Science discovers God

Gisteron - Do you accept personal experience as justification to believe something?

rugadd wrote: Gisteron - Do you accept personal experience as justification to believe something?

ooo...

Im on pins and needles at this moment...

(quick wink at Gisteron, lol)

Wescli Wardest wrote: "...but, as it stands there is no proof one way or the other and it is purely a matter of faith. You either believe there is something out there that we may one day may be able to explain (the Force), or you don’t."

The problem with this position is that it seems to say that ignorance = faith....

Faith is not ignorance, it is arriving at a position informed by data which is unacceptable to the Scientific method...

Whether or not we one day can explain it should be irrelevant to one's faith position.

I try to adhere to the philosophy of science in most aspects of my thought-processes, however, I acknowledge that my "faith" in the Force is not compatible with the scientific method.

I accept that it will not be justified by scientific data and I'm fine with that. I just don't feel the need to prove my "faith" scientifically....

The absence of evidence is just that, nothing. To argue from any position based on the strength of the "lack of evidence" is to build a sandcastle below the tide-line....

Each individual has to decide for hirself the shape of their faith. To me, one of the most important aspects of my faith is that it's mine, informed by my investigations of the world, which I do not seek to impose upon anyone else...

Not necessarily. Many people have faith via indoctrination, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. Like stockholm syndrome for an idea.

The problem with this position is that it seems to say that ignorance = faith....

I wouldn’t say so. And I would hope that is not what happens or what people interpret.

Whether or not we one day can explain it should be irrelevant to one's faith position.

I agree.

I try to adhere to the philosophy of science in most aspects of my thought-processes, however, I acknowledge that my "faith" in the Force is not compatible with the scientific method.

I would not say that it is opposition or conflict with science either. Just a few hundred years ago we had no idea what bacteria were. Yet they existed even though we couldn’t describe them, identify them or even know what to look for. That is the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. If I told any of you to go and fetch my “machine” none of you would be able to do it. You wouldn’t even know what to look for. But I know for a fact that it exists. I built it, you can see it’s effect (if you knew what to look for), I have pictures of it and I have used it successfully many times and plan to continue using it. But, but the logic that is continually thrown at me, several on this thread would suggest that me asking someone to go and fetch my machine would be wrong in some manner because you can’t find it or even prove it exists. But, I would tell you that you have to trust me and then I could show you how to find it.

Now, if one decided that they wanted to believe in “God”, the Force, whatever; I cannot tell you how to do that or where to find it. I can tell you how I did but that may have little effect for you.

rugadd wrote: Gisteron - Do you accept personal experience as justification to believe something?

Well, that's not what the video was arguing for or from...
To answer your question though: Technically, I shouldn't. However, for practical reasons, I recognize varying degrees of believability and justification. If you tell me that you now own a pet cat when a week ago you didn't, I might just take you by your word. It's an inconsequential claim and I know people come to own new pet cats every day. Notice that this inference is not based on my faith in your honesty, but rather on how believable the claim is absent further information. If I know you are allergic to feline hair, for example, I might want to see it before I'd be quite so convinced. If I know you as a person who has always hated cats in the past, I may wish to see some sort of certificate or at least know how this came to be. The more extraordinary the claim (feel free to ask what I mean by that, since I promised I'd try and keep things brief), the more critical I am of it, and if I do come to believe it eventually, I try and proport my confidence in it to the justification available to me.

Gisteron wrote:

rugadd wrote: Gisteron - Do you accept personal experience as justification to believe something?

Well, that's not what the video was arguing for or from...
To answer your question though: Technically, I shouldn't. However, for practical reasons, I recognize varying degrees of believability and justification. If you tell me that you now own a pet cat when a week ago you didn't, I might just take you by your word. It's an inconsequential claim and I know people come to own new pet cats every day. Notice that this inference is not based on my faith in your honesty, but rather on how believable the claim is absent further information. If I know you are allergic to feline hair, for example, I might want to see it before I'd be quite so convinced. If I know you as a person who has always hated cats in the past, I may wish to see some sort of certificate or at least know how this came to be. The more extraordinary the claim (feel free to ask what I mean by that, since I promised I'd try and keep things brief), the more critical I am of it, and if I do come to believe it eventually, I try and proport my confidence in it to the justification available to me.

A very good and pragmatic answer.

And by that, would the idea of there being something out there that is greater than us, something that binds us and the universe together and gives us the basis for a moral existence. Something that could crate from seemingly nothing. Not anything we have definition for now (other than the Force) and I am pretty sure that there is some kind of cosmic balance that this thing keeps or regulates back to center as much as possible. Would that be plausible or too spectacular to believe without question or proof?

Also, would you say that the soul is something you would believe exists?

[hr]

Nothing wrong with being pragmatic.

I would say to dismiss it out of hand would be personal incredulity in action, but likewise admitting one simply does not know would not be the same as admission of possibility. If anything it is merely an arguement for an individuals right to believe whatever they want....which we respect to some degree here already.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Just a few hundred years ago we had no idea what bacteria were. Yet they existed even though we couldn’t describe them, identify them or even know what to look for.

I don't think the debate here is about whether there are bacteria (or gods, for that matter) or not, but whether or not it is reasonable to believe in them. At a time when we had no idea that microorganisms were even possible, it would have been just as irrational to believe in them anyway. To say that just because our knowledge progresses, therefore every idea is equally plausible or believable is simply false. Everyone is happy to remember Democritus' atoms and how right he was that all matter consists of tiny particles, yet we forget that he also insisted that the atoms were blocks of the four alchemical elements and how completely wrong he was about that. The fact that we don't have reasons to believe a thing now doesn't make the belief reasonable; it makes it unreasonable. And this has nothing to do with whether the proposition in question is correct or not. Schroeder's argument is nonsensical even if his 'The Biblical God' exists, and is indeed the master of our universe.

Wescli Wardest wrote: And by that, would the idea of there being something out there that is greater than us, something that binds us and the universe together and gives us the basis for a moral existence.

i posted a video in the J. Peterson thread where he basically says that proper morality is not some puritanical authority demanding us to conform to its arbitrary preferences, but rather the recognition that there are ways of acting which have shown themselves to work best, generally speaking and with all things considered, over long periods of time

the idea is that we call them "moral truths" not because we stand up on a high chair and demand perfection from everyone else, but because we sit back and watch who does what and see who prospers as a result of what they do, and then seek to adopt the positions that lead to the best personal life experiences for ourselves and our loved ones

you might find that consistent with your view, or not, but i personally think it makes sense and is interesting

a link to the video, for those interested
Jordan Peterson Q&A: Disney Propaganda and Why Bashing Religion Doesn't Make You Smart