Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[joobz]

Correct. However, there is nothing in either faith or doubt that mandates whether or not you will seek that information you need.

That is why there is indifference. One isn't motivated enough to utilize either faith or doubt.



Okay. Then you have utilized inquiry.

So do you wish to add "inquiry" to "faith", "doubt", and "indifference"?

I can go for that, but I really think inquiry is another stage which either the faithful or doubter is capable of moving to.

If you seperate inquiry from the three states, I'd have to say that only doubt and indifference can allow for inquiry. Or at the very least are much much more likely to result inquiry.

More than inquiry, faith results in actions. In your example(which, i'm no historian so I do not know how much columbus as a revolutinary in this), Columbus had faith in a sphereical earth and sailed based on that faith to find a new trade route. It wasn't a test of his, it was an action a decision. He was just lucky to be right. People's faith have allowed them to handle snakes to some not so lucky conclusions.

 

[RandFan]

That is why there is indifference. One isn't motivated enough to utilize either faith or doubt.

There are just to many examples of people who doubted conventional wisdom and set off to find the truth. I'm sorry huntster but it is demonstrable that doubt has been a very powerful motivatior.

 

[Paulhoff]

Therefore, you claim to know something that is unknowable, that something is that God doesn't exist, thus you deny God exists (even though you can't possibly verify that).

You are a denialist.

Sorry. It's the language. Language is a science. It's undeniable. There's proof.

First language is anything but a science, that is why you are going around and around and saying nothing.

And even if one can't know all things, it does not mean that one has to come up with a so-called idea of a so-called god to explain things, because it explains nothing. If you need something to explain how all things work then explain how a so-called god works and if you need something to explain how the universe was created then explain how your so-called god was created and what created the so-call god who created that so-called god and created that so-called god etc etc.

Also being called a denialist from a christian calls up visions of the old witch hunts.

Paul

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
If Columbus didn't have faith that the world was round, he never would have left Europe.

First off, whether the world was round or not was not an issue to Columbus.

Wrong:

....While Portuguese sailors were trying to reach Asia by sailing around Africa, Columbus thought of what he believed to be the easy way--sailing due west.

Many people in the 1400's relied on a map of the world designed by Ptolemy, an astronomer and geographer in Alexandria, Egypt, during the A.D. 100's. Ptolemy's map showed most of the world as covered by land. Columbus found further confirmation for his idea of sailing west to Asia in the letters of Paolo Toscanelli, an influential scholar from the Italian city of Florence. Toscanelli believed that China lay only 5,000 nautical miles (9,300 kilometers) west of the Canary Islands. Columbus planned to sail 2,400 nautical miles (4,500 kilometers) west along the latitude (distance from the equator) of the Canaries until he reached islands near Japan. There, he hoped to establish a trading town.

Columbus' plan was based in part on two major miscalculations. First, he underestimated the circumference of the world by about 25 percent. Columbus also mistakenly believed that most of the world consisted of land rather than water. This mistake led him to conclude that Asia extended much farther east than it actually did.

Presentation of the plan to Portugal

About 1483, Columbus gained audiences with King John II of Portugal. The king placed Columbus' proposal before his council, which rejected it. Columbus did not have to prove to the council that the world was round because educated people at that time knew it was.....

To have faith in an idea that is counter to orthodoxy one must first doubt the orthodoxy.

It was the orthodoxy who doubted, not Columbus or "educated people." They knew, because they had informed themselves of the evidence.

And Columbus had faith in the evidence.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Correct. However, there is nothing in either faith or doubt that mandates whether or not you will seek that information you need.

That is why there is indifference. One isn't motivated enough to utilize either faith or doubt.



Okay. Then you have utilized inquiry.

So do you wish to add "inquiry" to "faith", "doubt", and "indifference"?

I can go for that, but I really think inquiry is another stage which either the faithful or doubter is capable of moving to.

If you seperate inquiry from the three states, I'd have to say that only doubt and indifference can allow for inquiry. Or at the very least are much much more likely to result inquiry.

Why would that be?

More than inquiry, faith results in actions. In your example(which, i'm no historian so I do not know how much columbus as a revolutinary in this), Columbus had faith in a sphereical earth and sailed based on that faith to find a new trade route. It wasn't a test of his, it was an action a decision. He was just lucky to be right. People's faith have allowed them to handle snakes to some not so lucky conclusions.

He wasn't lucky. He based his faith on sound evidence.

Those who handle snakes are basing their faith on either their knowledge of and experience in handling venomous snakes.

In either case, the results could have resulted in death or misfortune (even though Columbus was correct).

 

[RandFan]

?

No. Right!

The common misconception that people before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat entered the popular imagination after Washington Irving's publication of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828. In the United States, this belief persists in the popular imagination, and is even repeated in some widely read textbooks. Previous editions of Thomas Bailey's The American Pageant stated that "The superstitious sailors ... grew increasingly mutinous...because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world"; however, no such historical account is known.
...

In Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Jeffrey Russell (professor of history at University of California, Santa Barbara) claims that the Flat Earth theory is a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization, especially that of the Middle Ages in Europe. Today essentially all professional medievalists agree with Russell that the "medieval flat Earth" is a nineteenth-century fabrication, and that the few verifiable "flat Earthers" were the exception.

I stand by my statement. I was right. A round earth was not an issue to Columbus and YOUR LINK PROVES ME RIGHT!

Whether the earth was round or not had nothing to do with the voyage of Columbus. My link and your link prove that.

 

[joobz]

And Columbus had faith in the evidence.

then this is a poor example because faith has always been defined by people in this forum as knowing something to be true without evidence.

If there was evidence, then it couldn't be faith that drove him.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That is why there is indifference. One isn't motivated enough to utilize either faith or doubt.

There are just to many examples of people who doubted conventional wisdom and set off to find the truth.

Doubting "conventional wisdom" isn't the issue here.

Doubting "conventional wisdom" is likely to mean faith in another avenue, or one is indifferent.

The bottom line is that if there is no proof of either or any side of the issue, one cannot know for sure.

I'm sorry huntster but it is demonstrable that doubt has been a very powerful motivatior.

There are lots of motivators out there, and frankly, doubt isn't a very impressive one.

 

[RandFan]

Doubting "conventional wisdom" isn't the issue here.

Actually it is. It's probably the best to cause people to question and seek the truth.

Doubting "conventional wisdom" is likely to mean faith in another avenue, or one is indifferent.

No, not true. Often the doubters didn't know what the truth was only that conventional wisdom was problematic.

There are lots of motivators out there, and frankly, doubt isn't a very impressive one.

You are entitled to an opinion but it is contradicted by the evidence, do you doubt me?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Therefore, you claim to know something that is unknowable, that something is that God doesn't exist, thus you deny God exists (even though you can't possibly verify that).

You are a denialist.

Sorry. It's the language. Language is a science. It's undeniable. There's proof.

First language is anything but a science....

It was when I went to school:

The Science of Linguistics

....that is why you are going around and around and saying nothing.

And, since you know nothing about what is or is not science, and clearly have no knowledge of the science of linguistics, perhaps that's why you don't understand what I'm writing.

You're uneducated. Ignorant. You just don't understand.

Also being called a denialist from a christian calls up visions of the old witch hunts.

I have no intention of burning you at a stake, and nor have I hunted you down.

I simply expose your ignorance, denial, adn opposition to the very act of faith.

 

[Paulhoff]

"conventional wisdom" a generally held view, notion, or opinion

So it does not mean built on any facts, mmmmmmmmmm

Paul



Like common sense, It is not common enough

 

[Paulhoff]

There may be a science about language, but language is not a science, big difference.

Paul

 

[Huntster]

No. Right!

Quote:
The common misconception that people before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat entered the popular imagination after Washington Irving's publication of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828. In the United States, this belief persists in the popular imagination, and is even repeated in some widely read textbooks. Previous editions of Thomas Bailey's The American Pageant stated that "The superstitious sailors ... grew increasingly mutinous...because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world"; however, no such historical account is known.
...

In Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Jeffrey Russell (professor of history at University of California, Santa Barbara) claims that the Flat Earth theory is a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization, especially that of the Middle Ages in Europe. Today essentially all professional medievalists agree with Russell that the "medieval flat Earth" is a nineteenth-century fabrication, and that the few verifiable "flat Earthers" were the exception.

I stand by my statement. I was right. A round earth was not an issue to Columbus and YOUR LINK PROVES ME RIGHT!

How blind can your heart be (you at least establish that you can read what you think you want to read!).

It was an issue to Columbus. It was an issue of funding.

He had to convince the skeptics and denialists that the Earth was spherical in order to get funding for his exploration.

Whether the earth was round or not had nothing to do with the voyage of Columbus. My link and your link prove that.

1) Columbus never would have sailed west if he didn't believe that the world was spherical, despite common beliefs
2) It wasn't easy for him to acquire funding for his exploration, because he had a difficult time drilling through the heads of skeptics and denialists.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster

And Columbus had faith in the evidence.

then this is a poor example because faith has always been defined by people in this forum as knowing something to be true without evidence.

Not even close:

Faith is believing something to be true without proof.

If there was evidence, then it couldn't be faith that drove him.

Yes, it was.

There was evidence that the world was spherical.

There was not proof.

 

[Huntster]

.....do you doubt me?

I doubt you almost universally. Every stroke of your keyboard is an exercise of skepticism for me.

 

[Huntster]

....language is not a science....

That's a claim.

Prove it, Scientist...........

 

[RandFan]

I doubt you almost universally. Every stroke of your keyboard is an exercise of skepticism for me.

See...

 

[RandFan]

How blind can your heart be (you at least establish that you can read what you think you want to read!).

Why won't you read your own link? Why won't you read what I posted.

It was a myth that people believed that the earth was flat.

He had to convince the skeptics and denialists that the Earth was spherical in order to get funding for his exploration.

No, this is false. It was NOT a common belief that the earth was flat. Read your link. Read my link. Hell, google flat earth and Columbus and pick a link.

1) Columbus never would have sailed west if he didn't believe that the world was spherical, despite common beliefs

It WASN'T a common belief that the earth was flat. THAT IS A MYTH.

The common misconception that people before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat entered the popular imagination after Washington Irving's publication of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828. In the United States, this belief persists in the popular imagination, and is even repeated in some widely read textbooks.

2) It wasn't easy for him to acquire funding for his exploration, because he had a difficult time drilling through the heads of skeptics and denialists.

1.) You don't know what you are talking about. Most people, especially intellectuals, political leaders and sailors believed that the earth was round.
2.) If you were right then Columbus would have been the skeptic.

 

[RandFan]

There was evidence that the world was spherical.

There was not proof.

You are propagating a myth.

It was accepted that the world was round by most intellectuals, sailors and the political leaders.

 

[joobz]

Not even close:

Faith is believing something to be true without proof.



Yes, it was.

There was evidence that the world was spherical.

There was not proof.

The evidence they had was proof. Ships coming into shore from the horizon is the least of which. It was proof to the people who understood what was happening.

faith doesn't require any evidence.