Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

[Iacchus]

By it's very definition all faith is blind.

So, do you have faith that the world will continue tomorrow? Of course in that sense nobody really knows but, does that make it blind? In which case faith could very well mean an educated guess which, believe it or not, is all any of us really have to go by. Can you actually predict the future, down to every single last detail? In which case we pretty much have to take everything upon faith now don't we? Either that or start referring to the absolute truth.

 

[Iacchus]

I think a person can be spiritual and a critical thinker. However it requires, IMO, a blind spot.

So, did it ever occur to you that you might have a blind spot?

 

[RandFan]

So, do you have faith that the world will continue tomorrow?

I think the likely hood is very high based upon empirical data and 43 years of my own observations.

Of course in that sense nobody really knows but, does that make it blind?

Words are used to convey meaning. If by faith you mean an understanding based on evidence and experience then I would say that it is not blind and does not fit the definition offered in the bible. In which case my claim that "all faith" is blind is wrong. Only faith based on subjective reasoning is blind.

In which case faith could very well mean an educated guess which, believe it or not, is all any of us really have to go by.

Educated guess is another way of saying "approximation with various degrees of precision". As I told you earlier I see the world in likely to unlikely degrees.

Earth continuing tomorrow: Likely based on experience and empirical evidence.

God: Unlikely but possible based on no evidence but subjective experiences.

Can you actually predict the future, down to every single last detail? In which case we pretty much have to take everything upon faith now don't we? Either that or start referring to the absolute truth.

It is wrong to lump everything into the same category. There are objective reasons to believe or have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is only subjective reason to believe that there is a god.

 

[RandFan]

So, did it ever occur to you that you might have a blind spot?

Absolutely.

 

[Tricky]

So, do you have faith that the world will continue tomorrow?

RandFan answered this better than I could, but perhaps one point should be made.

I have evidence that the world will continue tomorrow. I also have evidence that it won't continue forever.

 

[Iacchus]

I think the likely hood is very high based upon empirical data and 43 years of my own observations.

Or, what about the likelihood of death for any reason?

Words are used to convey meaning. If by faith you mean an understanding based on evidence and experience then I would say that it is not blind and does not fit the definition offered in the bible. In which case my claim that "all faith" is blind is wrong. Only faith based on subjective reasoning is blind.

"Blessed art thou Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father which is in heaven." ~ Matthew 16:17

Educated guess is another way of saying "approximation with various degrees of precision". As I told you earlier I see the world in likely to unlikely degrees.

Absolutely!

Earth continuing tomorrow: Likely based on experience and empirical evidence.

Is empirical evidence absolute then?

God: Unlikely but possible based on no evidence but subjective experiences.

Is there anything about human nature which is not subjective? That certainly must be the case if there were no such thing as absolutes, right? Hey, who turned out the lights!

It is wrong to lump everything into the same category. There are objective reasons to believe or have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is only subjective reason to believe that there is a god.

In other words because you have no suspicion whatsoever that God exists.

Absolutely!

 

[RandFan]

Or, what about the likelihood of death for any reason?

I'm sure an insuracne adjuster can determine the likely hood. What difference does it make.

"Blessed art thou Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father which is in heaven." ~ Matthew 16:17

And it is revealed how?

Is empirical evidence absolute then?

No but it is pretty damn good. Better than subjective feelings.

Is there anything about human nature which is not subjective? That certainly must be the case if there were no such thing as absolutes, right? Hey, who turned out the lights!

? What has this got to do with anything?

In other words because you have no suspicion whatsoever that God exists.

Could you be a little less obscure. I'm not sure what all the winking is for. What does suspicion have to do with what we are talking about?

Absolutely!

Absolutely what?

 

[Iacchus]

I'm sure an insuracne adjuster can determine the likely hood. What difference does it make.

To further illustrate the notion that tomorrow may never come, making your notion of a lack of faith more suspect.

And it is revealed how?

Certainly not by a God a which doesn't exist, if that's what you seem to be implying.

No but it is pretty damn good. Better than subjective feelings.

Pretty darn good relative to what? If you don't believe in accuracy which, entails the absolute, what do you have to compare it to? Isn't this in fact what we all strive for, accuracy?

? What has this got to do with anything?

What I'm suggesting is that human beings aren't capable of aknowledging absolutes because of their subjective nature. And yet this is the one absolute that they are capable of recognizing, thus becoming the very grounds by which they accept everything hence, the backdrop for human experience. Perhaps this is why it's possible to conceive of the notion of an absolute God?

Could you be a little less obscure. I'm not sure what all the winking is for. What does suspicion have to do with what we are talking about?

If faith in God can only be blind which, you seem to have confirmed for yourself, then you're only affirming your assumption that He doesn't exist, whether you say so or not. Hence disavowing even the slightest suspicion that He does exist. So basically you're slamming the door shut in the face of God by saying such a thing. Why? Because you've just rendered Him inaccessible.

 

[Yahweh]

So, do you have faith that the world will continue tomorrow?

That kind of question twists the connotation of "faith" into extremes.

We know the world will continue tomorrow. In fact, we've derived mathematically exactly what to expect to see tomorrow as well. I can probably tell you what time the sun will rise in a particular area, and a generalization of the weather.

It is almost too easy to ask the question "the earth has survived for past 4.5 billion trips around the sun, and nothing out of the oridinary to make today different from yesterday, why shouldnt continue tomorrow?".


Remember: There are 2 different types of faith - Evidenced Faith and Blind Faith (which in themselves can be broken into metaphysical faith and realist faith, but to get into that in this post is too much). Try not to get into the trap of thinking that the two are the same thing.

 

[Iacchus]

However, do you believe that faith in God is entirely blind, as RandFan seems to suggest? This is my whole point you see, because it bases everything upon the assumption that God doesn't exist and renders God completely inaccessible. And are you also not suggesting it's possible to evidence God on a personal level? If so, and the possibility is there, then yours becomes a matter of "blind" faith as well.

 

[RandFan]

To further illustrate the notion that tomorrow may never come, making your notion of a lack of faith more suspect.

? How does it do that? I live my life based on an understanding of statistical probabilities. Any "faith" in tomorrow is based upon observation and empirical data. I find your obscure references a bit disingenuous. You refuse to provide any like data for god yet you want me to compare the two. ?????

Certainly not by a God a which doesn't exist, if that's what you seem to be implying.

Non responsive. I asked a direct question. I imply NOTHING. What relevance is your scripture?

Pretty darn good relative to what?

Relative to non empirical data. (why is this like pulling teeth?)

If you don't believe in accuracy which, entails the absolute, what do you have to compare it to?

Just a minute, you are seriously obscuring the facts.

99.999999999999999999999999999999% is DAMN accurate. It is NOT absolute.

Isn't this in fact what we all strive for, accuracy?

Striving for accuracy is not the same as striving for absolute perfection.

What I'm suggesting is that human beings aren't capable of acknowledging absolutes because of their subjective nature. And yet this is the one absolute that they are capable of recognizing, thus becoming the very grounds by which they accept everything hence, the backdrop for human experience. Perhaps this is why it's possible to conceive of the notion of an absolute God?

This has already been addressed before.

1.)Science does not hold that it is impossible for humans to acknowledge absolutes.

2.) Science does not hold that there are no absolutes.

3.) Science does not hold that it is impossible to state an absolute.

You are making a straw man.

Science holds that it is counterproductive and antithetical for people to dogmatically rely on absolutes because we would have to know all that there is to know to know that a statement is absolute.

If faith in God can only be blind which, you seem to have confirmed for yourself, then you're only affirming your assumption that He doesn't exist, whether you say so or not.

This is incredibly silly.

My brother is a decent chap. He says that he can fly without technology or any assistance. He simply flaps his hands and he flies. If you belive this without objective data then you accept it on blind faith.

If you go to his house and see for a fact that he can in reality fly without the aid of technology or any assistance what soever then you have confirmed that it is true.

If you have objective data that god lives then your "belief" is not blind faith. Please share with me this data so that we can both "know" that god lives. Otherwise I don't know if god lives anymore than you know if my brother can fly.

Hence disavowing even the slightest suspicion that He does exist.

Nonsense.

So basically you're slamming the door shut in the face of God by saying such a thing. Why?

I slam shut no such door. I ask believers all of the time for any evidence that god lives. If it is there is I am absolutely willing to accept god.

I'm willing to accept UFOs I just ask for proof.

I'm willing to accept the loch ness monster. I just ask for proof.

I'm willing to accept leprechauns. I just ask for proof.

Because you've just rendered Him inaccessible.

Not at all. I just need the proof. My eyes and ears are open. Give me the data that would cause me to believe. I'm skeptical that my brother can fly, aren't you?

 

[RandFan]

However, do you believe that faith in God is entirely blind, as RandFan seems to suggest?

Did you read Yaweh's post? Do you have any evidence?

This is my whole point you see, because it bases everything upon the assumption that God doesn't exist and renders God completely inaccessible.

Not at all. Objectivity demands that I accept that anything is possible. Remember there are no absolutes. I can't say that god absolutely does not exist any more than I can say that my brother is absolutely incapable of unaided flight.

And are you also not suggesting it's possible to evidence God on a personal level?

Of course it is possible. Anything IS Possible. What evidence?

If so, and the possibility is there, then yours becomes a matter of "blind" faith as well.

No, just that I haven't seen any reason to suppose that it is possible. I'm willing to be proven wrong. Prove me wrong. Nothing would make me happier than knowing god exists. a good portion of the first half of my life was spent honoring and worshiping him. Why should I believe now?

 

[Iacchus]

Relative to non empirical data. (why is this like pulling teeth?)

Just a minute, you are seriously obscuring the facts.

Like pulling teeth? Yes, I had to resign myself to this when I opted to respond to your replies.

99.999999999999999999999999999999% is DAMN accurate. It is NOT absolute.

Can you say dead as a doornail?

Striving for accuracy is not the same as striving for absolute perfection.

It isn't?

Science holds that it is counterproductive and antithetical for people to dogmatically rely on absolutes because we would have to know all that there is to know to know that a statement is absolute.

The only absolute I hold is that I exist and quite possibly God which, I would be more sure of if I spoke to Him personally, which I don't believe is possible.

This is incredibly silly.

My brother is a decent chap. He says that he can fly without technology or any assistance. He simply flaps his hands and he flies. If you belive this without objective data then you accept it on blind faith.

If you go to his house and see for a fact that he can in reality fly without the aid of technology or any assistance what soever then you have confirmed that it is true.

And what does this have to do with a direct experience of God? ... aside from talking to Him personally that is.

If you have objective data that god lives then your "belief" is not blind faith. Please share with me this data so that we can both "know" that god lives. Otherwise I don't know if god lives anymore than you know if my brother can fly.

And yet if I were unable to furnish it in the physical sense? Then it becomes a matter of faith on your part, not mine.

I slam shut no such door. I ask believers all of the time for any evidence that god lives. If it is there is I am absolutely willing to accept god.

But how can you accept what you can't see? Are you willing to accept that God abides in another domain?

Not at all. I just need the proof. My eyes and ears are open. Give me the data that would cause me to believe. I'm skeptical that my brother can fly, aren't you?

"The kingdom of heaven is within." If you want direct proof, then I would suggest I can't help you.

 

[RandFan]

Can you say dead as a doornail?

What?

And what does this have to do with a direct experience of God? ... aside from talking to Him personally that is.

If I understand you correctly then you are talking about that which is untestable and notorious for being wrong.

And yet if I were unable to furnish it in the physical sense? Then it becomes a matter of faith on your part, not mine.

No, it simply becomes another claim.

But how can you accept what you can't see? Are you willing to accept that God abides in another domain?

Why should I?

"The kingdom of heaven is within." If you want direct proof, then I would suggest I can't help you.

The same kingdom of heaven that said the world was flat, carbon molecules were impossible to synthesize, the earth was the center of the universe, etc. There are thousands of years of scientific and historic data to reason that the kingdom of heaven within is just superstition. Furthermore I have direct evidence that which is internal can be easily deceived (see Uri Geller, Alien abduction, UFOs, Mount Olympus, Black Cats, walking under ladders, Santaria, John Edwards, Sylvia Browne, Marshall Appelwhite, Jim Jones, etc, etc, etc. For this reason I choose objectivity and critical thinking than blind faith.

 

[Jerf]

It's threads like this that make me realise how lucky I was that the internet and boards like this did not exist when I was a philosophy student. Now all one needs to do is to rephrase an essay question so that it looks like a rather dull postulation, and within a few days you have a dozen fantastic refutations from people who actually read books.

 

[RandFan]

It's threads like this that make me realise how lucky I was that the internet and boards like this did not exist when I was a philosophy student. Now all one needs to do is to rephrase an essay question so that it looks like a rather dull postulation, and within a few days you have a dozen fantastic refutations from people who actually read books.

Hi Jerf,

Welcome.

I have had my head handed to me so many times that I can't count them. That is ok though. What doesn't kill me only makes me smarter. It is important to admit that which you don't know. And there is much that I don't know. Some of the brightest minds that visit these forums don't post all that much. I wish I was one of them. Oh well. As long as you are willing to be objective and admit when you are wrong this is a great place to be.

 

[Tricky]

I have had my head handed to me so many times that I can't count them.

Yeah! Mostly by me!

Seriously though, it is people like RandFan that make these forums fun. He had I have disagreed so many times I can't count them, but we still retain the highest respect of each other. Well, at least I do for him. He may think I am an insufferable pr*ck (though I doubt it).

In this thread, we have one of those rare occurrances where we are on the same side. But if I catch him in a logical error, I'll definately smack him with it. And I expect him to do the same with me.

So let me join my beloved enemy in welcoming you to the forums, Jerf. May you have as much fun as I (and probably RandFan) have had. Now let's go make ourselve obnoxious.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah! Mostly by me!

Seriously though, it is people like RandFan that make these forums fun. He had I have disagreed so many times I can't count them, but we still retain the highest respect of each other. Well, at least I do for him. He may think I am an insufferable pr*ck (though I doubt it).

In this thread, we have one of those rare occurrences where we are on the same side. But if I catch him in a logical error, I'll definitely smack him with it. And I expect him to do the same with me.

So let me join my beloved enemy in welcoming you to the forums, Jerf. May you have as much fun as I (and probably RandFan) have had. Now let's go make ourselve obnoxious.

I have always had an enormous amount of respect for Tricky, even when he is wrong.

 

[Yahweh]

However, do you believe that faith in God is entirely blind, as RandFan seems to suggest?

No, no, no, not at all.

You no longer have to believe in God in blind faith when you can define something something to test.

Remember the people who believed heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects? People believed this out of "commonsense" and blind faith. Someone had a fantastic idea: Lets test the hypothesis!". The idea was rejected, and a new idea adopted on a basis of evidenced faith.

If there is nothing to test about God, well then it remains that one has to believe in him entirely by blind faith.

This is my whole point you see, because it bases everything upon the assumption that God doesn't exist and renders God completely inaccessible. And are you also not suggesting it's possible to evidence God on a personal level?

An important part of gathering evidence is maintaining valid inference. That is something people neglect when they say "I can feel god's love".

Personal evidence is not something I would suggest unless there is a way to measure and observe this evidence (and make a valid inference of it).

Personal evidence is very very questionable simply because a human's natural tendency to fool him or herself (and more powerful natural tendency to believe they cannot be fooled).

What kind of personal evidence did you have in mind?

 

[Tricky]

I have always had an enormous amount of respect for Tricky, even on those incredibly rare occasions when he is wrong.

Pardon me, RF. I had to edit your typo.