying to disprove it.
That is the process of science.
When new evidence comes to light they modify their theories.

Absolutely nothing like religion , where you are often not allowed to question the thoughts gleaned thousands of years ago. Where you resist change.

I didn't say it required faith. I said it was no different to faith in the religious sense.
"Absolutely nothing like religion" because it's 'absolutely nothing like religion' is a circular argument.

Do you actually have an argument or do I just have to have faith that you do?

 

[Roylion]

So what is your point?

Science doesn't accept things as true by faith.

 

[Number37]

Religious faith is a belief in (a) absence of evidence or (b) opposition to evidence.

Belief in scientific methodology is formed on the basis of physical evidence. It's flexible while religious belief is often rigid.

If you choose medicine, surgery, or vaccination over prayer from church elders, you've chosen science instead of faith.

You're trying hard to conflate two different forms of belief, rather unsuccessfully I might add.

You are doing the same thing that the other person is doing.

Why is it so hard to answer the question without reference to religion?

The question at issue has nothing to do with religion.

Faith in the religious sense is the most irrational thing ever, its bla-bla-bla.
That does not, in any way, answer the question that I have asked.

It's not the same as religious faith, so what is it?

 

[Number37]

It depends on what you do from there.

Do you:

• abandon that prior belief, after having been provided evidence that either denied your original understanding or has promoted an alternative understanding?
• continue on as if nothing happened?

If it's the latter, then it qualifies as faith. If your response is the former, then you aren't faithful.

Your reaction upon finding out. Your decisions make you who you are.

Because it's not a trust/belief - and I'm using your own words for the sake of argument, mind; I still don't agree that belief is the right word here - in the hypothesis but a trust in a procedure that has resulted in truth over a long time span. In short, it has produced results in the past, and has a firm reason why it might continue to produce results in future.

I still don't think so.

This is an interesting idea. I'll have a think and get back to you.

I am not saying faith is the right word.
I am saying it is no different to faith.

What is the right word for it?
If not faith, what is the right word for it?

 

[Number37]

Science doesn't accept things as true by faith.

Did somebody say science does accept things as true by faith?
Not to my recollection.

 

[Gralin]

Would trust be a better word so we can move on?