Science, Religion, and the Surrounding Confusion.

[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.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

Who are you to question my views on other’s beliefs, Herod? Unless my posts are far too intrusive for you to ignore, you have *made* it your concern. Besides, it is the TOPIC so it makes a lot of sense for such a discussion to be found here.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

Ahh yes, this is classic. “You cannot possibly know what everyone thinks. On the other hand, I can because I am right. How could I be wrong, it makes sense to me!”

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

As I already said, you can ascribe intent and intelligence to things without evidence as long as this does not in any way affect the results. I just don’t understand the attraction of such a belief system since it never really ends up meaning anything. As long as two people agree on what causes rain to fall it does not make that much difference if one person believes that the rain drops were “angry” as they fell.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

Who are you to question my views on other’s beliefs, Herod? Unless my posts are far too intrusive for you to ignore, you have *made* it your concern. Besides, it is the TOPIC so it makes a lot of sense for such a discussion to be found here.

I don't give a crap about your views of others beliefs, they're your views and you're entitled to them. My only concern is how you treat other people because of their beliefs.

Ahh yes, this is classic. “You cannot possibly know what everyone thinks. On the other hand, I can because I am right. How could I be wrong, it makes sense to me!”

No, unlike you, I never claimed to know what all those people think. But I do know enough about human nature to know they don't liked being attacked verbally or physically... except for a few people that get off on being abused. That shouldn't be a surprise to even you.

As I already said, you can ascribe intent and intelligence to things without evidence as long as this does not in any way affect the results. I just don’t understand the attraction of such a belief system since it never really ends up meaning anything. As long as two people agree on what causes rain to fall it does not make that much difference if one person believes that the rain drops were “angry” as they fell.

I believe you when you say you don't understand, otherwise you wouldn't be babbling about angry raindrops. Personally I don't try to attach human emotions to objects, but whatever blows your skirt up.