Science, Religion, and the Surrounding Confusion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

On what grounds to you disparage my cinder block, yet tout your magic sky wizard? After all, both have as much hard evidence to support their creative abilities, but many more would acknowledge the existence of my block than your wizard.

You say the bird came from a cinder block, with no evidence. I said the bird evolved from dinosaurs, for which there is evidence.
The fact that I also believe in God, doesn't alter the evidence.
You also make the assertion that God is a man and God is in the sky, which I did not... another assumption on your part about what other people think.

By the way, you are using a straw man argument here. The block analogy was intended to show how unreasoning belief leads to absurd consequences; attempting to attribute it as the core of my argument is a fallacy.

No, the cinder block is your strawman.

Again, this is a straw man. I never said that their beliefs were unfathomable; rather, you implied that they were and I objected. My original proposal stated that their beliefs were completely fathomable, and critically flawed.

Originally Posted by Phlage0070

Are you suggesting that large swaths of the population hold unfathomable beliefs?

You're the one that described them as unfathomable, not I.

Here you basically state that I cannot possibly understand common beliefs, and now less than an hour later you are trying to attribute *your* statement to me; and then ridicule me for it! Either you need to work on reading comprehension or you are purposefully attempting to use logical errors to support your position.

First you say I "basically" made a statement I didn't. Secondly, above I've shown it was your statement that introduced "unfathomable".
Your basic problem is believing that all people of faith, subscribe to a set of "common beliefs" you have cataloged in your head.
This pigeon, among others, don't fit that hole.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You say the bird came from a cinder block, with no evidence. I said the bird evolved from dinosaurs, for which there is evidence.
The fact that I also believe in God, doesn't alter the evidence.

Either you are comparing apples to oranges here, or you are saying that you never attribute things to God without evidence. Therefore, if you cannot prove the existence of God (something that would be required to draw a causal relationship) then you must never attribute anything to God. If you do indeed believe in an undetectable entity which does absolutely nothing I must confess confusion as to your fondness toward such a belief.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You're the one that described them as unfathomable, not I.
First you say I "basically" made a statement I didn't. Secondly, above I've shown it was your statement that introduced "unfathomable".

Allow me to summarize the gist of our exchange (as I see it).
Me: Faith-based people operate in this way, which is flawed in this manner.
You: You are foolish to think you can understand what those people believe.
Me: Are you saying I cannot understand what they believe, or that what they believe is inherently impossible to understand? Either way I disagree.
You: You are the one that described them as impossible to understand, not I.
Me: …the hell?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

This pigeon, among others, don't fit that hole.

The crux of my statement is that holding a belief that is not based on proof, or “faith” as it is commonly called, is inherently flawed. I support such a claim through ‘reductio ad absurdum’ or “reduction to the absurd,” a well-known style of logical argument.

At this point you have claimed my argument does not apply to you because your beliefs are different. Unfortunately, at this point your beliefs are also *secret* which inhibits my response. I request that you explain exactly what you believe, thus fleshing out your position into more than “just cuz.”

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, let me cut through the tangents.

You don't believe in God. That is your right and I couldn't care less.

but, when you say;
"A faith-based person concludes that God made it,.."
"What astonishes me the most is that society functions as well as it does with large swaths of the population choosing to be selectively bat-shit crazy."
"...you choose to fill in reality from your imagination..."
it shows that you have decided, that billions of people must think and act in a manner you have predetermined. That is bat-shit crazy.

You can't understand why faith and science don't have to be mutually exclusive.
It appears, because you've heard some people rail against one or the other, probably in the evolution debate, you to have decided that everyone has to choose a side.
That "fer me or agin me" attitude is offensive to me, and all rational people.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

…it shows that you have decided, that billions of people must think and act in a manner you have predetermined. That is bat-shit crazy.

Nonsense! I specifically stated that my criticism was directed toward faith-based people; if they are not basing their beliefs on faith then it is your error in concluding I was speaking about them. If I was criticizing people who drive cars then it would not be valid for you to object that many people ride bikes; I’m not talking about them!

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That "fer me or agin me" attitude is offensive to me, and all rational people.

Now hold on, you *just* said that it is crazy to decide that billions of people must think and act in a manner you have predetermined. I should hope that “all rational people” number in the billions, so your hypocrisy here is astounding.


I think it is clear at this point you are unwilling or unable to address the argument in a logical manner. If you have issues with my reasoning by all means continue. Otherwise I ask that you keep insults or accusations against me personally out of the forum, especially those intended to confuse the issue or other readers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

Nonsense! I specifically stated that my criticism was directed toward faith-based people; if they are not basing their beliefs on faith then it is your error in concluding I was speaking about them. If I was criticizing people who drive cars then it would not be valid for you to object that many people ride bikes; I’m not talking about them!.

Then you will have to define what you mean by "faith based people". I took it as all people of faith, ie, non atheists/agnostics. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

Now hold on, you *just* said that it is crazy to decide that billions of people must think and act in a manner you have predetermined. I should hope that “all rational people” number in the billions, so your hypocrisy here is astounding.

There is no hypocrisy. Any rational person would be offended by you attacking/insulting them for their faith. The same for deriding what you predict they would think/do, when you have no way of knowing what they would think, or how they would act, in a given situation.

I think it is clear at this point you are unwilling or unable to address the argument in a logical manner. If you have issues with my reasoning by all means continue.

I've already told you why I have no conflict between my faith and science.
You apparently don't believe it on the grounds that, for a person of faith that isn't possible. Hmm, I must be lying.

Otherwise I ask that you keep insults or accusations against me personally out of the forum, especially those intended to confuse the issue or other readers.

Insults? Accusations? I've only seen the ones you've hurled at me and billions of "bat-shit crazy" people who believe in a God.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Then you will have to define what you mean by "faith based people". I took it as all people of faith, ie, non atheists/agnostics. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

By “faith-based people” I meant people whose beliefs are based principally on the concept of faith, by which I mean holding certain beliefs as true despite no supporting evidence. Undoubtedly there is some overlap in “people of faith” but the distinction is an important one.

For instance, a person who believes they have spoken directly to God and so convinced of his existence is not faith-based. While they may not be able to reproduce such evidence they are basing their belief on evidence that is convincing to them. The question at that point is about evaluative rigor rather than faith.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

There is no hypocrisy. Any rational person would be offended by you attacking/insulting them for their faith. The same for deriding what you predict they would think/do, when you have no way of knowing what they would think, or how they would act, in a given situation.

As a rational person I disagree that questioning someone’s beliefs must automatically lead to offense; indeed, without this questioning progress would be much more difficult.

By your own reasoning since “any rational person would be offended” you have attempted to predict what every rational person would think or do. This is exactly what you claimed is impossible and offensive. Maybe you claim to be an exception.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I've already told you why I have no conflict between my faith and science.
You apparently don't believe it on the grounds that, for a person of faith that isn't possible. Hmm, I must be lying.

No, you have *stated* that you find no conflict between faith and science. You have shown examples where you accept conclusions based on evidence, but offered no clear examples of conclusions based on faith. The closest example I can come up with is your original claim that “…everything is the way God made it, often through his helper, Mother Nature.”

I take this to mean that you believe God is the origin of the universe. You have already stated that you have no problem with a bird having come about because of dinosaurs, so I will assume that you are willing to continue that chain back to the origin of the universe. At what point does God become the cause of an effect?

Obviously this cannot be at a point where science has an explanation based on hard evidence, otherwise there would by definition be a conflict between faith and science. Instead the point of faith must reside beyond the progress of science and retreat before it. Because of this science and faith *cannot* coexist without conflict.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

By “faith-based people” I meant people whose beliefs are based principally on the concept of faith, by which I mean holding certain beliefs as true despite no supporting evidence. Undoubtedly there is some overlap in “people of faith” but the distinction is an important one.

For instance, a person who believes they have spoken directly to God and so convinced of his existence is not faith-based. While they may not be able to reproduce such evidence they are basing their belief on evidence that is convincing to them. The question at that point is about evaluative rigor rather than faith.

I would think that most people of faith, have spoken to God. Speaking to God is easy, and once you've gotten an acceptable answer, it's easy to maintain your faith. Everyone must decide what constitutes an acceptable answer for themselves.

As a rational person I disagree that questioning someone’s beliefs must automatically lead to offense; indeed, without this questioning progress would be much more difficult.

Who are you to question anyone's faith, Torquemada? Unless they are trying to convert you to their beliefs, it's not your concern.

By your own reasoning since “any rational person would be offended” you have attempted to predict what every rational person would think or do. This is exactly what you claimed is impossible and offensive. Maybe you claim to be an exception.

Show me someone that would not be offended, when you call them "bat-shit crazy" for their beliefs. You might even loose your head.

No, you have *stated* that you find no conflict between faith and science. You have shown examples where you accept conclusions based on evidence, but offered no clear examples of conclusions based on faith. The closest example I can come up with is your original claim that “…everything is the way God made it, often through his helper, Mother Nature.”

That's right.

I take this to mean that you believe God is the origin of the universe. You have already stated that you have no problem with a bird having come about because of dinosaurs, so I will assume that you are willing to continue that chain back to the origin of the universe. At what point does God become the cause of an effect?

I didn't say that. God might have caused the universe to form, or just watched it happen. I don't know, you don't know, I don't really care.

Obviously this cannot be at a point where science has an explanation based on hard evidence, otherwise there would by definition be a conflict between faith and science. Instead the point of faith must reside beyond the progress of science and retreat before it. Because of this science and faith *cannot* coexist without conflict.

Nonsense, theories of science give us a glimpse at what has happened, not hard evidence as you call it, but enough that to make a reasonable case that is plausible most people. For example, the dinosaurs to birds theory. What science doesn't give us is the why.