1 of 2
1
Jean Paul JAE Gravell on Science and Faith
Posted: 15 May 2006 03:05 AM   [ Ignore ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-02-23

The author of this essay is an 80+ year old who is home bound with heart problems. He has authorized distribution of the work with proper attribution.
What do you all think of it?
Jim


Food for the thought processes.

First and foremost I do believe in science and don’t believe in faith without scientific proof. Faith is believing in the unbelievable and superstition.
Science and religion our opposites and do not mix. Science is observation with your mind, sight, hearing, and sense of feeling and with their extensions, in telescopes and microscopes, microwaves and other instruments to expand sight and hearing and feeling.

First you’ll observe.  Then you publish your observations.  Then by experiment or further observations by year peers you are discredited or credited.  If at first the further observations or experiments proved positive then this becomes your theory.  Further collection of facts more experiments or observations make the theory believable.  But then it sometimes happens that a further refinement of the theory is possible and then the round starts all over again by the original scientist or another scientist.
Theories are proven by the observation on the facts, by experts in the field of their knowledge. Science builds on itself, handing down results of the past generations for the future scientists.
Some examples of scientific theories in the past:
The world is flat. Discredited by scientific observation.  Some people still believe it.
The world is the center of the universe. Discredited by scientific observation.  Some people still believe it.
The sun is the center of the universe. Discredited by scientific observation.  Some people still believe it.
Heaven is in the clouds. Discredited by scientific observation.  Some people still believe it.
Hell is down below. By scientific observation, it is hot in the center of the earth. Some people still believe it as a place their souls go for not obeying the laws of god.
The Big Bang any ever expanding universe. It took 20 years for scientific observation to prove it.  It is proven by scientific measurement and observation.    Scientists believe it and some lay people are starting to believe it.
The theory of relativity of time and space.  E=MC2. It has been proven by scientists all over the world.
The theory of the atom.  Scientists have been working on this for a hundred years and scientists keep finding new particles.
The stork theory.  Do babies arrive in a napkin and or does the stork place the baby in mothers womb. Some children still believe it.
The theory of prayer.  It is still waiting for scientific proof. A lot people still believe it.

Over 90% of the members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences are either atheists or agnostics.  Do you think there is a good relationship between being a good scientist and being a religious skeptic?

Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species in which the made recorded his observations. Many years later a theory was developed called the theory of evolution. It has been proven by observations of biologic scientists all over the world.
The theory of gravity. It is proven by and measurement observation.  Most adult people still believe it.
The theory of plate tectonics,  it deals with the movement on continents. It is proven by and measurement observation. Some adult people still believe it.
Some people have put the idea of Intelligent Design (ID) of all things in our universe. But there is no proof that the designer exists and whether he was intelligent. It is only a belief based on religion and not scientific observations.
The latest science of biology is the Evolutionary Developmental Biology or Evo Devo for short. Do you know that mice and humans have virtually identical sets of 25,000 genes or that chimps and humans primarily nearly 99% identical DNA level.

The Bush administration is anti-science and pro religion.  Both fear scientific progress.  George W. Bush is quoted in a in a meeting with the Palestinian prime minister in 2003, "I am driven with a mission from God.  God would tell me "George, go and flight those terrorists in Afghanistan".

A conservative is one who looks on the past and fears progress and change. The English political theorist Michael Oakeshott in an essay titled; "On being conservative" said, "to be conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the try to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, and the present laughter to utopian bliss." Science is the savior of mankind, not religion. Religion wants to pull us back into the dark ages. Do you want to go there?

The theory on god. The sun god. The nature god. Zeus and the Greek gods. The God of the Jews elyan, elohim and wahenh.  The god of war. The god of Mohammed. The god of the Christians.  There are many gods and religions all created my man. Some say that man invented god because he couldn’t live without it and he has. Some people disbelieve in god and believe that he does not exist. There is no proof that he exits by direct observation or indirect observation by scientific means. Most people believe that god exists but this is based on not on scientific principles or observations. Faith is when you believe the unbelievable. Some say that you have to prove that God does not exist.  To prove that something that does not exist is a null. It is impossible. It is impossible to prove that god exists and to those who put their living on the line, preaching that god exists, it is up to them to prove it. Otherwise they are selling you a pig in the poke. Since they cannot that god exists they are pulling the wool over your eyes.  If they were honorable men and open to scientific reason, they would prove that god exists before they try and sell and to the public. They are nothing but charlatans catering to the public fears and desires. The Catholic church persecuted Galileo and Copernicus for their view of the sun, planets, moons, stars and outer space.  Galileo and Copernicus were proved right. Look at all the destruction the Muslims are creating due to some cartoons. They are against the most basic of human rights.

When faith arrives logic and reason exit
"Faith is the substance of thing hoped for…" Heb. 11:1

 Signature 

Jimmie Keyes
Tavernier, FL
http://secularhumanism.meetup.com/1/
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. (MLK Jr.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2006 03:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-02-23

Jean Paul JAE Gravell on Science and Faith

The author of this essay is an 80+ year old who is home bound with heart problems. He has authorized distribution of the work with proper attribution.
What do you all think of it?
Jim


Food for the thought processes.

First and foremost I do believe in science and don’t believe in faith without scientific proof. Faith is believing in the unbelievable and superstition.
Science and religion our opposites and do not mix. Science is observation with your mind, sight, hearing, and sense of feeling and with their extensions, in telescopes and microscopes, microwaves and other instruments to expand sight and hearing and feeling.

First you’ll observe.  Then you publish your observations.  Then by experiment or further observations by year peers you are discredited or credited.  If at first the further observations or experiments proved positive then this becomes your theory.  Further collection of facts more experiments or observations make the theory believable.  But then it sometimes happens that a further refinement of the theory is possible and then the round starts all over again by the original scientist or another scientist.
Theories are proven by the observation on the facts, by experts in the field of their knowledge. Science builds on itself, handing down results of the past generations for the future scientists.
Some examples of scientific theories in the past:
The world is flat. Discredited by scientific observation.  Some people still believe it.
The world is the center of the universe. Discredited by scientific observation.  Some people still believe it.
The sun is the center of the universe. Discredited by scientific observation.  Some people still believe it.
Heaven is in the clouds. Discredited by scientific observation.  Some people still believe it.
Hell is down below. By scientific observation, it is hot in the center of the earth. Some people still believe it as a place their souls go for not obeying the laws of god.
The Big Bang any ever expanding universe. It took 20 years for scientific observation to prove it.  It is proven by scientific measurement and observation.    Scientists believe it and some lay people are starting to believe it.
The theory of relativity of time and space.  E=MC2. It has been proven by scientists all over the world.
The theory of the atom.  Scientists have been working on this for a hundred years and scientists keep finding new particles.
The stork theory.  Do babies arrive in a napkin and or does the stork place the baby in mothers womb. Some children still believe it.
The theory of prayer.  It is still waiting for scientific proof. A lot people still believe it.

Over 90% of the members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences are either atheists or agnostics.  Do you think there is a good relationship between being a good scientist and being a religious skeptic?

Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species in which the made recorded his observations. Many years later a theory was developed called the theory of evolution. It has been proven by observations of biologic scientists all over the world.
The theory of gravity. It is proven by and measurement observation.  Most adult people still believe it.
The theory of plate tectonics,  it deals with the movement on continents. It is proven by and measurement observation. Some adult people still believe it.
Some people have put the idea of Intelligent Design (ID) of all things in our universe. But there is no proof that the designer exists and whether he was intelligent. It is only a belief based on religion and not scientific observations.
The latest science of biology is the Evolutionary Developmental Biology or Evo Devo for short. Do you know that mice and humans have virtually identical sets of 25,000 genes or that chimps and humans primarily nearly 99% identical DNA level.

The Bush administration is anti-science and pro religion.  Both fear scientific progress.  George W. Bush is quoted in a in a meeting with the Palestinian prime minister in 2003, “I am driven with a mission from God.  God would tell me “George, go and flight those terrorists in Afghanistan”.

A conservative is one who looks on the past and fears progress and change. The English political theorist Michael Oakeshott in an essay titled; “On being conservative” said, “to be conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the try to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, and the present laughter to utopian bliss.” Science is the savior of mankind, not religion. Religion wants to pull us back into the dark ages. Do you want to go there?

The theory on god. The sun god. The nature god. Zeus and the Greek gods. The God of the Jews elyan, elohim and wahenh.  The god of war. The god of Mohammed. The god of the Christians.  There are many gods and religions all created my man. Some say that man invented god because he couldn’t live without it and he has. Some people disbelieve in god and believe that he does not exist. There is no proof that he exits by direct observation or indirect observation by scientific means. Most people believe that god exists but this is based on not on scientific principles or observations. Faith is when you believe the unbelievable. Some say that you have to prove that God does not exist.  To prove that something that does not exist is a null. It is impossible. It is impossible to prove that god exists and to those who put their living on the line, preaching that god exists, it is up to them to prove it. Otherwise they are selling you a pig in the poke. Since they cannot that god exists they are pulling the wool over your eyes.  If they were honorable men and open to scientific reason, they would prove that god exists before they try and sell and to the public. They are nothing but charlatans catering to the public fears and desires. The Catholic church persecuted Galileo and Copernicus for their view of the sun, planets, moons, stars and outer space.  Galileo and Copernicus were proved right. Look at all the destruction the Muslims are creating due to some cartoons. They are against the most basic of human rights.

When faith arrives logic and reason exit
“Faith is the substance of thing hoped for…” Heb. 11:1

 Signature 

Jimmie Keyes
Tavernier, FL
http://secularhumanism.meetup.com/1/
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. (MLK Jr.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2006 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  248
Joined  2005-06-28

I like it and it seems very interesting.  8)

 Signature 

Fighting the evil belief that there is a god(s).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2006 12:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  76
Joined  2006-05-23

Hi Jimmie,

This wise article essentially capture how atheist and agnostics view the world.

Thanks for posting it. It re-affirms why our view is the correct one.

 Signature 

Fayzal Mahamed,
Johannesburg, South Africa.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2006 05:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  187
Joined  2006-07-14

Faith

I think maybe that you are delivering too harsh a judgment against “faith”.

I am not ashamed to say that I have faith in things currently unproven by science. If it’s not disproven by science or reason, then why not speculate and after speculating perhaps draw some conclusions from your best thoughts about what you think is going on in the cosmos?  There are people who believe strongly that a variant of “String Theory” will lead to a grand unifying theory of gravity, and it’s their faith in “String Theory”  that drives their scientific inquiry on the matter. In this way,  faith and science are not only compatible, and I would argue that they even rely on one another. The problem as I see it is not faith itself, but the codifying of faith into an institutionalized dogma (ie a religion).

I would think that the natural demenor of someone making life decisions based on faith, should be humility. I know personally my reliance on faith in making decisions in my own life is humbling.  But the large communities of common belief and the authority provided by religion (of all types) seems to invert that natural demenor in we who get caught up in it. The most faithful, ironically, are the most assertive. But this behavior isn’t *because* of “faith”, it’s because these people aren’t differentiating between faith and fact.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2006 02:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15433
Joined  2006-02-14

Interesting views, Riley, and they do deserve discussion. I would not say that people investigating string theory have “faith” in it. They think it’s a plausible hypothesis but are open to the possibility that it might be proven false by experiment. That is not faith.

Faith is blind belief, which is explicitly not open to the possibility of experimental refutation. Faith says, “Whatever evidence you show me will not matter, because I already KNOW what’s true.”

Competent scientists do not have this stance towards anything in their field of study. They are always open to the possibility of disconfirmatory evidence.

Since evidence always underdetermines theory, it can’t tell us all of what to believe. We must by default take many things as plausible but unproven hypotheses. But the proper “skeptical” stance here, at least in my opinion, is to be open to disproof. “Faith” would not allow that.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2006 04:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-02-23

For a change I’m not on Doug’s side in this discussion.

I do think there is a difference between the definition of “Faith” as used and defined by Riley and the definition posited by Doug. There can be more than one definition of a word and I think the better use of the word is as defined by Riley. Doug’s use would be better served by addition of the word blind, as in “Blind Faith” the sort that is the province of those who believe the bible is the inerrant word of God.

I’m not at all sure the scientists who are doing the work on string theory wouldn’t say that they have faith that their work will prove the theory to be correct. But that might be a different meaning of the word than Riley’s

I suspect that we use the word to mean more even than two different things, the use by Riley is “a belief in the ultimate accuracy of a theory that is unproven can be termed faith in the theory” Doug’s is “all belief in unproven theory is “blind faith” and there are others somewhere in between those two, as “I have great faith that Doug will return from where I have faith he is, in a nation called Spain that I have faith is there in a place called Europe that I believe is also present on the earth. (Having never been over there)

This all is right up Doug’s alley, the work of philosophers deals with use of words. Mine does too but in a different way and no longer am I much good at it.

Anyhow wouldn’t you admit to the use of “Faith” in the way of Riley, Doug? And I certainly agree that it means something very different when we are talking about the faith of religious fundamentalists? That is not only “blind faith” it is idiotic.

I like the entire statement you made Riley, it struck a chord with me. Religion is codified faith, faith turned into dogma, while faith itself seems to me to be something built in to us, we have to have faith in our ability, physical and mental, in little things like the safety of the neighborhood. If we didn’t have faith of that kind we wouldn’t go outside or even get out of bed in the morning.

I think you may be onto a real meme (sp) If this discussion goes anywhere we should move it to the philosophy section Doug.

Jim

 Signature 

Jimmie Keyes
Tavernier, FL
http://secularhumanism.meetup.com/1/
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. (MLK Jr.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2006 05:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2006-02-08

dougsmith wrote:              “Interesting views, Riley, and they do deserve discussion. I would not say that people investigating string theory have “faith” in it. They think it’s a plausible hypothesis but are open to the possibility that it might be proven false by experiment. That is not faith.”

———

doug,
It is true that faith is not the word to use. String Theory is “safe” because there is no way to test it. Therefore it will probably always remain nothing more than a hypothesis.
Bob

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2006 05:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  76
Joined  2006-05-23

Faith or Fact

Hi,

[quote author=“jimmiekeyes”]For a change I’m not on Doug’s side in this discussion.

I would tend to agree with Jimmie but would like to state that I am not on Doug’s, or Riley’s side. 

I think what we have here is a classical semantics debate in the sense that we trying to take an emotion called “faith” and trying to extract an exact meaning thereof.

Besides those meanings of faith already mentioned there must be countless other definitions or varieties of the emotion “faith” such as having “faith” that my parents will look after me or even having faith that the sun will come up tomorrow.

What this debate is trying to do is trying to put a single meaning on this emotion of “faith”. This problem is not only restricted to this particular emotion. Take “love” as another example and you will find differences of opinion much like we are having now.

 Signature 

Fayzal Mahamed,
Johannesburg, South Africa.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2006 06:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-02-23

Yes Fayzal, You are right as usual. I should have said that it is the use of the word by Riley that I am in concert with and not that I disagree with Doug.

It is semantics, something that Plato enjoyed.

Jim

 Signature 

Jimmie Keyes
Tavernier, FL
http://secularhumanism.meetup.com/1/
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. (MLK Jr.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2006 08:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  187
Joined  2006-07-14

Semantics

In my opinion, charismatic leaders (such as preachers and politicians) have a tendency to broaden the meaning of words even to the extent that a word can start to evoke it’s own exact opposite. They do this I think intentionally to create a desired inspirational, suggestive emotional effect - and it also allows them to escape personal accountability for the things they say. It’s a technique no different than what “fine artists” do when they manipulate symbolsfor their own purposes in their art (Andy Warhol most famously - Jasper Johns most effectively). The difference of course is that artists are usually honest in their use of this technique, where charismatic leaders are more often being intentionally evasive and unethically manipulative.

The use of the word “truth” by some fundamentalist christians is a personal favorite example of this manipulation. Inclusion of both science and theology under the term “knowledge” as a way to equate the two is another. Dogma becomes faith, faith becomes synonymous with virtue, and so on. This approach to language as a means to inspire audiences is not much different than the “teach the controversy” approach used in attacks on scientifically based discovery: in both cases the point is not to win an argument, but to frustrate and ultimately disengage the reasoning portions of the audience’s brain.  Without the assertive guidance of our reasoning selves, our feeling & emotional selves become dominant and much more vulnerable to suggestion (e.g. I don’t really understand what he’s saying, but he seems like a really nice guy using very friendly sounding words; I like the word freedom, and I like all the pretty music and colored lights too). 
(note: this stuff about how I think our brain works is what I classify as my own personal faith-based belief- please, feel welcome to trash my faith if you posess evidence to the contrary)

While I realize that language is our tool, and not our master I think there is reason to interject some discipline. Otherwise, some yahoo with authority might do something like lump mustard gas in together with nuclear weapons as part of the same weapons classification . . . and that could lead to disasterous consequences should we ever have a public debate about a threat to our national security. Just think of what hysteria could occur if the voting public confused the threat posed by a nuclear weapon attack with the miniscule threat posed by a mustard or sarin gas attack.

The Dali Lama is probably the best example of a religious figure whom has “faith”, but has stated that the tenents of his faith would have to change if they are contradicted by evidence. If you define “faith” as an unassailable fact, then you leave a void: how do you describe the Dali Lamas faith?

Here are the definitions for the words that I think can be applied most consistently:

Belief: something accepted as true, either as a matter of faith or of evidence.

Faith: belief in something without evidence. Even though I say it myself, it’s not really true that I rely on “faith” as the basis for my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Faith is not hardly nessesary at all in this case because my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is supported by a lot of evidence.

Dogma: an unsubstantiated belief that is proclaimed to be unassailable fact by the believer. In this way, dogma, is the glue that holds religions together.

I think it takes more than faith to maintain a belief in something that evidence discreits. It takes I think willful denial of the evidence that contradicts a belief - for most people I think this requires an authoritative support group and dogma to encourage and sustain the denial.

The morphing of what is by definition “dogma” into what is now often described as “faith”, is I think an organic outgrowth resulting from the fundamentalist movement’s denial of scienctific based discovery. It’s feels-gooder for the denier to say, “I don’t believe in your evidence as a matter of faith” than it is to say “I don’t believe in your evidence as a matter of dogma”, even though the latter more accurately describes the phenomenon.

Next on the fundamentalist agenda: change the definition of “science”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2006 09:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-02-23

We are moving away from the place where we began but that’s OK.

I agree with Riley - I still am strongly affected by the earlier discussion thinking of faith as a basic human instinct. Belief in the truth of what mommy says has saved many a child’s life - ‘Don’t go near the edge its too high up and you’ll get tipsy and fall over” is the example that comes to me.

Nevertheless I’ll accept the new definition. But we must add one more tenet of evangelical faith that is probably as responsible for the present dogmatic use of the word as anything is; the notion the all you need to be saved is faith in Jesus.

How many times has the reader heard that in his or her life? I remember it from the 1950’s. And its been a mantra of the evangelical christians long before that.
So I suggest that is part of the reason for unreasoned faith. Perhaps a big part of it.
Jim

 Signature 

Jimmie Keyes
Tavernier, FL
http://secularhumanism.meetup.com/1/
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. (MLK Jr.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2006 09:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  187
Joined  2006-07-14

Confimatory bias

On the July 15 podcast, Thomas Kida shared his insight into a phenomenon called “Confimatory bias”. This seems to me to be relevent to how faith in the evengelical movement (or any other credulous movement) could become entrenched.

Of course, maybe my easy acceptance of confimatory bias, is just another example of confimatory bias in action. But, if so, that would seem to lend validity to the existance and power of the phenomenon and make it relevent.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2006 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15433
Joined  2006-02-14

This is a good discussion we have going here. I think the differences between Jim, Fayzal, me and the others do hinge on issues of definitions or “semantics”.

I will only say that in philosophy of religion, ‘faith’ is basically defined in opposition to other forms of epistemology or ‘knowing’. One can know by experiment and reason, OR one can know by faith. If one knows by faith, one is ipso facto not going to be swayed by the results of experiment and reason, because one has already assumed beforehand ‘through faith’ that experiment and reason can lead one wrong.

(Here we can think of those Christians who discount the fossil evidence of evolution by saying that it was put there to deceive us).

In this, I am agreeing with much of the meat of Sam Harris’s attack on faith. Faith is an extremely pernicious attitude, perhaps the most pernicious of all.

From where I’m coming from, you guys are all discussing something similar to faith but much less compulsive: ‘taking a stance’ or ‘assuming X to be true’. This is of course something much less problematic than faith, and something we all do all the time. It also has nothing essential to do with religion, god, Jesus or anything else irrational.

What makes it much less problematic is that:

(1) As I say, it has no essential link to religion. I can ‘assume’ that it’s going to be sunny today, even without evidence, and so leave my umbrella at home.

and

(2) It is amenable to experience and reason, should they demonstrate that the stance or assumption is incorrect.

Faith is not so amenable.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2006 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  187
Joined  2006-07-14

Faith and Authority

It’s true that in Christian traditions, ‘revealed truth’ (another great bit phrase) is an accepted approach to arrive at ‘truth’ and on an equal footing in some cases with evidence from the natural world. But not just anyone can provide it - not all ‘faith’ is equal. A profession of faith from a church leader becomes indoctrinated as ‘truth’, but any deviant profession of faith from a follower is condemned as heresy. In the church, ‘truth’ from ‘faith’, is a one way top down process.

When what is perceived as a person’s ‘faith’ comes in the form of a doctrine decided upon and policed by an institutional authority ... I think that’s something different.

here’s a guess at something:
Creationism is ‘true’ in the mind of the follower, not because they have faith in creationism necessarily, but it’s true because their church tells them it’s true.

I think if their church told them that evolution was true, then they would stop believing in creationism and accept that evolution was true.

In all but a few of the ‘doctrines of faith’, I think this would be the case. And those few exceptions (eg God loves you, Jesus died for your sins, you have an immortal soul) are untestable claims.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2006 06:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-02-23

Yes - Doug and Riley are both right. That comes from someone who had 16 years of training in the theology of Catholicism. What Doug has just pointed out is the basis for the impregnability of religious belief. It cannot be dented when attacked from the outside.

A series of examples may tend to prove the point, We can’t seem to gain a bit even though we teach evolution in college biology courses - the true believer still doesn’t believe it BUT the Catholic church accepts it and every Catholic that knows that fact changes their view instantly.

My history is another example, I was a doubter for some time before I finally made the move to utter non-belief. That was caused when my friend at Notre Dame, a theologian who I had great respect for, told me that no dogma or mystery of Faith could be irrational in the logical sense. Nothing we were told or taught to believe could be a contradiction in terms, such as a rock too big for god to lift. When I was told that the crack opened wide and I drove the truck through it.

The inquisition failed in many many attempts to convert, Huguenots remained secret Huguenots and Anglicans didn’t convert many puritans even though they were tortured. Nothing that is from the outside seems to produce the desired results.

All that commentary just to lead up to this theory -

I think if we are to bring the voice of reason to those who profess faith in their religion we must do it from inside out. We have to be educated in the tenets of the faith whose members we hope to reach. We have plenty of people who are humanists who were Catholics and Christians and Jews and even Muslims. We have to apply reason to those tenets. We used to say things like “the earth is 4.5 billion years old you nitwit!!” to those who think the earth is 6000 years old. That won’t ever work. so what to do?

If there is any hope it is that we can discuss the tenets of religion effectively with any minister or preacher or priest. Lets try that.
Lets say - Is Jesus really god? How can a man be god? Tell me what is god like? What is heaven like? What is it going to be like. And so on and on and on. If anyone with half a brain thinks even a little bit about the tenets of the faith they profess they will begin to ask questions the preacher can’t answer.

That’s the stuff we need to get in the media. Not stuff about us. Stuff about them that makes them look foolish. It their religion. Let them begin to defend it.

J

 Signature 

Jimmie Keyes
Tavernier, FL
http://secularhumanism.meetup.com/1/
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. (MLK Jr.)

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1