The End of Blind Faith?

[MoSurveyor]

Then this is your faith, because it isn't science. It's not based on rationality, and it's arbitrary.

It's no different at its core from any other religion; it differs only in the details.

Those laws have been observed in nature for thousands of years. Since you're not familiar with them I should clarify the second law, though. The attempt to reproduce is in reference to genes, so saving your brothers or a large number of your fellow tribesmen is also part of it since they also possess a large portion of your genes.

That being such, I'm not sure what we're arguing about, other than your mistaken assumption that I'm trying to prove a religion, especially something as specific as "Christianity" or "Creationism."

I simply wanted to make sure I understood your position. We settled that and you continued onward - I don't know for what reason.

That's where I've seen your statements used before so I referenced them.

 

[Harshaw]

Society is just another organism operating under the same laws described above. I supposed if an historian were to take a good look they would discover that efficiency plays a big role, just as it does in all behavior, human or otherwise.

That's even less scientific than what you said before, and thus even less rational. Society is not an "organism" in anything other than a romantic sense.

 

[Harshaw]

Those laws have been observed in nature for thousands of years. Since you're not familiar with them I should clarify the second law, though. The attempt to reproduce is in reference to genes, so saving your brothers or a large number of your fellow tribesmen is also part of it since they also possess a large portion of your genes.

No, those are not laws.

Organisms TRY to survive and reproduce. That doesn't mean they have a "right" to. That's your own -- again irrational -- affectation.

I simply wanted to make sure I understood your position. We settled that and you continued onward - I don't know for what reason.

That's where I've seen your statements used before so I referenced them.

I have never said it that regard.

 

[MoSurveyor]

No, those are not laws.

Organisms TRY to survive and reproduce. That doesn't mean they have a "right" to. That's your own -- again irrational -- affectation.

Read it again! I didn't say they had the right to survive and reproduce I said they had the right to ATTEMPT to survive and reproduce, which you have now paraphrased. Thanks for confirming the two (and only two) natural laws.

I have never said it that regard.

I don't know in what regard you said it. Otherwise, it wouldn't have needed clarification.

 

[Harshaw]

Read it again! I didn't say they had the right to survive and reproduce I said they had the right to ATTEMPT to survive and reproduce, which you have now paraphrased. Thanks for confirming the two (and only two) natural laws.

Ummm . . . speaking of "reading again," what did I say?

Organisms TRY to survive and reproduce. That doesn't mean they have a "right" to. That's your own -- again irrational -- affectation.

Are you aware that "try" and "attempt" mean the same thing?

They don't have any "right" to try, they just do. If you think they have a "right" to try, on what basis do you draw this conclusion? The fact that they DO try doesn't establish this "right."

 

[MoSurveyor]

Ummm . . . speaking of "reading again," what did I say?

Are you aware that "try" and "attempt" mean the same thing?

Which is why I used the word "paraphrased" - or are you now arguing that as well?

They don't have any "right" to try, they just do. If you think they have a "right" to try, on what basis do you draw this conclusion? The fact that they DO try doesn't establish this "right."

Then "rights" by your definition are nothing but man-made constructs. OK.

It's not a "right", then, it's Natural Law that organisms will attempt to survive and attempt to reproduce. I'm good with that.



And societies are indeed organisms just as much as you and I are organisms made up of several billion (trillion?) other organisms. One good look at a mob should be enough proof.

 

[nota bene]

I've always considered blind faith to be belief in something even when there is good and/or overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I can certainly accept this definition.

As a practicing Christian, I've never experienced any conflict over science and faith and think this is a false dichotomy. Rather, I think science is in service to Truth. And it's Truth which I hope we all seek.

But I must also say that I have never experienced "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" that there is no God. Rather, and with eyes wide open, every day I live I see evidence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and endlessly creative Creator whose infinite imagination can be seen only through through a glass and darkly.

 

[Harshaw]

Which is why I used the word "paraphrased" - or are you now arguing that as well?

Ugh. You said I was implying that YOU said the "right" was to reproduce and to survive, rather than just "attempting" to. You know this. I know this. These asinine twistings you need to go through to save face in these conversations is getting quite tiresome.

Then "rights" by your definition are nothing but man-made constructs. OK.

Twistings such as this. I offered no "definition" of "rights," and in fact my question to YOU was precisely the source of their "construct" as you see it. If you don't want to answer, fine. But at least man up and say so.

It's not a "right", then, it's Natural Law that organisms will attempt to survive and attempt to reproduce. I'm good with that.

That's a truism with no more meaning than "if water gets hot enough, it will boil." That has nothing to do with "rights." When you claim something is a "right," it means that there's some kind entitlement to do something. The way you're trying to pass it off now, a rock has a "right" to roll down a hill. And that's just silly.

And societies are indeed organisms just as much as you and I are organisms made up of several billion (trillion?) other organisms.

No, that's just romantic pap. A "society" is made up of individuals making individual decisions. There's no group consciousness and no "organism." There is only the illusion of it, and that illusion is irrational. It is not "science."

One good look at a mob should be enough proof.

"One good look" is never proof of anything.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Ugh. You said I was implying that YOU said the "right" was to reproduce and to survive, rather than just "attempting" to. You know this. I know this. These asinine twistings you need to go through to save face in these conversations is getting quite tiresome.

I have no "face" to save in this case so I have no clue what you're going on about. I'll tell you the same thing I tell my wife: I can't read your mind. If you want to say something then say it and be specific instead of general or you can expect misinterpretation.

Twistings such as this. I offered no "definition" of "rights," and in fact my question to YOU was precisely the source of their "construct" as you see it. If you don't want to answer, fine. But at least man up and say so.

That was my conclusion from your statement.

You didn't ask what I thought "the source of their [rights -Ed.] "construct" as see it" was. You asked about where I thought right and wrong came from and I answered as best I could without going into a very long discussion.

That's a truism with no more meaning than "if water gets hot enough, it will boil." That has nothing to do with "rights." When you claim something is a "right," it means that there's some kind entitlement to do something. The way you're trying to pass it off now, a rock has a "right" to roll down a hill. And that's just silly.

So now you're saying gravity isn't a law of nature? (Actually, it isn't - but I doubt you understand the difference.)

I don't know why you continue to belabor this. I already conceded it wasn't a right, it was a natural law. If I need to beg for your Holy forgiveness because I misused a word - and admitted it - then I'll have to go to hell because I'd rather starve than beg.

No, that's just romantic pap. A "society" is made up of individuals making individual decisions. There's no group consciousness and no "organism." There is only the illusion of it, and that illusion is irrational. It is not "science."

You have no proof of that but there's plenty of evidence that people often do not make individual decisions. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to prove "consciousness free will" has any meaning at all. You can take that argument up with Sam Harris and good luck to you.

 

[laska]

Haven't read the entire thread, just the OP, but what he calls blind faith I call superstition or just strongly held beliefs that may be right or wrong. To me faith is a light that is a seed deep in the souls of eternal beings that discerns and comprehends truth. It hoped for things that cannot be seen but are true. A religious person may have an innate belief in a God that comes from this light even if they do not realize or understand it and then use their mortal faculties to believe all kinds of false superstition and religious beliefs.

 

[humbolt]

Blind Faith broke up a long time ago.

 

[Harshaw]

I have no "face" to save in this case so I have no clue what you're going on about. I'll tell you the same thing I tell my wife: I can't read your mind. If you want to say something then say it and be specific instead of general or you can expect misinterpretation.


That was my conclusion from your statement.

You didn't ask what I thought "the source of their [rights -Ed.] "construct" as see it" was. You asked about where I thought right and wrong came from and I answered as best I could without going into a very long discussion.


So now you're saying gravity isn't a law of nature? (Actually, it isn't - but I doubt you understand the difference.)

I don't know why you continue to belabor this. I already conceded it wasn't a right, it was a natural law. If I need to beg for your Holy forgiveness because I misused a word - and admitted it - then I'll have to go to hell because I'd rather starve than beg.


You have no proof of that but there's plenty of evidence that people often do not make individual decisions. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to prove "consciousness free will" has any meaning at all. You can take that argument up with Sam Harris and good luck to you.

Good grief. You do get pissy when you're in a corner, which is just about every time I bother with you. It's ironic that a surveyor can't follow a straight line.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Good grief. You do get pissy when you're in a corner, which is just about every time I bother with you. It's ironic that a surveyor can't follow a straight line.

It's ironic a wordsmith can't be precise. You do an excellent job of generalization - you should be a politician.


BTW - Nice try in assuming I've somehow "lost" something here. :lamo

 

[German guy]

In reading an interesting set of articles recently, it occurred to me that in this day and age, an appeal to faith simply gets you nowhere during an argument or reasoned debate. Not that this comes as a surprise. But, it is, nonetheless, a powerful cultural shift.

For example, take the debate over same sex marriage.


This same action can be seen all throughout our society: Theologian arguments may state that the earth was created in a week about 10,000 years ago. Rational people scoff at that, demand proof. The theologian points to scripture. Secular folks shake their heads.

Much the same occurs when anyone begins a discussion about Jesus or Noah's Ark or the Exodus. Secularists point to the historical record, rightly show that no such events could have been possible. The faithful deny the realities, argue that what is written in their Book supersedes whatever science or archaeology have unearthed.

In the end, religious blind faith is waning. Fewer and fewer people believe that science is wrong about a four billion-year old planet where dinosaurs once ruled and man only appeared in the recent past. In fact, to think man and the dinosaurs inhabited the same space at the same time a mere 6,000 years ago is today considered childish, if not stupid. But, a few hundred years ago, thinking differently and saying it out loud would have resulted in a burning at the stake. Nowadays, thinking it results in your opinions being dismissed.


Discuss.

If that's true, that would be a good thing, IMO.

I am religious and think religion is very important for the individual and society, but it should never be "blind" faith, and religious convictions that are in contradiction with science are mere superstition.

But I am not sure if the original claim is actually true. Maybe it's true in case of old, thoroughly debunked myths. But we're using new myths all the time. Basically unproven believes most of us consider to be the truth, which are hardly ever questioned and which are appealed to in debate all the time.

Take the myth of nationalism. Politicians and other orators refer to patriotism all the time. And some slogans are never questioned. "America is the land of the free!", "People in America are wealthier than anywhere else!", "America does not commit war crimes!" and so on (in case of America; insert the country of choice). Well, some question such myths, but they are easily singled out or even branded "traitors".

Or political-ideological myths. There are plenty of them, no need to list them all. "Smaller government means more freedom!", "More social redistribution means more fairness!", "Republicans want smaller government", "Democrats want bigger government", "the MSM is left!", "the MSM is right!", yadda yadda. Are any of these myths proven? No, but quite a few politicians and journalists make a living of encouraging these myths and taking benefit from them.

If I understood Jürgen Habermas correctly, he said we need such "unquestionable truths" in our "Lebenswelt" ("living world") for our society to function, although it's normatively problematic too, of course, when some myths are never questioned.

 

[German guy]

Blind faith in something is hardwired into our brains. Everyone does it, including you.

It probably simply is a necessity. If you'd actually prove and verify every claim you ever heard, before you believe it, you'd probably be busy doing that your entire life and still hardly be able to actually master life. You'd fall into deep cognitive dissonance and probably never recover. For example, how many of us can actually prove ourselves that earth is not flat?

We simply need "unquestioned truths" to master life. But we should be aware that many of the things we believe are simply "working hypothesises", rather than unquestionable truths -- and we should be flexible enough to modify them, once we find they are proven wrong.

 

[German guy]

Yet, at least 80% of Americans self-identify as religious to some degree, whereas outright atheism remains well below 10%.

Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't mean all of them have to be literalists or "blind" believers. IMO, it's a good thing not to believe blindly, but to strengthen the own faith by questioning it.

 

[Ray410]

Blind faith has actually increased exponentially, it's just the beneficiary that has changed.

The Liberals blindly put all of their faith in the government. That is their religion and their benevolent, smiling parent, taking care of them throughout their barren lives of rage and hatred.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Blind faith has actually increased exponentially, it's just the beneficiary that has changed. The Liberals blindly put all of their faith in the government. That is their religion and their benevolent, smiling parent, taking care of them throughout their barren lives of rage and hatred.

3/3 ...

:lamo :lamo :lamo

 

[German guy]

Blind faith has actually increased exponentially, it's just the beneficiary that has changed. The Liberals blindly put all of their faith in the government. That is their religion and their benevolent, smiling parent, taking care of them throughout their barren lives of rage and hatred.

Yeah, and conservatives, of course, don't ever put blind faith in anything, right?

 

[calamity]

If that's true, that would be a good thing, IMO.

I am religious and think religion is very important for the individual and society, but it should never be "blind" faith, and religious convictions that are in contradiction with science are mere superstition.

But I am not sure if the original claim is actually true. Maybe it's true in case of old, thoroughly debunked myths. But we're using new myths all the time. Basically unproven believes most of us consider to be the truth, which are hardly ever questioned and which are appealed to in debate all the time.

Take the myth of nationalism. Politicians and other orators refer to patriotism all the time. And some slogans are never questioned. "America is the land of the free!", "People in America are wealthier than anywhere else!", "America does not commit war crimes!" and so on (in case of America; insert the country of choice). Well, some question such myths, but they are easily singled out or even branded "traitors".

Or political-ideological myths. There are plenty of them, no need to list them all. "Smaller government means more freedom!", "More social redistribution means more fairness!", "Republicans want smaller government", "Democrats want bigger government", "the MSM is left!", "the MSM is right!", yadda yadda. Are any of these myths proven? No, but quite a few politicians and journalists make a living of encouraging these myths and taking benefit from them.

If I understood Jürgen Habermas correctly, he said we need such "unquestionable truths" in our "Lebenswelt" ("living world") for our society to function, although it's normatively problematic too, of course, when some myths are never questioned.

The political myth I most scoff at is "We have the best healthcare in the world". I'm sure that this is true for millionaires, but for the average Joe, I'd take Germany's HC over ours any day.

 

[rhinefire]

Yet, at least 80% of Americans self-identify as religious to some degree, whereas outright atheism remains well below 10%.

Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This week the news came out with one of five does not believe and this is an increase from the 90's. Religion never made sense to me even as a smal child. I never once felt the presence of a God. The universe however it was created, is too grand for a judgemental god regardless of what faith one chooses. Making sense and having faith are direct opposites so there is no reason to turn a discussion in to an arguement.

 

[Harshaw]

It probably simply is a necessity. If you'd actually prove and verify every claim you ever heard, before you believe it, you'd probably be busy doing that your entire life and still hardly be able to actually master life. You'd fall into deep cognitive dissonance and probably never recover. For example, how many of us can actually prove ourselves that earth is not flat?

We simply need "unquestioned truths" to master life. But we should be aware that many of the things we believe are simply "working hypothesises", rather than unquestionable truths -- and we should be flexible enough to modify them, once we find they are proven wrong.

I agree with you.

 

[Harshaw]

Making sense and having faith are direct opposites

There are many, many times when it makes sense to have faith in something.

 

[nota bene]

It probably simply is a necessity. If you'd actually prove and verify every claim you ever heard, before you believe it, you'd probably be busy doing that your entire life and still hardly be able to actually master life. You'd fall into deep cognitive dissonance and probably never recover. For example, how many of us can actually prove ourselves that earth is not flat?

We simply need "unquestioned truths" to master life. But we should be aware that many of the things we believe are simply "working hypothesises", rather than unquestionable truths -- and we should be flexible enough to modify them, once we find they are proven wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean by mastering life. All of us die, and where is the mastery in that?

 

[German guy]

I'm not sure what you mean by mastering life. All of us die, and where is the mastery in that?

Probably I mean something along the lines of "getting stuff done".