opnet [OpNet] Faith and Fact

[kestrel404]

This is a response for Ms. Newcastle, as I do not wish to carry the 'Who wants children' discussion any farther afield than it already is.

What I'm curious about is where she, and everyone else, draw the line between belief and scepticism, and why. It's my own belief (it is a belief because I cannot prove it) that without a measure of faith, we cannot fully grasp our potential as novas. But, as Ms. Newcastle has already pointed out, scepticism keeps us from freely accepting every fraudulent or irrelevent idea in the world and attempting to assimilate it into our worldview.

So, what do you think of faith and the very foundations of religion?

[Regina Newcastle]

I'd like to start this off by saying that I take issue with your use of the word 'belief'. You are using it incorrectly. A belief is supported by evidence, whereas faith is, by definition, blind. You may have faith that you must have faith, or you may believe that because of some form of evidence, but where beliefs capitulate to better evidence, faith is effectively an unsinkable duck.

I believe provisionality is key, Alchemist. As you appear to grasp, nothing in science is ever 'proven'. To quote Dr. Gould again, scientific 'proof' can only mean "shown to such an extent that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent." That is a weighty principal, and one that many people who critcise science do not understand.

There are many subjects that exist at the borderlands of science, and many of those issues have been brought to the fore, thanks to novas. To use a classical example, scientists such as Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking debated for years about the possibility of chronoplanar travel, and yet there are novas who claim to do so. What this demands is scrutiny, hypotheses, experimentation, and understanding, not a surrender to our inability to understand presently.

Likewise, many subjects in science are so institutionalized and well-supported by mountains of evidence that we could easily refer to them as 'facts', but again, that is a dodgy word in science, one that scientists try to avoid so as to maintain credibility in the advent of new evidence. Unfortunately, this desire for credibility often comes at a public misunderstanding of science. While nobody questions the theory of heliocentricity or the theory of gravity, I understand there are still ignorant and pitiable souls in this world who do not believe in the theory (I would amend, 'biological fact') of evolution by natural selection.

The point of all this is that it's fine to believe something because you think it's right or because you think it's true, but a belief, no matter how dearly held, must turn shade when overruled by better, stronger, more robust evidence. You can believe anything you like, so long as you understand that your believing something does not necessarily make it so. Faith, on the other hand, is the very opposite. Faith condones and indeed rewards perseverence even in the face of scrutiny, criticism, or outright fact.

For me, nothing is a matter of faith. There are no 'supernatural' phenomenon. All phenomena are natural, some are simply not yet understood.

[Jager]

Ms. Newcastle, you have unfortunately stumbled on a difference between English and American English. In the states, it is common usage to speak of "Belief" and "Belief System" and have it understood to be Faith and Faith-based System. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[kestrel404]

Only two posts in and already arguing semantics. My, that was quick. Usually takes a few pages of text first. And no, Jager, I did not make a mistake in my useage.

I'm well aware of the difference between 'faith' and 'belief'. I believe that faith is part of becoming a better nova because the philosophy of Teras is founded on faith - faith in the self, in personal evolution, in destiny, but faith nonetheless. And the followers of Teras are demonstrably different, and many would say more powerful, than most other novas. Far from proof, not even enough to constitute a theory, but that is why it is a belief.

You make some very good points about the burdens of proof and the nature of theory versus fact. I agree for the most part, but you seem to be saying that science's refusal to accept many of their theories as incontrovertable fact is a bad thing. I disagree. While many so called 'facts' in the past have been so institutionalized as to be unassailable in mainstream science, not all of them have been proven correct in the long run. Caloric theory, Steady-state theory, continental drift. All theories which were widely believed and strongly held, yet still proven wrong in the end. If I may also quote Stephen Gould, "Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty."

,,

Quote:

The point of all this is that it's fine to believe something because you think it's right or because you think it's true, but a belief, no matter how dearly held, must turn shade when overruled by better, stronger, more robust evidence.

True enough.,,

Quote:

You can believe anything you like, so long as you understand that your believing something does not necessarily make it so.

And yet, believing something CAN make it so. While it does not always do so, still it happens. You need look no further than the Placebo effect for proof.,,

Quote:

For me, nothing is a matter of faith. There are no 'supernatural' phenomenon. All phenomena are natural, some are simply not yet understood.

So you have faith that all phenomena are natural and explainable? Because there is certainly no proof of that.

[Noir]

Quote:

Originally posted by Regina Newcastle:
I'd like to start this off by saying that I take issue with your use of the word 'belief'. You are using it incorrectly. A belief is supported by evidence, whereas faith is, by definition, blind. You may have faith that you must have faith, or you may believe that because of some form of evidence, but where beliefs capitulate to better evidence, faith is effectively an unsinkable duck.

The fact that we exist (or even existence in general) is irrefutable 'evidence' for many, many people's belief in a higher power (be it God or and other number of things/beings).

You are being just as ‘blind’ as those you seem dislike for having beliefs and faith and you cannot seem to find evidence for in your lab or what have you..

[Titan A9F]

Intelligent design. Didn't the courts in America blow that one out of the water as creationism in a new suit... oh... about decade ago?

[Regina Newcastle]

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
Only two posts in and already arguing semantics. My, that was quick. Usually takes a few pages of text first.

This isn't a semantic argument, Alchemist. I am trying to delineate terms ahead of time so that it does not become a semantic argument later on. If we are to have a reasonable discussion, we must be using the same lexicon.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
Far from proof, not even enough to constitute a theory, but that is why it is a belief.

I don't even necessarily agree with your assertion, but let's pretend I do. What that constitutes is a body of anecdotal evidence, which, if you were a scientist, you would know is the very thing we cannot trust. I surmise that is why you refer to this is a matter of "faith". For me, if it is true, it is a matter of "further investigation". "Faith" is a surrender to ignorance.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
You make some very good points about the burdens of proof and the nature of theory versus fact. I agree for the most part, but you seem to be saying that science's refusal to accept many of their theories as incontrovertable fact is a bad thing.

Not at all. Simply pointing out the evident truth, that this provisional attitude towards fact is a double-edged sword. In seeking a very necessary stable ground, we sacrifice our momentum.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
If I may also quote Stephen Gould, "Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty."

I agree entirely. But making an outrageous claim simply isn't enough to rattle my rather well-constructed world view. At the same time, I can't very well entertain every silly, rubbish idea that comes along. When someone makes such a claim, it must either be supported with some form of evidence or something that can be tested and experimented with. Otherwise, you're effectively just arse in the wind.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
And yet, believing something CAN make it so. While it does not always do so, still it happens. You need look no further than the Placebo effect for proof.

But again, the placebo effect is a well-documented scientific phenomenon that has proximate causes. That isn't what I'm talking about, and I think you know better.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
So you have faith that all phenomena are natural and explainable? Because there is certainly no proof of that.

That was arguably the single most ignorant, wrongheaded statement I have read on these boards that did not come from Violet.

Quote:

Originally posted by Noir:
The fact that we exist (or even existence in general) is irrefutable 'evidence' for many, many people's belief in a higher power (be it God or and other number of things/beings).

Aye, and I suppose people who buy in to other such epistemilogical Ponzi schemes tell themselves the same things, but just because you're satisfied with the answer doesn't mean you've reached truth. This is one of the fundamental principles all governments operate on.

Quote:

Originally posted by Noir:
You are being just as ‘blind’ as those you seem dislike for having beliefs and faith and you cannot seem to find evidence for in your lab or what have you.

Thank you for making the last thing Alchemist said somehow look better.

I was going to just insult you - you've not earned anything more in the way of consideration - but for now, I'll play. Answer me this; if you have no evidence for something, what reason do you have for believing it?

[Leliel]

Here is my take on the whole matter. I firmly believe that it is possible for science and spiritual philosophy to mix. (I cannot say as far as more...dogmatic...religions)

I consider myself a scientist. I try to do my best to see the cosmos in a certain ordered way. Then again, I manipulate Calabi-Yau shunts as the source of my power...

I also am a very spiritual individual. Many would question whether a "higher power" exists in the universe. Or for that matter, what happens to our souls when we die. Yes, souls. Call it the quantum signature of the mind if you wish. I have existed as energy for several years now, as have some other novas. This would be empirical evidence that the mind/lifeforce/soul/etc is not in fact linked to a physical body.

As far as a "supreme being" I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such. As a Terat I can say that existence is eternal evolution, both spiritual and physical. So in that sense there is no such thing as "supreme", since that would indicate an upper limit.

As far as what happens to a soul/quantum signature after death, I am needless to say reluctant to carry out experiments on that line...

I would have to say that the major religions of this planet are in general not entirely accurate. They were after all set up by "True Believers" and as such must be considered biased.

[Neil Preston]

I am a comfortable agnostic. I believe there is a spiritual side to the equation. I belive that we will one day come to understand this spirituality, but we are a long way off.

I think our definitions of Life will change. Our understanding of precisely how the mind works will be discovered through hard scientific work. I believe that the Universes are benign and we are gifted with the ability to answer all the questions of existance.

I do not believe in little winged cherubs. I do not believe in Hell.

I do believe that it is possible some part of us continues on in an as-of-yet discovered energy. That if their is a Heaven or a Hell, it is one of our own creation.

I believe the Universe recylces and it will go on without us. We are not guarunteed a place at the "Finish Line", but we have the capacity to get there.

I really, really like hearing other peoples ideas, faiths, and philosophies. Even if I don't agree, understanding the origins and evolutions of such things is facinating to me.

Also, I really don't care to "convert" anyone to my ways of learning and understanding the world around me. I believe in Me. I blieve in You. I think Me and You can do more by acting together, than by acting at cross purposes.

I believe this is enough for now.

[Chiteki Hoshiko]

First of all, let me make clear that I am a woman of science, I have been educated to base my thoughts on empirical evidence, and in fact my job requires it. I do not believe in a spiritual side to the universe, I do not believe in an invisible higher power, or in an afterlife. I believe that everything can be explained rationally, yet that belief is no different from the former suggestions. There is, after all, no true proof that things can be explained, the same way as there's no factual evidence for the existence of an afterlife, and there is no proof against any of them, either.

It is important for people, and probably even more for a good scientist, to realize that every person makes certain assumptions to be able to function, and that every method of thought (including rational, scientific reasoning) is based on those assumptions. We assume that the information relayed by our senses, be they mundane or nova, is a consistent and true reflection of the world that surrounds us. We assume that this is true for most people, except those afflicted by some kind of disorder. We assume that the way the universe functions does not change through space or time.

These are all necessary assumptions. Without them we could not do anything, without them the progress that the human race has achieved would not have been possible, yet they are still assumptions, that are not based on definite proof. And, as such, we must accept that different assumptions may also be correct, even if they conflict with ours. If they do conflict, we can safely ignore the other's worldview unless there is tangible proof for it, yet the world probably won't benefit from us trying to make him think like we do. All methods of thought have their place, and have their use. If it's true that many of humanity's greatest achievements would not have been made without rational thought, it is equally true that they would have been impossible without faith and religion. Neither is, in and of itself, better than the other, and neither merits disdain or attack.

[kestrel404]

Quote:

Originally posted by Regina Newcastle:
If we are to have a reasonable discussion, we must be using the same lexicon.

True Enough

What that constitutes is a body of anecdotal evidence, which, if you were a scientist, you would know is the very thing we cannot trust. I surmise that is why you refer to this is a matter of "faith". For me, if it is true, it is a matter of "further investigation". "Faith" is a surrender to ignorance.

All observations that cannot be made by machines are, in the end, anecdotal. Does that mean that we throw the human sciences like psychology and economics out the window? But yes, do look into it.

But again, the placebo effect is a well-documented scientific phenomenon that has proximate causes. That isn't what I'm talking about, and I think you know better.

So, because you can scientifically prove that believing something causes it to happen, then that's not really what's going on? (And no, you do not need to tell me the underlying causes of the Placebo affect. I guarentee I know them better than you.)

That was arguably the single most ignorant, wrongheaded statement I have read on these boards that did not come from Violet.

Insulting me instead of answering me only serves to prove that I am correct. Care to try again?
[/QB]

[Good Alice]

I have three statement to make.

One use science to explain novas, not only in our abilities but how many there are and where they erupted.

Two explain to me how some mater can simply ac without it being a reaction to something else. In essence making more action in the universe.

Three if you believe in the big bang, then there was a state in witch matter did not move, and nothing happened. In such a state, how would one start the big bang? After all if nothing is happening then nothing will ever happen.

[Regina Newcastle]

Quote:

Originally posted by Neil Preston:
I am a comfortable agnostic.

Neil, while I'm willing to accept the possibility of some heretofore undiscovered phenomenon that we presently miscall "spirituality", I cannot abide your view of the universe as somehow benevolent, and I wish I understood why you thought as much. I don't see the universe as benevolent or hostile; it simply is, and attempting to apply standards of baseline morality or animal delight-disdain to it is not only outside our ken, but ultimately futile.
Also, I have never understood the position of agnosticism. To call oneself an agnostic is to freely admit the possibility of all unfalsifiable ideas. If you can say "maybe" to the god of Abraham, then why not the god of Ramses II, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Black Elk, Siegfried, or Leif Erikson? Why not say "maybe" to my invisible, aethereal dragon that breathes heatless fire? Why not say "maybe" to Bertrand Russell's china teapot orbiting the sun?

Quote:

Originally posted by Chiteki Hoshiko:
There is, after all, no true proof that things can be explained, the same way as there's no factual evidence for the existence of an afterlife, and there is no proof against any of them, either.

As a scientist, Miss Hoshiko, you should also know that the absence of evidence does not a case make. In the case of the afterlife, you're talking about establishing a phenomenon without the barest shred of evidence. Does that "prove" there is no afterlife? Of course not, but it would be absurd to presume there is one simply because we cannot prove otherwise. Again, please reference my invisible, aethereal dragon and its heatless fire.
Conversely, the hallmark of scientific theory is if something works. While it's true that we can never say something is 'proven' or 'true' in the absolutist sense of the word, we can say 'reliable, functional, testable, reproducable, predictable', and this, Ms. Hoshiko, is the stuff reality is made of.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chiteki Hoshiko:
Neither is, in and of itself, better than the other, and neither merits disdain or attack.

On that, we are simply not in accord. Religious faith is a detestable thing, for reasons that could fill books. In fact, they have. If you have time and would like to take this discussion further, familiarize yourself with Sam Harris, who articulated these points better than I could in such limited space.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
All observations that cannot be made by machines are, in the end, anecdotal. Does that mean that we throw the human sciences like psychology and economics out the window? But yes, do look into it.

Utterly preposterous. Please see what I wrote to Miss Hoshiko, above.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
(And no, you do not need to tell me the underlying causes of the Placebo affect. I guarentee I know them better than you.)

Defensive much? This is a dead-end argument, and to borrow a phrase from an American friend, I'm not going to get into a "dick-measuring contest" over this with you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
Insulting me instead of answering me only serves to prove that I am correct. Care to try again?

Not terribly. You take your sobriquet from a false art that hasn't been practiced in several hundred years; exactly how seriously do you expect me to take you?

Not every question merits an answer, Alchemist, and that was such a question. Your question was flawed from the beginning, an utter N/A. I cannot answer it, because it is invalid.

[Titan A9F]

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
Insulting me instead of answering me only serves to prove that I am correct. Care to try again?

Quote:

Originally posted by Regina Newcastle: Not terribly.

Regina says it better but since when does thinking someone's argument is talking trash suddenly become the same as them being right?

Elites must be right because I think it's stupid to go kill people just because you can. Terats must be right because I think using people as toys in your head space drama is childish and sick. Utopia must be right because there's no bad thing that offsets all the good they've done and I still think you should ask questions. The Klan must be right because I think only inbred and antisocial psychos would judge someone on the color of their skin or where their mom and dad came from. The Flat Earth Society must be right because I think they've got points on their heads and too much time on their hands.

Oh hell with it. I'm just not smart enough to keep up with all you geniuses. But I know garbage when I smell it.

[Regina Newcastle]

Thank you, Titan. I wouldn't dare downplay your intelligence; as Mm. Velvet so clearly articulated, there is a difference between intellect and education. It seems to me as though you possess some good critical thinking skills, and that's worth more than a hundred books digested.

[Chiteki Hoshiko]

Quote:

As a scientist, Miss Hoshiko, you should also know that the absence of evidence does not a case make. In the case of the afterlife, you're talking about establishing a phenomenon without the barest shred of evidence. Does that "prove" there is no afterlife? Of course not, but it would be absurd to presume there is one simply because we cannot prove otherwise. Again, please reference my invisible, aethereal dragon and its heatless fire.
Conversely, the hallmark of scientific theory is if something works. While it's true that we can never say something is 'proven' or 'true' in the absolutist sense of the word, we can say 'reliable, functional, testable, reproducable, predictable', and this, Ms. Hoshiko, is the stuff reality is made of.

This is all well and good when talking about things that have an influence in how things work. That is, things that have an effect on our perceived reality and, as such, a direct effect on us. However, most matters of faith and spirituality, especially modern, moderate views on it, mainly contemplate belief in things that do not have such a direct influence on us. In fact, the only influence they do have is having us believe or disbelieve them. What I am trying to explain is that faith and religion does not in many cases directly oppose science, but rather philosophy, metaphysics and ethics. And where it does contend against science, then let it in peace, for those people will soon learn if it gives them results or not, and if it doesn't they shall either turn away from it, or foolishly believe in it until it harms them, in which case natural selection will take care of everything.

Quote:

On that, we are simply not in accord. Religious faith is a detestable thing, for reasons that could fill books. In fact, they have. If you have time and would like to take this discussion further, familiarize yourself with Sam Harris, who articulated these points better than I could in such limited space.

Sam Harris? An interesting read, and I can see where and how he appeals to you and your views, yet it is strange that you put him forth in this way, for he was far from a rigorous researcher. He systematically ignored many of the positive points of religion and, in some cases, the plain reality of it. He criticized religion by focusing on dangerous religious extremism, when it is rather obvious that fanaticism is not the natural state of religion, but one which is reached through a combination of adverse causes, until faith is used as a shield against bigger, real problems. He makes truly ridiculous points, like Nazi anti-semitism being ultimately caused by religious faith, when it is a much more logical and documented conclusion that German anti-semitism was provoked mainly by jealousy at the relatively prosperous Jewish community, counting a large number of bankers within its ranks, when the German population was many times living in misery.

All in all, he fails to address many of the great things achieved by people guided by faith. In fact, many of the people that dedicate their lives to helping others, which is a truly commendable task, for every human life is valuable simply by the immense potential it contains, do so out of religious inspiration, and they probably would not be where they are if they were guided by purely rational thought. It would be difficult to argue that this would make the world a better place.

I was truly disappointed that you would put forth such populist writing to back up your argument. You seem like a very well-educated and intelligent person, Ms. Newcastle, and I'd prefer to think that your choice was an unfortunate error.

As a note, "Ms. Hoshiko" is incorrect, although an understandable error. I am Japanese, and, in our language, it is the surname that precedes the given name. It would be, in any case, "Ms. Chiteki", although you can comfortably call me Hoshiko, as well.

[kestrel404]

Titan: If you look at what I said, it was that she had no proof that the universe was explainable, and therefore she must hold that as a point of faith. Moving from a reasonable discussion to a violent insult at the very thought means that I touched on a truth she would rather not have me point out, and thus supported my original claim. All of my other points were addressed, except that one, further showing that it is something she doesn't want to discuss, or a point she cannot defend. It's not a matter of her deciding to insult me, as what she chose to insult me over that proves my point.

Ms. Newcastle: The only points you've chosen to contest me on have been those where you cannot offer a valid argument, only a summary dismissal. More importantly, they were exactly the points that I started this thread to address. If you will not considder what I am saying objectively, perhaps it is not I that has the problem. Thus far, your reactions have been exactly what one would observe of a person who is having their points of faith called into question. Give that some thought before you dismiss my words out of hand. (And if you are unaware of where I get my handle from, I suggest you not try to use it in an argument against me.)

[Titan A9F]

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
Titan: If you look at what I said, it was that she had no proof that the universe was explainable, and therefore she must hold that as a point of faith.

I glad that was put into words even I could understand.

[Regina Newcastle]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chiteki Hoshiko:
What I am trying to explain is that faith and religion does not in many cases directly oppose science, but rather philosophy, metaphysics and ethics.

For starters, let me apologise for the poor attempt at humour. You introduced yourself as a scientist, I viewed you as a colleague, and while it seems that many non-British scientists would prefer to be called by their first names amongst peers, addressing people by an honourific is a habit I have never been able to shake entirely. Referring to you as "Miss Hoshiko" was my fumbling grasp at a middle ground and levity.

As to what you said in the quote above, I would, for the most part, concur, although I think you underestimate how many otherwise rational people still cleave to faerie stories about two of every animal in a boat or the Earth being "created" six thousand years ago in a mere seven days. Many people - far too many - believes these things not as allegory or myth, but as historical fact, and it is here that religious dogma clashes with science spectacularly.
That said, much of what is now perceived as religiosity or spirituality is more at odds with ethics or philosophy, as you pointed out. But as someone who embraces both of these disciplines, I find myself at odds with religious dogma even when it is at odds with the above disciplines, which, while once the exclusive purview of religion, I think it is high past time took their rightful place in the camp of science. If ethics are not empirical, they are simply myths, given power by belief in them alone.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chiteki Hoshiko:
...when it is rather obvious that fanaticism is not the natural state of religion, but one which is reached through a combination of adverse causes, until faith is used as a shield against bigger, real problems.

The reverse is "obvious" to me. I'm afraid you're going to have to qualify that, since it's clarity seems to have eluded me.
I'd also take issue with your characterization of faith as "shield". While I remember my Sunday School well enough to know that faith is often personified as a shield, it is far more often used as a sword. Or to be more precise, sword, garrote, flame, weights, saw, hot poker, arrow, mace, cudgel, lance, rifle, machete, rack, wheel, impaler, brand, knife or tongs.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chiteki Hoshiko:
He makes truly ridiculous points, like Nazi anti-semitism being ultimately caused by religious faith, when it is a much more logical and documented conclusion that German anti-semitism was provoked mainly by jealousy at the relatively prosperous Jewish community, counting a large number of bankers within its ranks, when the German population was many times living in misery.

That's preposterous. Aside from the fact that Harris rejected those arguments in chapter three, he made a very good case for the opposite. The anti-Semitism of the Nazi regime was only the latest in a series of systematic persecution of the Jews, mostly at the hands of the Catholic church, who perpetuated the blood libel well into the 20th century. Furthermore, many Nazi heads were devout Catholics, and not one Catholic Nazi was excommunicated during the Holocaust, despite perpetuating some of the most horrendous crimes on record. Jews that asked for asylum from the Vatican were rejected, and Pope Pious XII had a policy of non-involvement throghout.
While the fires of anti-semitism were stoked by Jewish prosperity, the fires have their genesis in centuries of systematic and religious anti-semitism.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chiteki Hoshiko:
...every human life is valuable simply by the immense potential it contains, do so out of religious inspiration, and they probably would not be where they are if they were guided by purely rational thought. It would be difficult to argue that this would make the world a better place.

That's a complicated assertion you've made, Miss Chiteki, and one that I do not think is worth arguing, presently.
As for your other point, it's true that religion is the driving motivator behind many good deeds (I would point out that far fewer people have been saved by it than died as a consequence of it, however), and much good has been done in the world because of the actions of men and women who were driven by faith. We no longer need such crutches, however. It is time that man evolved behind his need for myths and found reasons for altruism that are every bit as logical and valid as any scientifically viable theory we have.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chiteki Hoshiko:
I was truly disappointed that you would put forth such populist writing to back up your argument. You seem like a very well-educated and intelligent person, Ms. Newcastle, and I'd prefer to think that your choice was an unfortunate error.

I stand by my choice, in spite of your ivory tower version of a "yo mama" joke. Harris' work has been well-received by greater minds than you or I, among them my mentor and friend. Harris' book won the PEN award in 2004, an award not lightly given. Of all the criticisms I have heard of that particular book, yours are unique, which I surmise is because they are invalid.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
So you have faith that all phenomena are natural and explainable? Because there is certainly no proof of that.

Getting back to your original question, Alchemist, the problem is that this question is fallacious, insulting, and worthless. If you read what I wrote above and applied the pertinent bits to this question, you'd see that I don't need to elaborate on it further. But since you insist, and since you so insipidly will not relent on your laughable claim that I'm avoiding or dodging your question, I'll oblige you, and just you.

No, Alchemist, I don't have "faith" that all phenomena are natural and explainable. Those are two different things, however, so let me address each individually:
natural: no phenomena on record are supernatural. Those that are typically thought of as supernatural or have been thought of in supernatural terms in the past have been shown to be quite mundane (although frequently fantastic, rare, or wondrous) in nature. I maintain, because of the body of empirical data regarding natural phenomena and its propensity for eventually discrediting so-called "supernatural" pheonemena, that all phenomena are "natural".
explainable: for similar reasons, I believe all phenomena are explainable, although not necessarily with the tools or the knowledge we presently have at our disposal. Three centuries ago, scientists would have been in no place to understand genetics in even a childlike way, but today, even the most simple have some concept of cellular structure and heritage. Simply because something is not yet explainable doesn't mean it is entirely beyond our ken, and history shows that the truth wills out, given enough time. That isn't a matter of faith, it's a logical assesment based off scientific and historical data.
More to the point, we can sleep well with our believe placed firmly in "reality" as we know it, for the simple reason that it is functional; it works. We can test it, measure it, and predict it. And we can do that whether you believe we can or not.

[Emily Williamson]

((Posted with the wrong character, consider this OOC. Serves me right for posting before I'm awake))

[Chiteki Hoshiko]

Miss Newcastle, thank you for your thorough explanation. After your last post, I do not believe there are any points that remain worth arguing, and I understand your opinion even if I do not wholly agree on the details. Although I do stand by my criticism of the book, that I assure you is hardly unique.

It has been a pleasure conversing with you.

[Regina Newcastle]

Miss Chiteki, I can say without any irony or backhandedness that I feel the same. It is always a pleasure to engage in reasonable discourse - even when heated - with a rational and intelligent individual. Perhaps we'll have more to speak on at a later date, but I'm happy that we could reach a mutual understanding, if not a concordance. Such understanding is the cornerstone that such consensus is built on, and I happily admit that I neither have all the answers nor are so rigid in my thinking that I am unreceptive to new points of view.

[kestrel404]

First, thank you for answering my question. While you might considder it to be fallacious (while it combines more than one question, it does not fall prey to Plurium Interrogationum), insulting (your opinion, not my intent), and worthless (I beg to differ), as I stated this is one of the central points I wished to raise in this thread.

Your answer to my question, if I may paraphrase, is that you believe, but do not hold on faith, that everything in the universe is natural, and explainable. You have offered proof based on observation and historical data. In every sense, you've proposed this idea as a theory, even if I was the one leading you to do so.

You have evidence, but not proof. But by your words, you have dismissed all forms of religion and faith, mythology and legend, and to all appearances any modern 'wisdom' that is not measureable on a graph. If you simply dismissed these beliefs as unfounded because they are not supported by sufficient evidence, that would be one thing. But you seem to go further, claiming that they are impossible because of a lack of evidence.

As I've already stated, and you've already agreed, nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview. Dogma is not exclusive to religions, but is also inherent to ideology. You hold scientific evidence as the only form of acceptable evidence. That is a dogmatic worldview.

If I am misreading your intents, I appologize. However that is the appearance you have been giving off, and I cannot see how such an opinion can be justified by someone who seems to be an otherwise entirely reasonable person.

[Regina Newcastle]

It is, in fact, a theory, Mr. Alchemist, specifically that of the empirical method. The nature of "reality" as we perceive it is at the core of philosophical debates regarding objectivism (of the non-Rayndian variety), monism, and pragmatism. To make a mild correction, however, I have offered no "proof". I remind you again, that's an unfortunately verboten word in my field. All I have for you is evidence; very, very strong evidence.

To make myself clear, I am willing to entertain the possibility of any and all claims, so long as they are supported by some form of evidence, no matter how slight. As Christopher Hitchens said, however, "Assertions that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." To seriously investigate every lunatic claim would be a savage waste of time, and one that I cannot afford. Plainly, to me, the evidence does not bear out the myths of religious stories, but I am cautious about using the word "evidence" around religious folk who simply don't understand the meaning of the word, as if using it were an invitation to be challenged by data so laughably bad that I frankly feel embarrassed for people who trumpet it out. Impossible? Nothing is ever "impossible", in much the same sense that nothing can be considered "proven". We can be certain to billionths of a percent, but never 100%. But no, religion isn't bloody likely.

As to your assertion that my view of empirical evidence as being the only kind that I will accept, that isn't entirely true, though it is the case when performing research. If a friend tells me that the chips at a local pub are particularly good, I will provisionally accept such anecdotal evidence. To parrallel, however, if I happen to know that the chips at that particular pub are made from spoiled potatoes and soaked in brine before being fried up in the fat of an ill sow, that doesn't lead me to start believing that perhaps that combination of otherwise vile ingredients makes a fine chip, but rather to question the sanity (or taste, at least) of my friend. The same could be said of the billions of religious adherents. It's very nice that you feel it's all so marvelous and that it's done so much for you, but I'm sorry, I've studied the data, and it isn't that there's a loving creator deity who is personally interested in you, it's that you're either gullible, daft, desperate, ignorant, wicked, or weak.

I tell you what, Alchemist; the second we come up with another form of evidence that functions as elegantly and as pragmatically as empiricism, I'll give it a good, honest look. Until then, no other forms of data even come close in the realm of being testable, reproducible, and functional.

[Leliel]

Just to differentiate between Spirituality and Religion...

One day it is in my opinion likely that we will be able to empirically prove spirituality. Spirituality can be defined as life unfettered by a physical body. I can prove that empirically by looking in a mirror. My body is composed of energy. Of course, one could start endless arguments about the relationship (if any) between an energy waveform and the soul....

Organized religion on the other hand is dogmatic thought created by man. Therefore any religion will by definition affected by mankind's bias, which makes the proving or disproving of such completely academic and irrelevant in my opinion.

[kestrel404]

To make a mild correction, however, I have offered no "proof".

Oh my, I'm afraid I made a Freudian slip, there. As you can see from my next paragraph, I did indeed mean evidence and not proof. It's most likely due to the fact that I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm not so blind that I disbelieve either of the things I call 'theory'.

To seriously investigate every lunatic claim would be a savage waste of time, and one that I cannot afford.

I am not saying you you should. Only that to be completely dismissive of other people's faith-based beliefs is to fall victim to the same fault as to be completely accepting of them.

the second we come up with another form of evidence that functions as elegantly and as pragmatically as empiricism, I'll give it a good, honest look

With novas, it is sometimes (though not often) the case that the expectation of reality alters the outcome of the research. In other words, in normally objective areas, the theory becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've experienced this on a number of occasions. However, it is a highly unfortunate phenomenon, because it is generally not repeatable. This is the basis on which the colloquially termed 'quantum gadgets' or just 'gadgets' are created by novas. I don't claim that it works better than the empirical method (quite the opposite, really), but it is an interesting example of what is possible for novas.

But aside from that, I am simply suggesting that the exercise of faith itself is not so bad as you seem to believe. There are those who use their faith and ignorance as a shield against reason and logic. But there are also those who attempt to use science and logic (often poorly) to similar ends. This does not mean we should forego science, just as it does not mean we should forego faith. They are both tools in the toolbox of the human (and nova) psyche. Ignoring a tool and deriding others for its use simply because you do not use it is wasteful and foolish.

[kestrel404]

Leliel: Interesting. Here are some of my views on the subject, in case you are interested.

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:

Just to differentiate between Spirituality and Religion...

One day it is in my opinion likely that we will be able to empirically prove spirituality.

If we could do that, I think that we would have already. However, we hold different definitions of the word 'spirituality', so from your perspective you are probably right.

Spirituality can be defined as life unfettered by a physical body.

Yes, but that is not a helpful definition when dealing with novas. There are novas who exist as quantum waveforms entirely devoid of physical constraints - this no more proves the existence of the 'soul' or 'spirit essence' than would transferring the human consciousness into a computer. It is simply translating one media (the brain) for another (the quantum foam). While both have their advantages (the brain is a more stable media, the quantum foam allows for virtually any form of existence), they are both scientifically sound, natural, and explainable conditions of existence. It does not go towards proving the existence of human essence after death - research (mine included) has shown that nothing more happens to the quantum foam when a human dies than while they live.

I can prove that empirically by looking in a mirror. My body is composed of energy.

My point exactly.

Of course, one could start endless arguments about the relationship (if any) between an energy waveform and the soul....

But I hope you won't as I've already addressed that as unlikely.

Organized religion on the other hand is dogmatic thought created by man. Therefore any religion will by definition affected by mankind's bias, which makes the proving or disproving of such completely academic and irrelevant in my opinion.

Religion claims to be inspired by the divine. Their processes for coming up with this divine material are often rooted in the pragmatic, but also open to both chance and interpretation. Some view this as an evolutionary outcome, others as evidence of the divine influence. I choose not to interpret this, but I do not dismiss organized religion as wrong. (Except CoMA. Any religion which defines me as evil in spite of any actions I take, I define as wrong.)

I do not believe that any of them has gotten it entirely correct, though. I simply choose to believe what I believe, and I have faith that it will be enough.

Faith, in and of itself, is the key in my opinion. The unshakeable belief in something without having a reason for it. It is one of the ultimate expressions of conscious thought.