Posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2002, at 11:25:38
In reply to Re: Agreement or Confutation » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 18, 2002, at 2:46:47
> > Now if IsoM and I could just agree, too...
>
> Ah, but I'm willing to discuss it further. I think I've shown some strong points in this discussion.I didn't mean to imply you weren't. And you certainly have. I just got too tired last night. :-)
> > …but it does seem to me that if evidence enters into it, so does interpretation of that evidence. Maybe what's being "demonstrated" is something else?
>
> Yes, it’s possible that it is something else but it wouldn’t be so very off target. Let’s get back to the black hole analogy (not the best one but I grabbed it out of the air quickly). Because there’s no real proof that there’s black holes, in the future as more evidence is gathered (& possibly a grand unifying theory is reached), we’ll find that this phenomenon that was believed to be black holes isn’t. But if it isn’t, it won’t be radically different. What’s discovered will still fit the data that’s been gathered & the math describing it. If it’s not a black hole, it’s going to be something awfully similar. We won’t find that it’s some huge orbiting dog in space.But new theories can in fact be radically different. The world being round vs. flat, for example...
> Ancient societies that thought the Earth was a flat disc didn’t take the evidence before their eyes into consideration. We find it amusing now how evident certain things were that primitive societies didn’t bother checking out.
Maybe there's data relevant to black holes that's before our eyes right now, but that we're not taking into consideration? Maybe future societies will find us amusing?
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> > And what about blind faith, anyway? Is that necessarily a lesser kind of faith? Wouldn't belief despite a lack of evidence [or evidence to the contrary] be a *stronger* belief? Leaping farther?
>
> Blind faith doesn’t mean a stronger belief – it means shutting your eyes to evidence, hence the term blind, rather than unseen faith.OK, I agree -- if someone really does shut their eyes -- but what if their eyes are open, they see it, and still they keep their faith?
> And if you say that everyone’s views & opinions should be given equal credence, then why isn’t an equal amount of money used to back these theories too?
Here, anyway, I'd like you to respect the views of others. But that doesn't mean you have to write them checks. :-)
> What bothers me is the fact that faith has become a ‘dirty’ word. People’s opinions have become clouded about faith because it’s been presented over & over that there doesn’t have to be a rationale for it.
I don't know how I ended up on this side of the issue :-) but why would not having a rationale dirty it? Wouldn't eyes-open, damn-the-evidence faith be the most "pure"?
> How valid is a belief system that's based on groundless (blind) faith?
Validity is in the eyes of the beholder? Since faith is personal?
> How much could one rely on, in a crunch, something that has no foundation to it, nothing solid to hold your faith in times of hardships, stress, & various problems? ... What would anyone base his or her hope on if there wasn't something to show a good reason to do so.
Maybe it's a leap of faith?
> I'm not American, but I'll use the States as most posters are from there. Almost everyone in the States knows that the country's in debt to more than 6 billion dollars. If the president was to tell the public that in one year, there'd be no more debt, how many would believe him?
Maybe not many. So it might be a small church. :-)
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:1086
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20021001/msgs/1132.html