niftydrifty

I *think* I know it when I see it. imo, that's what "faith" is all about. every one of us operates on faith in some sense.

Qualia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" I don't know, because I now realize I never knew quite what I meant by "qualia" all along..." - Daniel Dennett (Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness)

it depends upon the context. it depends upon the question. it depends upon your relative point of view. is the world big? is the cosmos God?

I linked to an explanation of consciousness. I didn't make it up. are you implying that there is no mystery involved in our understanding of consciousness? is there only one aspect of consciousness? or many? are they all understood? completely?

yes or no?

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

scourge99

Some of us just have a much more methodical chain of reasoning. IE, some of us replace "faith" with fact where applicable. Where this is not possible then simple analysis via statistics and/or deductive reasoning suffices. When all else fails then "provisional consent" (think of it as a rational form of faith) can be used.

This is in stark contrast to those who start with faith and only then deductively reason, apply statistical analysis, and apply known facts.

__________________
Petty Desire or Grand Ambition?

niftydrifty

sure, but the thing is, I have never replaced scientific fact with religious faith, ever.

You don't seem to even know what my faith is. when I was talking about faith in the sense of my religious faith, I was talking about me. not the other people you referenced when you haughtily typed, "some of us."

If you're thinking about fundies, well, be aware that I'm not a fundie.

mmmboy. you've made a leap of faith while talking about my faith. astonishingly ironical. I made a statement about how all of us operate on faith, in some sense. and you come along and totally make my point. let me help you wipe the egg of your face.

scourge99

I never said anything about YOU at all. I made an observation about the relationship between faith, science, fact, theory, logic, and statistical analysis.

My only point was to show the error associated with holding faith in higher regards to the other methods relating to truth.

Everyone must have some form of faith (provisional consent) in the absence of objective, universal fact. However, overtime faith has lost its true meaning and formed into arrogance which inturn causes many to foolishly believe their faith stands on grounds matching or even surpassing fact and/or empirically supported theory.

Its this arrogance from which the reverse of logic deduction begins and contributes to such ridiculously improbable and empirically unsupported theories such as ID, for example.

This is not to say that those who would call themselves scientists are not guilty of such follies, at times.

Cephus

I don't know that I'd really buy that, as far as it goes. The very basis of science is objective evaluation and testing and going where the evidence leads. Since there isn't a shred of evidence for any religion, by accepting any religion at all, you've rejected the very basis of science.

__________________
I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-hypocrisy.

Blog me! http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com

niftydrifty

stay tuned for a private debate in which I explain how you're wrong. religion can exist with science.

ps. when you assume I'm a religious fundamentalist, you've acted on faith. and an irrational faith, at that.

obvious Child

I disagree. Many theists I know accept that science explains how things happened. What science does not explain is the greater picture and why. There religion comes in. I think you are making a serious mistake in lumping all religious beliefs and sects into one. Metaphorical Christianity is significently different then literal as is Christanity in general compared to Buddhism or Deism.

Cephus

I never said otherwise. Religion can, indeed, co-exist with science. But religion can never be scientific, which is the point I was making. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project is a brilliant scientist. He's also a very religious man. One of those positions is rational, the other is not. Both co-exist in the same person.

Cephus

As I said, there is a difference between what one believes rationally and what one believes irrationally. Someone can be an eminent scientist, well respected and admired across the scientific community, and also believe in ghosts. The ghost belief is irrational, the scientific work is rational, one doesn't impact necessarily on the other.

Just because you say "look at the scientist" doesn't mean that everything that person does is governed by the scientific method.

Given that however, there's quite a difference between saying science does not explain the greater picture and why, that assumes, without reason, that there is a "greater picture" or that "why" is a valid question. Religion typically comes in when someone doesn't like the implications of reality and therefore invents or adopts a belief system from whole cloth that softens their discomfort.

MC.no.spin

How are you defining rational?

If this scientist recognizes there is a likely source to life not of the material, how is that considered crazy?

Before the beginning there was a Cause, and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.

__________________

The heart of human intelligence is pattern recognition ~ Ray Kurzweill