There we go, that's an even better definition of faith than the one I posted, so thanks for that.
So, good sir, having FAITH (or confidence in) his idea that the Wave of Light theory was incorrect, he tested it, and found his faith destroyed when he was proven wrong. Thus, the Wave of Light theory was proven, and knowledge pushed faith aside.
My example stands. His faith in his hypothesis was tested, and crushed. But he had FAITH in it, or he never would have tried to prove his hypothesis.
To quote you, "by the literal definition of faith, we can't have faith in ideas" well, yes we can, by your own source, we CAN have "confidence or trust in a person or THING." So yeah, pretty much disproven there.
I DO like how much effort you put into ignoring that definition just to substantiate your claim though.
You took definition number 2 and tried to use it against me because definition number 1, the primary definition, only proved my point for me.
Yes, my secret plot was to mislead you and then give you a link to a source that discredits my claim. /sarcasm
Tell me, when a word is used, what definition do we use when interpreting it? When ever someone says "faith" are we only allowed to use the definition that you prefer? Or do we use the definition that actually fits the conversation we are having?
I DO like how much effort you put into ignoring that definition just to substantiate your claim though.
Of course I'm ignoring it. It's not relevant to the discussion. When you say you set the table, should I accuse you of inciting hostility? Not all definitions are valid under all circumstances.
EDIT:
You still haven't addressed why you're using "allegiance" as the defining characteristic of faith when you yourself, in an earlier post, defined it as "belief with proof".
I honestly can't find where I used the phrase "belief with proof" and since I'm trying to address your claim, please find it for me. I will address it once I know what you're talking about.
But tell me, why then did you ignore the primary definition of faith on the site you posted? The first definition is used as the first definition because it's the most common and most applicable. So tell me, sir, if you weren't trying to mislead and discredit, why DID you neglect to post the primary definition?
The definition IS applicable, because it is the EXACT point I was making. In fact, it's what that ENTIRE last post was about.
I accidentally posted my response to the following episode here instead of there; but I can't find a way to delete this post so I'm just changing it to this note instead.
@crayzz You need to do more than google A Priori and A Posteriori to have any clue what they mean. Also you blatantly don't understand what dark matter is, we don't even know if it's matter. It could be that our formula for gravity is wrong just as easily as it could be that dark matter represents any actual physical matter of some kind. The video is of Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining what we know of dark matter. Also on the proof and evidence thing I was very careful with my choice of words. We have not a single piece of evidence that states that the basic premise of science will continue, that of being able to repeat any experiment and get the same results. In fact every piece of scientific evidence could be a fluke and tomorrow not a single experiment would work the same way. Gravity might simply stop in the night. We can only make probabilistic statements about the future, only what most likely will happen. There is no certainty in the universe, hell there is no guarantee that there actually is a universe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFLW5uxzoKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
Faith is simply believing in something you haven't proven yet. Even religious people hold to the ideal that one day, when we're all dead, they'll be proven correct, that we'll all meet God, that their faith will be scientifically proven as fact.
But tell me, why then did you ignore the primary definition of faith on the site you posted?
Because it's not the definition used in the video. It's not a definition that accurately describes religious faith.
So tell me, sir, if you weren't trying to mislead and discredit, why DID you neglect to post the primary definition?
Because you had already given it, and I gave a link that leads to it. It was not necessary to repeat. Hell, I gave all 5 definitions from that link in an earlier post. The misleading is all in your imagination.
The definition IS applicable, because it is the EXACT point I was making.
You have yet to demonstrate this in any capacity. It may be your point, but's its entirely possible that your point is irrelevant. In fact, that's exactly whats happening.
You need to do more than google A Priori and A Posteriori to have any clue what they mean.
My apologies. I was going from the literal definition of the latin.
Also you blatantly don't understand what dark matter is, we don't even know if it's matter.
Did you read the link? You can accuse me of not understanding dark matter all you want, but a PHD physicist who worked in that field?
In any case, whatever the hell it is, it's there. It's existence is damn near indisputable.
It could be that our formula for gravity is wrong just as easily as it could be that dark matter represents any actual physical matter of some kind.
See, if our gravity formulas are wrong, then your GPS (assuming you have one) wouldn't work. Satellite television wouldn't work. Atomic clocks wouldn't give you the correct time depending on your location. For all these things to work, the formula's we use to treat gravity on a cosmological scale must work. The formulas work in most instances. It's far more likely that there's something unaccounted for in the equation then the equation being totally wrong. Hence our use of dark matter in the equation until we figure out exactly what it is.
The video is of Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining what we know of dark matter.
I saw the video a long time ago. Nothing I've said contradicts Tyson at all.
Also on the proof and evidence thing I was very careful with my choice of words. We have not a single piece of evidence that states that the basic premise of science will continue, that of being able to repeat any experiment and get the same results.
Other than, you know, the entirety of science. Every time we repeat a repeatable experiment, it's yet more evidence that the laws of science are largely constant. Every time we look at a galaxy 3 billion light years away, we are seeing 3 billion years in the past. If we can predict it's movements, we can say with a fair amount of confidence that the laws of gravity, at the very least, aren't changing.
In fact every piece of scientific evidence could be a fluke and tomorrow not a single experiment would work the same way. Gravity might simply stop in the night.
Technically possible. How likely is that?
We can only make probabilistic statements about the future, only what most likely will happen.
Oh, that's right. Not very likely at all.
There is no certainty in the universe, hell there is no guarantee that there actually is a universe.
Entirely irrelevant.
Are you seriously saying that believing the most likely thing is the same as believing something with absolutely no proof or evidence?
@crayzz "Are you seriously saying that believing the most likely thing is the same as believing something with absolutely no proof or evidence?" I don't know how to quote things but in response to this no, I am saying that believing that it is the most likely thing is what takes faith. The faith lies not in trusting the most likely outcome but believing that all of the evidence means that it is the most likely outcome. We have FAITH that it having happened up until now suggests that it will continue to happen from this point. We have NO OTHER REASON than that it has been like that so far but can you prove or guarantee to me that the scientific method will continue work in the future?(that was a trap question as no good scientist will make a guarantee about the future)
Science has one base assumption that must be taken on faith, "The fact that the evidence has related to something about the universe up to this point means it will probably continue to mean something" We have never built a logical proof independent of observation to show this has to be true. We just assume it is so on faith.
These forums use BBC code. It's basically dumbed down HTML. You can look it up on wikipedia for instructions if you want.
...but in response to this no, I am saying that believing that it is the most likely thing is what takes faith.
The fuck? We have evidence pointing to it's likelihood.
The faith lies not in trusting the most likely outcome but believing that all of the evidence means that it is the most likely outcome.
You definitely do not know how evidence works. I think your going to have to explain this more; you're contradicting yourself.
We have FAITH that it having happened up until now suggests that it will continue to happen from this point.
No. A pattern indicates future events. A pattern of abuse from a person indicates that said person will continue to be abusive. A pattern of stones lined up according to size increasing size indicates that the next stone will likely be larger. This does not require faith in any capacity.
We have NO OTHER REASON than that it has been like that so far but can you prove or guarantee to me that the scientific method will continue work in the future?(that was a trap question as no good scientist will make a guarantee about the future)
No, and I don't need to. I can say that it almost certainly will not change. That's enough for science.
EDIT:
MOND theory deals with the rotational velocity of galaxies. It does not address time dilation due to gravity in any respect.
Without getting into stuff that would cause a bigger flame war than is already going on...
You guys do realize that we don't know that our current atomic model is 100% accurate, right? We don't know that the speed of light is constant throughout the universe. And we cannot know anything about the past without putting some faith in what other people have told us. Just because something happens today does not mean it happened exactly that way in the past. We can extrapolate and assume to a great degree of accuracy, but it's silly to say there's no "premises" in science.
The scientific method does not claim to know. Scientific laws and theories are guesses that have been tested so much that most people have moved on - for now. Basic things like thermodynamics and gravity are still theories based on testable observations. There isn't a good scientist alive who wouldn't want to be the one to completely overturn basic gravitational theory or the like.
Faith, even religious faith, is not the rejection of reality.
Faith asserts a reality without providing a way to disprove it.
As a committed Christian who believes the Bible and is a creationist, I can tell you experimentation is a huge part of faith. Questioning the Bible and the things I have been taught was 100% necessary for me to come to my own convictions. Romans 14:5 says "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind". That means, don't let anyone tell you what to believe, discover it on your own. Make your faith your own. I don't believe anything I believe because some person told me or I got some fuzzy feeling. Through experimentation, reasoning, and results I have come to this conclusion.
That is not an experiment, that is forming an opinion based on oral and literary claims and opinions.
But like many have already said, everything we know started with an assumption. That assumption was later either proven true (ie a round earth) or has such overwhelming evidence that it can be assumed to be true (ie atomic theory). The first step of the scientific method, the one we all learned in elementary school, is "Formulate a hypothesis".
You're missing steps.
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
"A pattern indicates future events." This is not stately properly. What you mean to say and my whole point is "A pattern has so far indicated future events and we have faith that it will continue to even though we can't prove it without assuming that it is true first" And I didn't say anything about time dilation I was talking about rotational velocity because that is entirely controlled by mass and gravity.
I'm doing a piss poor job of explaining what I mean. We believe the empirical methods works because it has so far. That takes a small amount of faith, faith in the idea that evidence means something and isn't complete random chance. In theory we could be living in a universe that is completely random in that no experiment would ever be 100% repeatable and still all of our observations could have happened to come out the way they have by random chance and we cannot assert otherwise. It is terribly unlikely but it cannot be proven to not be the case. We have to take on faith that the empirical model genuinely works because it for all of time has so far appeared to work.
crayzz, you are insulting and foolish. I will argue with you no further, but I will explain that line, as promised.
That 'belief with proof' quote you gave was far different from what I said, surprise, surprise. I said "Faith is simply believing in something you haven't proven yet," so yeah, allegiance to one deity over another or over the lack thereof, with the faith that when you die, you will have chosen correctly and everyone else will be proven incorrect when they said "your God doesn't exist!" You're pledging your allegiance to your deity and having faith in that choice.
That being said, definition 1 from that site proves all my previous statements as completely valid, and if you would stop adding arbitrary qualifiers to definitions, stopp twisting to word to use it against a group you don't like, I think you'd be a much beter person.
But I am VERY done with you, since all your posts are no more than inflammatory, twisting garbage that ignores all logic.
Translation: You are insulting. I will now insult without bothering to demonstrate how you've been insulting!
That 'belief with proof' quote you gave was far different from what I said, surprise, surprise.
No it wasn't. You said that faith was first and foremost about allegiance. You are now stating that allegiance without evidence counts and there is no proof. You are putting your preferred definition within the more general definition and then acting like the one you prefer is the one everyone has to use, despite no one else using it.
...stopp twisting to word to use it against a group you don't like...
You can't give a single quote of me doing this, can you?
But I am VERY done with you, since all your posts are no more than inflammatory, twisting garbage that ignores all logic.
You have yet to demonstrate any error of logic on my part.
"A pattern indicates future events." This is not stately properly. What you mean to say and my whole point is "A pattern has so far indicated future events and we have faith that it will continue to even though we can't prove it without assuming that it is true first"
No. Because of the pattern, we don't need to assume it. At least not outright.
And I didn't say anything about time dilation I was talking about rotational velocity because that is entirely controlled by mass and gravity.
I was talking about time dilation. You asserted MOND theory as a theory that dealt with that.
We believe the empirical methods works because it has so far.
True.
That takes a small amount of faith, faith in the idea that evidence means something and isn't complete random chance.
False. We're not taking it on faith because all evidence points that way. The nature of evidence, that is what we allow as evidence, is determined by logic. A priori knowledge.
In theory we could be living in a universe that is completely random in that no experiment would ever be 100% repeatable and still all of our observations could have happened to come out the way they have by random chance and we cannot assert otherwise. It is terribly unlikely but it cannot be proven to not be the case. We have to take on faith that the empirical model genuinely works because it for all of time has so far appeared to work.
Again, no we don't. Everything that we could possible consider as objective knowledge indicates the static nature, in some capacity, of the physical laws of the universe. It is technically possible that it's all one giant fluke, but this is incredibly unlikely. Believing the most likely conclusion as based on evidence does not require faith. By the definition given in the video (belief without evidence), it's the exact opposite. That's the whole problem. If you want to use a more general definition of faith such that any belief ever involves faith, then yes science has faith. But this "faith" is not remotely equivalent to religious faith. That's the whole problem.
@crayzz Can science show that the universe did not in fact pop into existence 7 seconds ago? Or if God created the universe 4000 years ago and just faked the fossil record and set all of the light much closer to earth from it's starting points, correcting for red and blue shift? Can you even empirically prove that you are not just a brain in a jar being fed information matrix style? Science can't even say if any of these scenarios are unlikely.
There are some fundamental assumptions about the universe inherent to the scientific understanding of the universe that are taken on faith. When some of your core tenets are taken on faith than no matter how solidly you build the rest of your internal logic it still has a core of unprovable tenants. The fact that the universe is a knowable system is completely unprovable, we only have a high correlation. And correlations are only valuable because we assume they are. This is where the logic of science becomes circular and is where the faith comes in.
Literally none of that matters. The only question is "can we predict outcomes?" The answer, evidently, is yes. Science pretends to do no more than this. Those assumptions are assumptions you've made about science.
"All reason is based on faith"... no, not really. All reason is based on logic, and all logic is based on certain premises or axioms which cannot be deduced from any other building blocks. These are the first principles of logic. They are not arrived at through "faith", but simply by subdividing existing knowledge into smaller blocks until we arrive at the smallest ones we can figure out. At that point we stipulate that these are true, provisionally, until we can determine whether what they lead us to is true or not. (By "true" I mean whether it complies with observation and is internally self-consistent). I dont have to have faith that a + b = b + a, but I assume it's true and go from there. If I ever find a logical situation that tells me that this premise was wrong, then I conclude it's wrong. Having "faith" would mean that if I ever found such a case I'd just ignore it.
@KiwiGummy Logic as I see it is base on faith. Having faith means to believe a + b = b + a is true while knowing however improbable, slim that a + b is not b + a. There still is a chance that it is so. Just like how you said you are.
Having faith in your God/Religion means you believe in your God/Religion when there no proofs that he/she/it does or doesn't exist. Which this is the case for most religion in our world.
To "BELIEVE" in your God/Religion when there's solid proof (which you fail or didn't bother to counter it) that it is NOT real (ex. Scientology) that's not faith that's IGNORANT.
EXTRA CREDIT said that faith in science is a stepping stone where we use to believe in everything that we proven true until they are proven otherwise.
Everything I have learn is wrong? I have failed to proven otherwise? My "logic" that was construct by my false knowledge is indeed fiction? Fine, I just put my faith in the new proven "logic" until the same thing happen again.
@KiwiGummy Logic as I see it is base on faith. Having faith means to believe a + b = b + a is true while knowing however improbable, slim that a + b is not b + a. There still is a chance that it is so. Just like how you said you are.
Having faith in your God/Religion means you believe in your God/Religion when there no proofs that he/she/it does or doesn't exist. Which this is the case for most religion in our world.
To "BELIEVE" in your God/Religion when there's solid proof (which you fail or didn't bother to counter it) that it is NOT real (ex. Scientology) that's not faith that's IGNORANT.
EXTRA CREDIT said that faith in science is a stepping stone where we use to believe in everything that we proven true until they are proven otherwise.
Everything I have learn is wrong? I have failed to proven otherwise? My "logic" that was construct by my false knowledge is indeed fiction? Fine, I just put my faith in the new proven "logic" until the same thing happen again.
"Can science show that the universe did not in fact pop into existence 7 seconds ago? Or if God created the universe 4000 years ago and just faked the fossil record and set all of the light much closer to earth from it's starting points, correcting for red and blue shift? Can you even empirically prove that you are not just a brain in a jar being fed information matrix style? Science can't even say if any of these scenarios are unlikely."
No one pretends that science can answer those questions. Science is concerned only with questions that are testable and falsifiable. If there is no way to test and/or no way to disprove a statement, science has nothing to say about it.
"There are some fundamental assumptions about the universe inherent to the scientific understanding of the universe that are taken on faith. When some of your core tenets are taken on faith than no matter how solidly you build the rest of your internal logic it still has a core of unprovable tenants. The fact that the universe is a knowable system is completely unprovable, we only have a high correlation. And correlations are only valuable because we assume they are. This is where the logic of science becomes circular and is where the faith comes in."
This is where the confusion really lies. You are right to point out that all logic and therefore science rests on certain assertions that are unprovable. However, that does not make these articles of faith.
Contrary to popular belief, science is not concerned with proving things. Instead, its purpose is to test ideas about how the physical world works. This is done by trying as hard as possible to prove that these ideas and models are false. The most successful ideas are used until they are disproved and replaced by something better.
We accept that "A = B, B = C, therefore A = C" because it fits the evidence and has yet to be disproved. If an instance of "A = B, B = C, but A != C" were discovered, then the rules of logic itself would be revised. The model would change to accommodate the evidence.
However, a statement like "On the first day, God created the heavens and the earth" cannot be tested nor can it be disproved. It is up to the individual to subjectively evaluate the merits of this idea, accepting or rejecting it purely according his/her own personal thoughts and experiences. It is therefore outside the purview of logic; this is the definition of faith.
This is a critical difference, one that is often overlooked or even ignored. Science and religion are fundamentally different things with entirely different goals. Science is a framework for describing and modeling natural phenomena based on an internally consistent logic. Religion is a set of beliefs that inform one's personal spiritual life and aim to answer questions about the supernatural.
I can understand dealing with the themes of Religion and issues of faith in games. Imagine playing a Priest leading a group of survivors in the Walking Dead and having to come to terms with what's happening on both a moral and physical level like anyone else, but also a spiritual level because other characters expect the Priest to have the answers as to "why there is an apocalypse going on".
The thing is, many of the gamers I know PLAY games from a purely rational/empirical standpoint. Since computer code IS logic, how does that not reduce "acts of faith" to just more options for people to discover through trial-and-error? How can you create an experience where during the final battle a player would just set the controller down "on faith" and trust in some higher force/being to protect them when pretty much every game out there reinforces the idea that a hero must take salvation in his own hands to earn it? And how could you possibly keep that impact of "showing faith" from being lost in an age where the forums will instantly post video deriding a final boss you can only beat by not fighting?
Look at the Halo franchise for example. Messiahs and Martyrs are ALWAYS the main characters and the Apostles and the Prophets are all THE BAD GUYS. Sheesh, the Arbiter even becomes one fo the "good guys" BY TURNING HIS BACK ON HIS FAITH.
"Science is a framework for describing and modeling natural phenomena based on an internally consistent logic. Religion is a set of beliefs that inform one's personal spiritual life and aim to answer questions about the supernatural. "
The way you put that got me thinking:
IF...
...the goal of scientific endeavour is to explain natural phenomena based on a rigorous and internally-conistent logic
AND...
...the goal of religion is to explain the unknown through a set of beliefs and traditions reinforced through emotion and personal experience
THEN...
...Could one say that Religion and Science are competing models for explaining all natural phenomena behind our personal experience?
Is Religion, Religous Belief, and Faith a template for viewing the universe that imposes its own meaning and context on both natural events and human actions? It would explain why many people "of faith" tend to reject, ignore or manipluate facts to reinforce their existing belief structure. How can any system of understanding the universe actually understand the universe when the system is too rigid to accept new ideas about the universe?
Is Science, Logic and the Scientific Method an attempt to create and revise a system of logic for understanding the universe that can grow and adapt to accomodate new information? It would explain why the idea of the "mad scientist" is an immoral (or at least amoral) figure in popular culture and why there is a tendency among skeptics to reject "faith" altogether. How can any system of understanding the universe stand for any kind of "moral" position when the system itself is continually being revised?
I can understand dealing with the themes of Religion and issues of faith in games. Imagine playing a Priest leading a group of survivors in the Walking Dead and having to come to terms with what's happening on both a moral and physical level like anyone else, but also a spiritual level because other characters expect the Priest to have the answers as to "why there is an apocalypse going on".
The thing is, many of the gamers I know PLAY games from a purely rational/empirical standpoint. Since computer code IS logic, how does that not reduce "acts of faith" to just more options for people to discover through trial-and-error? How can you create an experience where during the final battle a player would just set the controller down "on faith" and trust in some higher force/being to protect them when pretty much every game out there reinforces the idea that a hero must take salvation in his own hands to earn it? And how could you possibly keep that impact of "showing faith" from being lost in an age where the forums will instantly post video deriding a final boss you can only beat by not fighting?
Look at the Halo franchise for example. Messiahs and Martyrs are ALWAYS the main characters and the Apostles and the Prophets are all THE BAD GUYS. Sheesh, the Arbiter even becomes one fo the "good guys" BY TURNING HIS BACK ON HIS FAITH.
"Science is a framework for describing and modeling natural phenomena based on an internally consistent logic. Religion is a set of beliefs that inform one's personal spiritual life and aim to answer questions about the supernatural. "
The way you put that got me thinking:
IF...
...the goal of scientific endeavour is to explain natural phenomena based on a rigorous and internally-conistent logic
AND...
...the goal of religion is to explain the unknown through a set of beliefs and traditions reinforced through emotion and personal experience
THEN...
...Could one say that Religion and Science are competing models for explaining all natural phenomena behind our personal experience?
Is Religion, Religous Belief, and Faith a template for viewing the universe that imposes its own meaning and context on both natural events and human actions? It would explain why many people "of faith" tend to reject, ignore or manipluate facts to reinforce their existing belief structure. How can any system of understanding the universe actually understand the universe when the system is too rigid to accept new ideas about the universe?
Is Science, Logic and the Scientific Method an attempt to create and revise a system of logic for understanding the universe that can grow and adapt to accomodate new information? It would explain why the idea of the "mad scientist" is an immoral (or at least amoral) figure in popular culture and why there is a tendency among skeptics to reject "faith" altogether. How can any system of understanding the universe stand for any kind of "moral" position when the system itself is continually being revised?
Really enjoying these videos, but the definition of faith used here is way too vague. What people mean by "faith" can range all the way from evidence-based inference to unfounded superstition. The video fails to clarify its stance within this spectrum, in my opinion. It ends up just being confusing.
As a mathematician, I see a lot of people here misunderstanding some key mathematics. When talking about integers (that is -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, etc) then something like the 'commutative law' (that is to say a + b = b+ a) is not something that possibly can be false. By the very construction of the commutative property and the integers there is no possible integer by which the law can fail - we are not waiting to discover some integers for which the law is not true. There ARE systems where a + b = b + a is not always true (though sometimes it still can be) but then it doesn't make sense to speak of that as a law.
To sum up - For everyone saying things like "a +b = b+ a" has just yet to be disproved (in the contexts in which it actually means anything at all - by which I'm really referring to the Real and Complex numbers, basically the numbers the average person will use) you're just wrong. I'm sorry, but that's just how things are. Mathematics and Science are not similar in this way - I deeply love and respect Science but Mathematics differs in that there ARE things we can absolutely prove to be true. Not everything, but these things do exist. Please see this link for a Proof of the basic properties for Complex, Real, Quotient, Integer and the Natural numbers - it is some excellent mathematics http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51563.html
Faith is the starting point of science? I guess you are right. To say it is the central tenant of religion is not truly accurate though. For some they start with the same faith as science does, the thing is that they also end with faith because the topic is not usually natural and cannot readily be "proven" (quotes because this proof relies on the initial faith in both science and religion). There is no proof at the end of the evidence and arguments. So theism/religion starts has faith sandwiching logical reason and scientific evidence, in some cases.
I'm surprised that Halo 2 wasn't mentioned at all in this video. While it doesn't do the best job, half the game deals with a character (The Arbiter) and his struggle with his faith. He begins trying to achieve redemption in the eyes of his Prophets, only to that everything he believed in was a lie, and to be betrayed by those he trusted. Again, it isn't a perfect example of what this video is talking about, but it does a decent job nevertheless.
I honestly appreciate your professionalism with this topic. It's hard to talk about religion without clearly conveying your position, but you have enough respect for religion that it's hard to tell where you stand.
Posts
You took definition number 2 and tried to use it against me because definition number 1, the primary definition, only proved my point for me.
"1. confidence or trust in a person or thing."
Here's the link, in case you need it, sir.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
There we go, that's an even better definition of faith than the one I posted, so thanks for that.
So, good sir, having FAITH (or confidence in) his idea that the Wave of Light theory was incorrect, he tested it, and found his faith destroyed when he was proven wrong. Thus, the Wave of Light theory was proven, and knowledge pushed faith aside.
My example stands. His faith in his hypothesis was tested, and crushed. But he had FAITH in it, or he never would have tried to prove his hypothesis.
To quote you, "by the literal definition of faith, we can't have faith in ideas" well, yes we can, by your own source, we CAN have "confidence or trust in a person or THING." So yeah, pretty much disproven there.
I DO like how much effort you put into ignoring that definition just to substantiate your claim though.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
Yes, my secret plot was to mislead you and then give you a link to a source that discredits my claim. /sarcasm
Tell me, when a word is used, what definition do we use when interpreting it? When ever someone says "faith" are we only allowed to use the definition that you prefer? Or do we use the definition that actually fits the conversation we are having?
I DO like how much effort you put into ignoring that definition just to substantiate your claim though.
Of course I'm ignoring it. It's not relevant to the discussion. When you say you set the table, should I accuse you of inciting hostility? Not all definitions are valid under all circumstances.
EDIT:
You still haven't addressed why you're using "allegiance" as the defining characteristic of faith when you yourself, in an earlier post, defined it as "belief with proof".
But tell me, why then did you ignore the primary definition of faith on the site you posted? The first definition is used as the first definition because it's the most common and most applicable. So tell me, sir, if you weren't trying to mislead and discredit, why DID you neglect to post the primary definition?
The definition IS applicable, because it is the EXACT point I was making. In fact, it's what that ENTIRE last post was about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
Here you go:
But tell me, why then did you ignore the primary definition of faith on the site you posted?
Because it's not the definition used in the video. It's not a definition that accurately describes religious faith.
So tell me, sir, if you weren't trying to mislead and discredit, why DID you neglect to post the primary definition?
Because you had already given it, and I gave a link that leads to it. It was not necessary to repeat. Hell, I gave all 5 definitions from that link in an earlier post. The misleading is all in your imagination.
The definition IS applicable, because it is the EXACT point I was making.
You have yet to demonstrate this in any capacity. It may be your point, but's its entirely possible that your point is irrelevant. In fact, that's exactly whats happening.
@Clamp302
You need to do more than google A Priori and A Posteriori to have any clue what they mean.
My apologies. I was going from the literal definition of the latin.
Also you blatantly don't understand what dark matter is, we don't even know if it's matter.
Did you read the link? You can accuse me of not understanding dark matter all you want, but a PHD physicist who worked in that field?
In any case, whatever the hell it is, it's there. It's existence is damn near indisputable.
It could be that our formula for gravity is wrong just as easily as it could be that dark matter represents any actual physical matter of some kind.
See, if our gravity formulas are wrong, then your GPS (assuming you have one) wouldn't work. Satellite television wouldn't work. Atomic clocks wouldn't give you the correct time depending on your location. For all these things to work, the formula's we use to treat gravity on a cosmological scale must work. The formulas work in most instances. It's far more likely that there's something unaccounted for in the equation then the equation being totally wrong. Hence our use of dark matter in the equation until we figure out exactly what it is.
The video is of Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining what we know of dark matter.
I saw the video a long time ago. Nothing I've said contradicts Tyson at all.
Also on the proof and evidence thing I was very careful with my choice of words. We have not a single piece of evidence that states that the basic premise of science will continue, that of being able to repeat any experiment and get the same results.
Other than, you know, the entirety of science. Every time we repeat a repeatable experiment, it's yet more evidence that the laws of science are largely constant. Every time we look at a galaxy 3 billion light years away, we are seeing 3 billion years in the past. If we can predict it's movements, we can say with a fair amount of confidence that the laws of gravity, at the very least, aren't changing.
In fact every piece of scientific evidence could be a fluke and tomorrow not a single experiment would work the same way. Gravity might simply stop in the night.
Technically possible. How likely is that?
We can only make probabilistic statements about the future, only what most likely will happen.
Oh, that's right. Not very likely at all.
There is no certainty in the universe, hell there is no guarantee that there actually is a universe.
Entirely irrelevant.
Are you seriously saying that believing the most likely thing is the same as believing something with absolutely no proof or evidence?
Science has one base assumption that must be taken on faith, "The fact that the evidence has related to something about the universe up to this point means it will probably continue to mean something" We have never built a logical proof independent of observation to show this has to be true. We just assume it is so on faith.
see this wiki page about how our understanding of gravity could be wrong and yet my and your gps could still work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
These forums use BBC code. It's basically dumbed down HTML. You can look it up on wikipedia for instructions if you want.
...but in response to this no, I am saying that believing that it is the most likely thing is what takes faith.
The fuck? We have evidence pointing to it's likelihood.
The faith lies not in trusting the most likely outcome but believing that all of the evidence means that it is the most likely outcome.
You definitely do not know how evidence works. I think your going to have to explain this more; you're contradicting yourself.
We have FAITH that it having happened up until now suggests that it will continue to happen from this point.
No. A pattern indicates future events. A pattern of abuse from a person indicates that said person will continue to be abusive. A pattern of stones lined up according to size increasing size indicates that the next stone will likely be larger. This does not require faith in any capacity.
We have NO OTHER REASON than that it has been like that so far but can you prove or guarantee to me that the scientific method will continue work in the future?(that was a trap question as no good scientist will make a guarantee about the future)
No, and I don't need to. I can say that it almost certainly will not change. That's enough for science.
EDIT:
MOND theory deals with the rotational velocity of galaxies. It does not address time dilation due to gravity in any respect.
The scientific method does not claim to know. Scientific laws and theories are guesses that have been tested so much that most people have moved on - for now. Basic things like thermodynamics and gravity are still theories based on testable observations. There isn't a good scientist alive who wouldn't want to be the one to completely overturn basic gravitational theory or the like.
Faith asserts a reality without providing a way to disprove it.
That is not an experiment, that is forming an opinion based on oral and literary claims and opinions.
You're missing steps.
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
I'm doing a piss poor job of explaining what I mean. We believe the empirical methods works because it has so far. That takes a small amount of faith, faith in the idea that evidence means something and isn't complete random chance. In theory we could be living in a universe that is completely random in that no experiment would ever be 100% repeatable and still all of our observations could have happened to come out the way they have by random chance and we cannot assert otherwise. It is terribly unlikely but it cannot be proven to not be the case. We have to take on faith that the empirical model genuinely works because it for all of time has so far appeared to work.
That 'belief with proof' quote you gave was far different from what I said, surprise, surprise. I said "Faith is simply believing in something you haven't proven yet," so yeah, allegiance to one deity over another or over the lack thereof, with the faith that when you die, you will have chosen correctly and everyone else will be proven incorrect when they said "your God doesn't exist!" You're pledging your allegiance to your deity and having faith in that choice.
That being said, definition 1 from that site proves all my previous statements as completely valid, and if you would stop adding arbitrary qualifiers to definitions, stopp twisting to word to use it against a group you don't like, I think you'd be a much beter person.
But I am VERY done with you, since all your posts are no more than inflammatory, twisting garbage that ignores all logic.
crayzz, you are insulting and foolish.
Translation: You are insulting. I will now insult without bothering to demonstrate how you've been insulting!
That 'belief with proof' quote you gave was far different from what I said, surprise, surprise.
No it wasn't. You said that faith was first and foremost about allegiance. You are now stating that allegiance without evidence counts and there is no proof. You are putting your preferred definition within the more general definition and then acting like the one you prefer is the one everyone has to use, despite no one else using it.
...stopp twisting to word to use it against a group you don't like...
You can't give a single quote of me doing this, can you?
But I am VERY done with you, since all your posts are no more than inflammatory, twisting garbage that ignores all logic.
You have yet to demonstrate any error of logic on my part.
@Clamp302
"A pattern indicates future events." This is not stately properly. What you mean to say and my whole point is "A pattern has so far indicated future events and we have faith that it will continue to even though we can't prove it without assuming that it is true first"
No. Because of the pattern, we don't need to assume it. At least not outright.
And I didn't say anything about time dilation I was talking about rotational velocity because that is entirely controlled by mass and gravity.
I was talking about time dilation. You asserted MOND theory as a theory that dealt with that.
We believe the empirical methods works because it has so far.
True.
That takes a small amount of faith, faith in the idea that evidence means something and isn't complete random chance.
False. We're not taking it on faith because all evidence points that way. The nature of evidence, that is what we allow as evidence, is determined by logic. A priori knowledge.
In theory we could be living in a universe that is completely random in that no experiment would ever be 100% repeatable and still all of our observations could have happened to come out the way they have by random chance and we cannot assert otherwise. It is terribly unlikely but it cannot be proven to not be the case. We have to take on faith that the empirical model genuinely works because it for all of time has so far appeared to work.
Again, no we don't. Everything that we could possible consider as objective knowledge indicates the static nature, in some capacity, of the physical laws of the universe. It is technically possible that it's all one giant fluke, but this is incredibly unlikely. Believing the most likely conclusion as based on evidence does not require faith. By the definition given in the video (belief without evidence), it's the exact opposite. That's the whole problem. If you want to use a more general definition of faith such that any belief ever involves faith, then yes science has faith. But this "faith" is not remotely equivalent to religious faith. That's the whole problem.
There are some fundamental assumptions about the universe inherent to the scientific understanding of the universe that are taken on faith. When some of your core tenets are taken on faith than no matter how solidly you build the rest of your internal logic it still has a core of unprovable tenants. The fact that the universe is a knowable system is completely unprovable, we only have a high correlation. And correlations are only valuable because we assume they are. This is where the logic of science becomes circular and is where the faith comes in.
Having faith in your God/Religion means you believe in your God/Religion when there no proofs that he/she/it does or doesn't exist. Which this is the case for most religion in our world.
To "BELIEVE" in your God/Religion when there's solid proof (which you fail or didn't bother to counter it) that it is NOT real (ex. Scientology) that's not faith that's IGNORANT.
EXTRA CREDIT said that faith in science is a stepping stone where we use to believe in everything that we proven true until they are proven otherwise.
Everything I have learn is wrong? I have failed to proven otherwise? My "logic" that was construct by my false knowledge is indeed fiction? Fine, I just put my faith in the new proven "logic" until the same thing happen again.
Having faith in your God/Religion means you believe in your God/Religion when there no proofs that he/she/it does or doesn't exist. Which this is the case for most religion in our world.
To "BELIEVE" in your God/Religion when there's solid proof (which you fail or didn't bother to counter it) that it is NOT real (ex. Scientology) that's not faith that's IGNORANT.
EXTRA CREDIT said that faith in science is a stepping stone where we use to believe in everything that we proven true until they are proven otherwise.
Everything I have learn is wrong? I have failed to proven otherwise? My "logic" that was construct by my false knowledge is indeed fiction? Fine, I just put my faith in the new proven "logic" until the same thing happen again.
"Can science show that the universe did not in fact pop into existence 7 seconds ago? Or if God created the universe 4000 years ago and just faked the fossil record and set all of the light much closer to earth from it's starting points, correcting for red and blue shift? Can you even empirically prove that you are not just a brain in a jar being fed information matrix style? Science can't even say if any of these scenarios are unlikely."
No one pretends that science can answer those questions. Science is concerned only with questions that are testable and falsifiable. If there is no way to test and/or no way to disprove a statement, science has nothing to say about it.
"There are some fundamental assumptions about the universe inherent to the scientific understanding of the universe that are taken on faith. When some of your core tenets are taken on faith than no matter how solidly you build the rest of your internal logic it still has a core of unprovable tenants. The fact that the universe is a knowable system is completely unprovable, we only have a high correlation. And correlations are only valuable because we assume they are. This is where the logic of science becomes circular and is where the faith comes in."
This is where the confusion really lies. You are right to point out that all logic and therefore science rests on certain assertions that are unprovable. However, that does not make these articles of faith.
Contrary to popular belief, science is not concerned with proving things. Instead, its purpose is to test ideas about how the physical world works. This is done by trying as hard as possible to prove that these ideas and models are false. The most successful ideas are used until they are disproved and replaced by something better.
We accept that "A = B, B = C, therefore A = C" because it fits the evidence and has yet to be disproved. If an instance of "A = B, B = C, but A != C" were discovered, then the rules of logic itself would be revised. The model would change to accommodate the evidence.
However, a statement like "On the first day, God created the heavens and the earth" cannot be tested nor can it be disproved. It is up to the individual to subjectively evaluate the merits of this idea, accepting or rejecting it purely according his/her own personal thoughts and experiences. It is therefore outside the purview of logic; this is the definition of faith.
This is a critical difference, one that is often overlooked or even ignored. Science and religion are fundamentally different things with entirely different goals. Science is a framework for describing and modeling natural phenomena based on an internally consistent logic. Religion is a set of beliefs that inform one's personal spiritual life and aim to answer questions about the supernatural.
HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGS
I can understand dealing with the themes of Religion and issues of faith in games. Imagine playing a Priest leading a group of survivors in the Walking Dead and having to come to terms with what's happening on both a moral and physical level like anyone else, but also a spiritual level because other characters expect the Priest to have the answers as to "why there is an apocalypse going on".
The thing is, many of the gamers I know PLAY games from a purely rational/empirical standpoint. Since computer code IS logic, how does that not reduce "acts of faith" to just more options for people to discover through trial-and-error? How can you create an experience where during the final battle a player would just set the controller down "on faith" and trust in some higher force/being to protect them when pretty much every game out there reinforces the idea that a hero must take salvation in his own hands to earn it? And how could you possibly keep that impact of "showing faith" from being lost in an age where the forums will instantly post video deriding a final boss you can only beat by not fighting?
Look at the Halo franchise for example. Messiahs and Martyrs are ALWAYS the main characters and the Apostles and the Prophets are all THE BAD GUYS. Sheesh, the Arbiter even becomes one fo the "good guys" BY TURNING HIS BACK ON HIS FAITH.
@TitchTimble
"Science is a framework for describing and modeling natural phenomena based on an internally consistent logic. Religion is a set of beliefs that inform one's personal spiritual life and aim to answer questions about the supernatural. "
The way you put that got me thinking:
IF...
...the goal of scientific endeavour is to explain natural phenomena based on a rigorous and internally-conistent logic
AND...
...the goal of religion is to explain the unknown through a set of beliefs and traditions reinforced through emotion and personal experience
THEN...
...Could one say that Religion and Science are competing models for explaining all natural phenomena behind our personal experience?
Is Religion, Religous Belief, and Faith a template for viewing the universe that imposes its own meaning and context on both natural events and human actions? It would explain why many people "of faith" tend to reject, ignore or manipluate facts to reinforce their existing belief structure. How can any system of understanding the universe actually understand the universe when the system is too rigid to accept new ideas about the universe?
Is Science, Logic and the Scientific Method an attempt to create and revise a system of logic for understanding the universe that can grow and adapt to accomodate new information? It would explain why the idea of the "mad scientist" is an immoral (or at least amoral) figure in popular culture and why there is a tendency among skeptics to reject "faith" altogether. How can any system of understanding the universe stand for any kind of "moral" position when the system itself is continually being revised?
I can understand dealing with the themes of Religion and issues of faith in games. Imagine playing a Priest leading a group of survivors in the Walking Dead and having to come to terms with what's happening on both a moral and physical level like anyone else, but also a spiritual level because other characters expect the Priest to have the answers as to "why there is an apocalypse going on".
The thing is, many of the gamers I know PLAY games from a purely rational/empirical standpoint. Since computer code IS logic, how does that not reduce "acts of faith" to just more options for people to discover through trial-and-error? How can you create an experience where during the final battle a player would just set the controller down "on faith" and trust in some higher force/being to protect them when pretty much every game out there reinforces the idea that a hero must take salvation in his own hands to earn it? And how could you possibly keep that impact of "showing faith" from being lost in an age where the forums will instantly post video deriding a final boss you can only beat by not fighting?
Look at the Halo franchise for example. Messiahs and Martyrs are ALWAYS the main characters and the Apostles and the Prophets are all THE BAD GUYS. Sheesh, the Arbiter even becomes one fo the "good guys" BY TURNING HIS BACK ON HIS FAITH.
@TitchTimble
"Science is a framework for describing and modeling natural phenomena based on an internally consistent logic. Religion is a set of beliefs that inform one's personal spiritual life and aim to answer questions about the supernatural. "
The way you put that got me thinking:
IF...
...the goal of scientific endeavour is to explain natural phenomena based on a rigorous and internally-conistent logic
AND...
...the goal of religion is to explain the unknown through a set of beliefs and traditions reinforced through emotion and personal experience
THEN...
...Could one say that Religion and Science are competing models for explaining all natural phenomena behind our personal experience?
Is Religion, Religous Belief, and Faith a template for viewing the universe that imposes its own meaning and context on both natural events and human actions? It would explain why many people "of faith" tend to reject, ignore or manipluate facts to reinforce their existing belief structure. How can any system of understanding the universe actually understand the universe when the system is too rigid to accept new ideas about the universe?
Is Science, Logic and the Scientific Method an attempt to create and revise a system of logic for understanding the universe that can grow and adapt to accomodate new information? It would explain why the idea of the "mad scientist" is an immoral (or at least amoral) figure in popular culture and why there is a tendency among skeptics to reject "faith" altogether. How can any system of understanding the universe stand for any kind of "moral" position when the system itself is continually being revised?
To sum up - For everyone saying things like "a +b = b+ a" has just yet to be disproved (in the contexts in which it actually means anything at all - by which I'm really referring to the Real and Complex numbers, basically the numbers the average person will use) you're just wrong. I'm sorry, but that's just how things are. Mathematics and Science are not similar in this way - I deeply love and respect Science but Mathematics differs in that there ARE things we can absolutely prove to be true. Not everything, but these things do exist. Please see this link for a Proof of the basic properties for Complex, Real, Quotient, Integer and the Natural numbers - it is some excellent mathematics http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51563.html