The value of Faith

I would have to say that taking a paper or its authors or even a peer review group at its/their own word is definitely a kind of faith/belief/trust. At some point in all that you just have to 'take things on faith,' or call it a conceit of the genre if that sounds better to you. I mean, even taking what your own eyes and ears tell your brain that they sense is faith, i.e. we definitely know that what they tell us and what we believe them to say can be very, very wrong so why trust to any of it at all, even the parts we might could call 'reasonable?' Even evaluating a circumstance or consequence as repeatable and predictive is doing so in the absence of testing every single one of the infinite variables relating to it in the universe. At some point we just say, 'Well, it may not be perfect but it's good enough for now." It is issuing a promissory note that, given enough time and resources, we could indeed prove it at some undefined point in the future. That is a creed of the faithful if I ever heard one.

I'm confused. Are we talking about Blind Faith or Informed Faith? Trusting the automatic door will open is informed faith for me. Trusting the Flying Spaghetti Monster will stop that train before it hits me is blind faith.

Are there not more than one kind of faith? How can we make such broad claims either way without looking at the circumstances?

It seems circumstances are the only dividing line here between general opinions...

Gisteron wrote: That is lying. Stop.

Did I strike a nerve? Lol, sorry...

Lol, no its not lying...

You are wrong, lol, but that's OK...

Believe it or not (have faith or don't, ) I don't read every post, nor do I remember every thing I have read...

Not making excuses, lol, but, I do haveca little memory issues cause from a motorcycle accident in my youth... Now I say that, only to say that there is a chance I read stuff and don't retain it...

My wife tells me I do it all the time...

But if i don't remember, how do i know?

My wife's not a liar, but, how "do i know"?

I have to take it on faith she is telling the truth... Why would she lie? She wouldnt, right?

So, I am going to ask you, one more time, to please show me how it isn't faith, if you believe in something...

And I will put it in my signature so that i remember, until I remember it, and will NEVER say again that it isn't faith...

You haven't proven it to me yet...

As best as I can remember...

And, I ask anyone to correct me...

I have no vested interest to right, I'm wrong all of the time, and have no trouble saying so...

But it appears you both do, as all of your evidence has yet to prove it...

At least to my satisfaction, and I don't feel I'm being difficult, as my good friends here would have PMed me by now (or maybe they are waiting for me to really step in it, LOLOL....)

Ok, moving on...

Gisteron wrote:

Jestor wrote:

Khaos wrote: I have stated im not "certain" of anything, as I dont go off faith, I cant.

But we all do...

Even you...

No. No, we don't. I've explained the difference numerous times now myself and even read other people explain it to you and to others here, too. What we have isn't faith. It isn't faith in Rickie's sense or in yours, and it isn't faith of its own kind either. It isn't even remotely comparable to faith in any meaningful sense. You know the difference (unless you really ignored every time it was explained and just pretended you read any of it). You know that it isn't faith, and you know why it isn't. But you say it is anyway.

Citation please....

Khaos wrote:

But we all do...

Even you...

No, its really not, but apparently people arent going to listen to that.

I must have faith, absolutely must. Right?

:dry:

Except I dont.

I'm sorry, did I say "absolute"?

Or imply it?

If I did, I apologize right here and now....

Even you said in another post that while you didn't understand everything [about a subject on which my mind is blank], that eventually it would be explained...

The emotion conversation, I believe...

Thats having faith man, I hate to tell you...

If you trust the documents you see, and trust the words of others, and have not done the tests and work yourself to verify the claims, you too take things on faith...

Now, the faith you take things, provides proof that is good enough for you, and I think that that is great... For many of us, we canont dispute the science, and are not trying to... It is good enough for us too...

The fact that I need documents at all defies it being faith, and the fact that I am bit startled that you would take my word for it and honestly, you wouldnt even know if you could dispute the science, so the fact that its good enough for you shows a level of naivete I simply dont apply.

As I dont read one document from one person, or one study, and the studies change( even some I have posted) as the science becomes more progressive.

The fact that I have not done the tests and must then be taking it on faith is a fallacy.

You enjoy everyday conveniences of science you more than likely dont understand, didnt do the studies for, etc.

It isnt a matter of faith at all, as the evidence is plainly there.

John Constantine: Oh I believe for Christs sake.

Gabrielle: No,no, you know, and there is a difference, youve seen.

You know the science works because you use it.

Your belief is not required, but I see that we have now degenerated into the "definitions" of things and the entitlement of opinion(something I posted on) and that is always a retreat into the shelter of ones comfort zone, or "faith" so there is really nothing more to be gained in this conversation.

Did we switch topics?

I already said I accept that I cannot understand all the science (didn't I?) And that I'm comfortable with it...

Are we discussing the same idea of "faith"?

Perhaps not...

Please, tell me how you science two are defining it, and we can move on...

Unless you don't have "faith" in your source... :lol:...

I do want to discuss this... Please...

This has nothing to do with "entitlement of opinion", unless that's your opinion... lol...

To have a good conversation, lets start out on an equal footing...

Lets agree on a definition of "faith", then move back to here...

The fact that someone writes their finding on paper, and its reviewed does make it faith, or the fact that we all can feel the same "Force" and come tonthe same conclusions as jedi should convince you....

Because you can't repeat these results, for yourself (I'm putting Gisteron here too, lol), no matter how much we try to explain it, makes you feel it is doubtful...

But, you can't split a cell (can you? I know you are in the medical feild, lol), yet because, according to papers, and news and , people you can't even ask about thier results, say so, its infallible...

That's OK...

I'm not here to convince you...

I can't make a clone, a cellphone, an airplane... The proof is in my hand, ATM...

Can't make you understand what I'm telling you either, :lol:.... That proof is on the screen...

I also like how you, who asks questions to try to understand, has commented about "degeneration into definitions"...

Isnt that how you are trying to understand us?

You are trying to define what we think to better understand, no?

Khaos wrote: There is also the fact that while I am not doing every experiment, Science is not based in subjectivity.

Experiments must be repeatable, and not simply for oneself.

Part of the criteria.

So, had I the funding(at least for the stuff we discuss, I would need much more money and equipment than I have), and ability, if it is valid science, then I can do the experiment and repeat the result.

You have that much faith, huh?

If I had the funding, I could show you too....

If, if, if....

If I had wings, I could fly...

You had me, saving it has been stated by ALL parties that they have no issue with admitting they are wrong....

rugadd wrote: You had me, saving it has been stated by ALL parties that they have no issue with admitting they are wrong....

More often than not...ask my wife. :laugh:

Jestor wrote: Not making excuses, lol, but, I do haveca [sic] little memory issues cause from a motorcycle accident in my youth... Now I say that, only to say that there is a chance I read stuff and don't retain it...

My wife tells me I do it all the time...

But if i don't remember, how do i know?

My wife's not a liar, but, how "do i know"?

You don't. The problem of induction is not an actual problem in any practical sense.

I have to take it on faith she is telling the truth...

No, you don't have to. I'd even recommend you wouldn't.

Why would she lie? She wouldnt, right?

See, you are already starting to reason. You already don't need faith. Now that reasoning isn't quite enough just yet (or wouldn't be enough by the strictest of my standards anyway), but it is already more than nothing which would be the recquirement for faith.

So, I am going to ask you, one more time, to please show me how it isn't faith, if you believe in something...

What makes you think I "believe in" anything? Also, you are asking me to prove a negative. The burden is actually on you to show that I do ever engage in faith. However, I did make the positive claim that I do not, so technically I would have to answer your challenge. The problem is again however that in order to do it I would have to show how I don't employ faith in every preceding situation since I was a sceptic in this sense and for every hypothetical one. I don't have time for this. But feel free to provide any number of examples where you think I'd have to engage in faith and I will show you how I don't. In the mean time I shall remark that faith as a word can be a substitute for trust, belief and confidence, but the only meaning that is unique to it, the only meaning for which faith is a dedicated word is any of those things without reason or despite reason to the contrary. Since no belief I came to hold or kept holding after any amount of thinking through it are without reason, none of them qualify as being held on faith.
Some would argue that one can have both reasons and faith to believe something and that I haven't proven I don't have the latter even if I had the former. Well, it could be that the rainbow comes up thanks to the water and the light and also fairies, and I can't prove the latter is not a reason in addition to the former... so I shall shift the burden of proof back to where it belongs.

Even you said in another post that while you didn't understand everything [about a subject on which my mind is blank], that eventually it would be explained...
...
Thats having faith man, I hate to tell you...

No, it isn't. You seem to be implying that whenever anything is less than absolutely certain faith is the only means to believe it with any degree of confidence. That is not how faith is defined anywhere and frankly it wouldn't be much of a definition since it doesn't draw any lines.

The fact that someone writes their finding on paper, and its reviewed does make it faith, or the fact that we all can feel the same "Force" and come tonthe same conclusions as jedi should convince you....

Because you can't repeat these results, for yourself (I'm putting Gisteron here too, lol), no matter how much we try to explain it, makes you feel it is doubtful...

Wait a minute...

Khaos wrote: The fact that I have not done the tests and must then be taking it on faith is a fallacy.

Seeing is believing, but seeing isn't knowing. To be able to reproduce an experiment doesn't help "knowing" it is true. Conversely, to not be able to reproduce an experiment doesn't necessitate faith to trust its conclusions. We don't trust any one scientist. We trust that the prospect of fame and wealth is enough for any specialist who knows better to disprove any other and that such a system, such an open market of ideas is necessary and sufficient to ensure that only the best of ideas survive long enough to reach the laymen. We also know it works judging by the resulting technologies. Direct experience is neither necessary nor sufficient. And this is not the first time you brought this up either. You know the argument is invalid. But you present it anyway.

But, you can't split a cell (can you? I know you are in the medical feild, lol), yet because, according to papers, and news and , people you can't even ask about thier results, say so, its infallible...

This is also a response to the following lines where you keep insisting that we need to verify a result ourselves in order to be certain of it while that would neither grant certainty nor be required for certainty. We can ask and review those results. And more importantly, so can other experts in their respective fields who only so lust for an opportunity to thrust their claws into any wrong idea and tear it apart. That's how we (i.e. the laymen) know, that by the time we even come to read the results, they have already stood the test.

http://youtu.be/0iqU4klKvvA

Using faith seems to help working with into and with the subconscious mind's power, insofar as I'd say to not use faith is to deny working with those concepts.

Seems people believe having faith in doubting is not faith.....

Is this a discussion/ argument/ debate on the value of faith, or the denial of?

Do we have faith that our posts will be made? (To say the least about faith, right now)

Do I have faith my point will get across? Why make posts? Why attempt to communicate if there is no faith in the communication?

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1

Do I have faith that my post could be criticized, questioned, doubted and denied??

Yes Llama Su, love that Sagan quote!

Also I would say that doubt implies faith, just as light implies dark and all opposites imply each other. You can't have the one without the other.