Something For The Dude : Limited Vs Complete Understanding

[duderonomy]

4 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

You seem to have it all figured out, at least according to you.

 

Gee sdelsolray, thank you for reinforcing my point.  

[bornagainathiest]

BAA,

 

I've answered your questions and I feel I've explained myself quite well. Well enough in fact that you've conceded to some of my points. Pardon me if I find your mental bafflement concerning an issue that you are making up out of thin air to be a bit silly.

Don't try to put some imagined blame on me because you don't like my answers. You started the thread for a reason, and maybe you haven't achieved your desired outcome? I don't know.

 

If you need clarification on anything just ask. Your assumption that I find communicating with you "unreasonable" or "objectionable" is obviously incorrect.

Now you've got me being an absolutist that is objecting to communicating my POV because I find it unreasonable for me to do so.  Really BAA? Really?  

After all of the times we've communicated here over the years, do you know how dumb that sounds and how insulting that is?

 

Concession of your points doesn't equal greater understanding of your position or your thinking, Dude.

 

You don't know the reason why I started this thread?  

That's odd.  In my OP I asked you for your thoughts.   In post # 18, in response to you saying that you weren't sure what the point of this thread was, I gave you another explanation and a fully transparent declaration of my intentions.  So, after this input from me, you still don't know the reason why I started this thread?  

 

My desired outcome?

Well, on the basis that you know I'm totally apolitical, that I've declared that I won't touch the subject of global warming and that I simply want to know your thinking about science, what other possible outcome could I desire - other than to know your thinking?  But if you believe my desired outcome is something else, then please say what you believe it is.

 

Yes.  Please clarify these two things for me, Dude.

Please explain, in the absence of any supernatural, spiritual, theological or religious thinking or belief on my part and in the context of my evidence-based confidence in the results science can provide, how the word faith can be applied to me.  Thank you.

 

You wrote...

We seem to have come to a draw at whether Earth is residing at the center of the universe. You want to argue a preponderance of evidence, but you have no evidence. You have confidence, and you want me to sign on to your confidence and thus to your point of view.  

 

Please explain why you're questioning the idea of confidence in evidence in this thread, when you've clearly demonstrated your confidence in evidence 4, 424 times in this forum?

That's the number of posts your membership info says you've made here.  Every time you've used the facilities of Ex-C you've been making a vote of confidence in the science that makes this forum run.  Science that relies on confidence in evidence.  Since we both use Ex-C in the same way, I contend that you have already signed up to my p.o.v. about confidence in evidence.  Therefore, I'm asking you to clarify and explain to me why you are questioning the role of confidence in scientific evidence - when you clearly have this confidence?  Thank you.

 

Finally, you're big enough and smart enough not to be at all injured or insulted by anything I've written in this thread, Dude.

Where there's been misunderstanding between us, I've made strenuous efforts to resolve it.  When I've taken what you've said the wrong way, I've freely and quickly apologized for doing so.  I've also been polite and courteous to you at every turn.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[LogicalFallacy]

8 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Well, on the basis that you know I'm totally apolitical, that I've declared that I won't touch the subject of global warming

 

Which is a real pity because having your input, for those of us actually interested in the science, would be great... and helpful.

 

I do note that my attempt at shifting the topic to the science forum met with only limited success - a few of us had a good conversation, but for all the activity the subject gets in ToT, it failed to materialise in a serious scientific forum. So much so, that within a few posts mods were threatening to move it and I had to say keep it scientific please. A real pity, because the subject is important today regardless of whether you think the science on the subject is right or wrong.

 

Now I have derailed your thread please continue - all very interesting reading this.

[duderonomy]

14 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Concession of your points doesn't equal greater understanding of your position or your thinking, Dude.

 

You don't know the reason why I started this thread?  

That's odd.  In my OP I asked you for your thoughts.   In post # 18, in response to you saying that you weren't sure what the point of this thread was, I gave you another explanation and a fully transparent declaration of my intentions.  So, after this input from me, you still don't know the reason why I started this thread?  

 

My desired outcome?

Well, on the basis that you know I'm totally apolitical, that I've declared that I won't touch the subject of global warming and that I simply want to know your thinking about science, what other possible outcome could I desire - other than to know your thinking?  But if you believe my desired outcome is something else, then please say what you believe it is.

 

Yes.  Please clarify these two things for me, Dude.

Please explain, in the absence of any supernatural, spiritual, theological or religious thinking or belief on my part and in the context of my evidence-based confidence in the results science can provide, how the word faith can be applied to me.  Thank you.

 

You wrote...

We seem to have come to a draw at whether Earth is residing at the center of the universe. You want to argue a preponderance of evidence, but you have no evidence. You have confidence, and you want me to sign on to your confidence and thus to your point of view.  

 

Please explain why you're questioning the idea of confidence in evidence in this thread, when you've clearly demonstrated your confidence in evidence 4, 424 times in this forum?

That's the number of posts your membership info says you've made here.  Every time you've used the facilities of Ex-C you've been making a vote of confidence in the science that makes this forum run.  Science that relies on confidence in evidence.  Since we both use Ex-C in the same way, I contend that you have already signed up to my p.o.v. about confidence in evidence.  Therefore, I'm asking you to clarify and explain to me why you are questioning the role of confidence in scientific evidence - when you clearly have this confidence?  Thank you.

 

Finally, you're big enough and smart enough not to be at all injured or insulted by anything I've written in this thread, Dude.

Where there's been misunderstanding between us, I've made strenuous efforts to resolve it.  When I've taken what you've said the wrong way, I've freely and quickly apologized for doing so.  I've also been polite and courteous to you at every turn.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

BAA, please. Remember when you said this?   

 

"I could just explain everything that I mean to the Dude, all in one go.

 

But sometimes things are better received if people work them out for themselves.

 

And there's always the possibility that I've messed up.

 

So this is a golden opportunity to have my ideas checked and tested."

 

Isn't that rich? You said that, BAA!  Yet you have no ulterior motives in this thread, and it's me that won't come clean with my thoughts and opinions? Ok, whatever.

 

Then you said, "...Yes.  Please clarify these two things for me, Dude.

Please explain, in the absence of any supernatural, spiritual, theological or religious thinking or belief on my part and in the context of my evidence-based confidence in the results science can provide, how the word faith can be applied to me.  Thank you."
 

Ok. You are the one that posted the verse from the book of Hebrews that equated 'faith' with 'confidence', and we covered that concerning the world made from "things not seen", and you had to admit that I was correct. So what is your point again?  That faith and confidence are different? 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

16 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

(snip)

 

Then you said, "...Yes.  Please clarify these two things for me, Dude.

Please explain, in the absence of any supernatural, spiritual, theological or religious thinking or belief on my part and in the context of my evidence-based confidence in the results science can provide, how the word faith can be applied to me.  Thank you."
 

Ok. You are the one that posted the verse from the book of Hebrews that equated 'faith' with 'confidence', and we covered that concerning the world made from "things not seen", and you had to admit that I was correct. So what is your point again?  That faith and confidence are different? 

 

 

Ok Dude,

 

You've raised two points and I will deal with them in reverse order.  First, here is what was said about the book of Hebrews.  

For emphasis, I've highlighted that I was talking about the difference between religion and science.

 

Posted March 16 · Report post

  On 3/16/2017 at 4:00 AM, duderonomy said:

  On 3/15/2017 at 4:29 PM, duderonomy said:

BAA,

 

You said:  "There's one other point lurking within my admission that also deserves mentioning.

If we still believe that Earth is at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith?  By going down the road of putting faith before evidence, we run the risk of following in the footsteps these bozos..."

 

My answer would be if we still believe that Earth is not at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith? 

 

Dude,

 

It's different (at least different from Christianity) in this way.  Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3 gives the quintessential Christian definition of faith.

 

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

Believers are called to accept things that have zero evidence to validate them.

They are even told that they should believe in what they cannot see, in what was not seen by any human eyes and in what cannot be tested or checked in any way.   Jesus himself agrees with this evidence-free philosophy of belief, when he speaks to Thomas (the evidence-seeking realist) in John 20 and the apostle John reinforces the point that Christians are blessed if they believe without seeing (evidence).

 

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

Do you see how this is categorically different from the evidence-based philosophy of science, Dude?

Christians proceed to believe with zero evidence.  Even though science cannot demonstrate anything to a confidence level of 100%, it can still demonstrate some things to a very high level of confidence.  And that is why, when it comes to Earth's place in the universe, we have some very good evidence to go on.  Therefore, when science says that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, that claim can be checked and tested and evaluated on the basis of the evidence.  While a purely religious belief about the Earth's location cannot.  See the difference?

 

An evidence-free article of religious faith can never be tested.

The evidence-rich claims of science can be.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Please note that it is the author of the book of Hebrews (and not me) who equates faith with confidence.

I do the exact opposite.  I illustrate the differences between religion and science in two ways.  Firstly, by highlighting how the first relies upon no evidence and the second relies on evidence.  Secondly, by highlighting how the claims of the first cannot be tested (if claims are accepted by faith, then there is no evidence to test) but the claims of the second can be.  Therefore, in that particular post I only dealt with the differences between science and religion and did not equate them.

 

Despite the fact that both science and religion deal with "things not seen" they do so in totally different ways.

The intent and content of my post concerned itself with difference - not similarity and not equality.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, please. Remember when you said this?   

"I could just explain everything that I mean to the Dude, all in one go.

But sometimes things are better received if people work them out for themselves.

And there's always the possibility that I've messed up.

So this is a golden opportunity to have my ideas checked and tested."

Isn't that rich? You said that, BAA!  Yet you have no ulterior motives in this thread, and it's me that won't come clean with my thoughts and opinions? Ok, whatever.

 

Dude,

 

Here and now I give you my sincere and categorical assurance that the only reason I started this thread was to discover more about your thinking.  That has been my consistent line throughout and remains so.  You have discovered more about my thinking by posing me questions and getting me to apply my critical thinking skills to points and issues you've raised.  Therefore, it's my hope that you will honor this...

 

If you need clarification on anything just ask. 

 

...and clarify (by explaining) these two things.

 

Please explain, in the absence of any supernatural, spiritual, theological or religious thinking or belief on my part and in the context of my evidence-based confidence in the results science can provide, how the word faith can be applied to me.  Thank you.

 

Please explain why you're questioning the idea of confidence in evidence in this thread, when you've clearly demonstrated your confidence in evidence 4, 424 times in this forum?

That's the number of posts your membership info says you've made here.  Every time you've used the facilities of Ex-C you've been making a vote of confidence in the science that makes this forum run.  Science that relies on confidence in evidence.  Since we both use Ex-C in the same way, I contend that you have already signed up to my p.o.v. about confidence in evidence.  Therefore, I'm asking you to clarify and explain to me why you are questioning the role of confidence in scientific evidence - when you clearly have this confidence?  Thank you.

 

With thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

On 3/28/2017 at 3:21 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Ok Dude,

 

You've raised two points and I will deal with them in reverse order.  First, here is what was said about the book of Hebrews.  

For emphasis, I've highlighted that I was talking about the difference between religion and science.

 

Posted March 16 · Report post

  On 3/16/2017 at 4:00 AM, duderonomy said:

  On 3/15/2017 at 4:29 PM, duderonomy said:

BAA,

 

You said:  "There's one other point lurking within my admission that also deserves mentioning.

If we still believe that Earth is at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith?  By going down the road of putting faith before evidence, we run the risk of following in the footsteps these bozos..."

 

My answer would be if we still believe that Earth is not at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith? 

 

Dude,

 

It's different (at least different from Christianity) in this way.  Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3 gives the quintessential Christian definition of faith.

 

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

Believers are called to accept things that have zero evidence to validate them.

They are even told that they should believe in what they cannot see, in what was not seen by any human eyes and in what cannot be tested or checked in any way.   Jesus himself agrees with this evidence-free philosophy of belief, when he speaks to Thomas (the evidence-seeking realist) in John 20 and the apostle John reinforces the point that Christians are blessed if they believe without seeing (evidence).

 

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

Do you see how this is categorically different from the evidence-based philosophy of science, Dude?

Christians proceed to believe with zero evidence.  Even though science cannot demonstrate anything to a confidence level of 100%, it can still demonstrate some things to a very high level of confidence.  And that is why, when it comes to Earth's place in the universe, we have some very good evidence to go on.  Therefore, when science says that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, that claim can be checked and tested and evaluated on the basis of the evidence.  While a purely religious belief about the Earth's location cannot.  See the difference?

 

An evidence-free article of religious faith can never be tested.

The evidence-rich claims of science can be.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Please note that it is the author of the book of Hebrews (and not me) who equates faith with confidence.

I do the exact opposite.  I illustrate the differences between religion and science in two ways.  Firstly, by highlighting how the first relies upon no evidence and the second relies on evidence.  Secondly, by highlighting how the claims of the first cannot be tested (if claims are accepted by faith, then there is no evidence to test) but the claims of the second can be.  Therefore, in that particular post I only dealt with the differences between science and religion and did not equate them.

 

Despite the fact that both science and religion deal with "things not seen" they do so in totally different ways.

The intent and content of my post concerned itself with difference - not similarity and not equality.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

So then, are 'faith' and 'confidence' different? I mean non-religious faith.  I thought we had settled this point.

 

You seem to have an aversion to the word faith because of the Christian religion. For example, I have faith that my car will start tomorrow when I turn the key.  Should I not have that faith? I might be disappointed if my car doesn't start, just as you would be disappointed to find that Earth really is standing still at the center of the universe. We both have "faith", or "confidence" in what we believe, yet neither of us can say for sure.

 

So we've covered this, but what the hell... 

Suppose that your entire view of the universe is incorrect, and that tomorrow brings new discoveries that obliterate your current worldview.  You were so sure that you were correct in your belief/faith/confidence, but now there is new evidence. Of course, you would move on and follow the new evidence and discard the old, right?

Would you be moving towards what the new evidence told you or would you be moving along according to your faith in evidence? 

[duderonomy]

On 3/28/2017 at 3:38 PM, bornagainathiest said:

BAA, please. Remember when you said this?   

"I could just explain everything that I mean to the Dude, all in one go.

But sometimes things are better received if people work them out for themselves.

And there's always the possibility that I've messed up.

So this is a golden opportunity to have my ideas checked and tested."

Isn't that rich? You said that, BAA!  Yet you have no ulterior motives in this thread, and it's me that won't come clean with my thoughts and opinions? Ok, whatever.

 

Dude,

 

Here and now I give you my sincere and categorical assurance that the only reason I started this thread was to discover more about your thinking.  That has been my consistent line throughout and remains so.  You have discovered more about my thinking by posing me questions and getting me to apply my critical thinking skills to points and issues you've raised.  Therefore, it's my hope that you will honor this...

 

BAA, 

 

Because I believe you, I admit that I must have been wrong in assuming your intention when you said "But sometimes things are better received if people work them out for themselves."

 

I assumed that you were saying that of course your view was correct and I have to work it out for myself. Now I see that you were saying that we must both work this out for ourselves. Am I wrong?

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

So then, are 'faith' and 'confidence' different? I mean non-religious faith.  I thought we had settled this point.

 

You seem to have an aversion to the word faith because of the Christian religion. For example, I have faith that my car will start tomorrow when I turn the key.  Should I not have that faith? I might be disappointed if my car doesn't start, just as you would be disappointed to find that Earth really is standing still at the center of the universe. We both have "faith", or "confidence" in what we believe, yet neither of us can say for sure.

 

So we've covered this, but what the hell... 

Suppose that your entire view of the universe is incorrect, and that tomorrow brings new discoveries that obliterate your current worldview.  You were so sure that you were correct in your belief/faith/confidence, but now there is new evidence. Of course, you would move on and follow the new evidence and discard the old, right?

Would you be moving towards what the new evidence told you or would you be moving along according to your faith in evidence? 

 

Yes, it could just be a personal thing, Dude.

I don't like using the word faith in any non-religious context.  Especially in Ex-C, where it carries too much baggage and can too easily confuse matters.  Perhaps I don't need to be this way, but I do find that a sharp line of division between religion and non-religion works for me.

 

Yes, none of us can say for sure (100% certainty) that's accepted.

But, on the flip side, I'd wager that neither of us worries much about being uncertain, either.  We seem to live our lives quite normally, accepting that absolute certainty is always out of our reach.  That was my point about the number of times (6,491 for me, 4,429 for you) we've posted in Ex-C and had unthinking confidence/faith in the science that makes this run.  Call it confidence, call it faith or call it belief -  whatever we call it we still use it all the time.

 

My entire view of the universe probably.. IS ...incorrect, Dude.

 

How can it be otherwise, if I maintain that science doesn't prove anything and doesn't give 100% certainty about anything?

You seem to be thinking that my certainty (or confidence/faith) in science is absolute.  But that can't possibly be.  Please look back through this thread and you'll see that my position is that science is our best shot at understanding reality, compared to any other method of doing so.  In the same way, I can't tell you with 100% confidence that my car won't start, but that won't stop me having a less-than-absolute confidence/faith, that it will.  As I said above, you and I and most people just live with that uncertainty and don't worry about it.  

 

Would I discard the old evidence in favor of the new?

No.  What I'd do is accept the new evidence and the new explanation (theory) of the old evidence.  The old evidence would have to reinterpreted in favor of the new theory.  This is what happens in science.  Since science is a way of understanding reality, it's our understanding that is obliged to change.  Ok, this is a subtle point that is very prone to being misunderstood, but that's what the deal is.   I can explain further if you'd like.

 

Would I be moving towards what the new evidence told me or would I be moving along according to your faith in evidence? 

The second, Dude.  When new evidence demands a new theory and this new theory has greater explanatory power than the old, then it's necessary to discard the old theory in favor of the new.  Once again, please note the subtle difference.  Old evidence isn't discarded - it's reinterpreted.  Old evidence is reinterpreted in terms of the new theory.  

 

If it's any help, my confidence/faith isn't just in the current body of well-tested evidence, but also in the self-testing and self-correcting nature of science itself.

By not claiming to be absolute knowledge and absolute certainty there's always room within science for it to test itself, to correct itself and to improve itself.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[bornagainathiest]

13 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

BAA, 

 

Because I believe you, I admit that I must have been wrong in assuming your intention when you said "But sometimes things are better received if people work them out for themselves."

 

I assumed that you were saying that of course your view was correct and I have to work it out for myself. Now I see that you were saying that we must both work this out for ourselves. Am I wrong?

 

 

 

That's about the size of it, Dude.

Following on from what I just posted, since I maintain that science doesn't prove anything and can't give 100% certainty about anything, I therefore couldn't have been saying that my view was or is correct.  That was a major feature of the square/circle/triangle diagram.  Three points of view were shown and each of them showed something that was true, but none of them showed everything that was the whole truth.  See how that corresponds to my position?  Science shows us something of the truth of reality, but not 100% of it and not with 100% certainty.  Accepting that we don't have that absolute certainty, we go with what we do have.  So there never was anything absolute or correct about my position or the diagram itself.

 

It was my hope that you'd work that correspondence out for yourself.

From what we've discussed in this thread however, the issues of absolute certainty and correctness had to chewed over first.  No matter.  There's value in working things out together.  I hope that you are coming to a clear realization that I don't hold to absolute certainty and correctness, when it comes to what science is and what it does.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[duderonomy]

On 4/2/2017 at 0:20 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

That's about the size of it, Dude.

Following on from what I just posted, since I maintain that science doesn't prove anything and can't give 100% certainty about anything, I therefore couldn't have been saying that my view was or is correct.  That was a major feature of the square/circle/triangle diagram.  Three points of view were shown and each of them showed something that was true, but none of them showed everything that was the whole truth.  See how that corresponds to my position?  Science shows us something of the truth of reality, but not 100% of it and not with 100% certainty.  Accepting that we don't have that absolute certainty, we go with what we do have.  So there never was anything absolute or correct about my position or the diagram itself.

 

It was my hope that you'd work that correspondence out for yourself.

From what we've discussed in this thread however, the issues of absolute certainty and correctness had to chewed over first.  No matter.  There's value in working things out together.  I hope that you are coming to a clear realization that I don't hold to absolute certainty and correctness, when it comes to what science is and what it does.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

BAA, 

 

You know I've spoken several times on this forum about how medical science has saved my life many times over the years. I understand what you are saying about science being our best shot at understanding how the world/universe works, and I don't disagree with that at all. 

Certainly, we have both erred when discussing religion (generic) vs. the Christian religion in this thread, as well as "God" versus "some deity somewhere" that was never defined for the purpose of our discussion. Stupid us, right?

 

So where does this discussion go from here?  We agree that neither of us can be 100% certain of our own positions, and we argue over the semantics of the words "faith" and "confidence" and so on. I understand your point about the baggage that the word faith might carry here at Ex-C, but the word is the word and it means what it means despite the baggage you think it carries. 

 

Are you and I posturing? I think in some ways have been in this thread. After a while, words mean what they mean and ideas are ideas and beliefs are beliefs, and reducing everything to it's proverbial sub-atomic level of meaning is counterproductive, IMHO.

 

So where do we go from here?  My position is that we don't know everything. I'm an agnostic because I just don't have enough knowledge/evidence/experience to say that their isn't a deity. I'm an atheist because I don't currently have a particular belief in a god or a God.

 

You said, 

"Accepting that we don't have that absolute certainty, we go with what we do have.  So there never was anything absolute or correct about my position or the diagram itself."

 

At the risk of pissing you off BAA,  I have to tell you that what you said isn't really different than what Ironhorse says.;  No absolute certainty, goes with what he has, nothing absolute about or correct about his position, or Scripture itself. Yet he believes it.

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

3 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

BAA, 

 

(snip)

 

You said, 

"Accepting that we don't have that absolute certainty, we go with what we do have.  So there never was anything absolute or correct about my position or the diagram itself."

 

At the risk of pissing you off BAA,  I have to tell you that what you said isn't really different than what Ironhorse says.;  No absolute certainty, goes with what he has, nothing absolute about or correct about his position, or Scripture itself. Yet he believes it.

 

 

Dude,

 

I'm not pissed at you, ok?

Yes, my position and Ironhorse's are similar, but only in the very broadest and most general sense.  In that we are two people who can never know anything with absolute certainty.  

As far as I can see, this seems to be your entire argument.  That because people are people, when it comes to understanding reality, whatever they think is the same.

 

Assuming this is your argument, you're happy to leave it there and lump Ironhorse and me together, as two people who think in the same way?

Even after everything I've tried to explain in this thread, because he and I are human, there's no difference in what we think?

That, because nothing can be known with certainty by either of us, our thinking is just the same? 

 

Really?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

BAA, 

 

You know I've spoken several times on this forum about how medical science has saved my life many times over the years. I understand what you are saying about science being our best shot at understanding how the world/universe works, and I don't disagree with that at all. 

Certainly, we have both erred when discussing religion (generic) vs. the Christian religion in this thread, as well as "God" versus "some deity somewhere" that was never defined for the purpose of our discussion. Stupid us, right?

 

So where does this discussion go from here?  We agree that neither of us can be 100% certain of our own positions, and we argue over the semantics of the words "faith" and "confidence" and so on. I understand your point about the baggage that the word faith might carry here at Ex-C, but the word is the word and it means what it means despite the baggage you think it carries. 

 

Are you and I posturing? I think in some ways have been in this thread. After a while, words mean what they mean and ideas are ideas and beliefs are beliefs, and reducing everything to it's proverbial sub-atomic level of meaning is counterproductive, IMHO.

 

So where do we go from here?  My position is that we don't know everything. I'm an agnostic because I just don't have enough knowledge/evidence/experience to say that their isn't a deity. I'm an atheist because I don't currently have a particular belief in a god or a God.

 

You said, 

"Accepting that we don't have that absolute certainty, we go with what we do have.  So there never was anything absolute or correct about my position or the diagram itself."

 

At the risk of pissing you off BAA,  I have to tell you that what you said isn't really different than what Ironhorse says.;  No absolute certainty, goes with what he has, nothing absolute about or correct about his position, or Scripture itself. Yet he believes it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is where labeling can bring clarity to a given situation, as I was arguing in the Lion's Den. 

 

Ironhorse is promoting agnostic theism - he doesn't know for sure about the existence of god(s), but he believes any ways despite his lack of certainty. 

 

Dude, myself and presumably BAA are promoting agnostic atheism - we don't know for sure about the existence of god(s), and we don't believe in their existence without first substantiating the claim. 

 

Counter to these would be gnostic theism - the claim that you do know gods exist and do believe. And gnostic atheism - the claim that you do know that gods don't exist so you don't believe in their existence. 

 

Simply put, the difference between Ironhorse and BAA is the difference between agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. And the differences are obvious once framed in the context of the appropriate labeling. 

[bornagainathiest]

Good point Josh.

 

But as far as I understand it, I think the Dude goes further and deeper than that.  

When comparing Ironhorse and me he's not just addressing our belief in God's existence or non-existence.  He's seems to be saying that because nobody can be totally certain about reality, all belief systems arrive at the same result.  Uncertainty.  Therefore, no belief system is any better at describing reality than any other.

 

Absolute certainty seems to be the one and only criterion he's using in his argument.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Good point Josh.

 

But as far as I understand it, I think the Dude goes further and deeper than that.  

When comparing Ironhorse and me he's not just addressing our belief in God's existence or non-existence.  He's seems to be saying that because nobody can be totally certain about reality, all belief systems arrive at the same result.  Uncertainty.  Therefore, no belief system is any better at describing reality than any other.

 

Absolute certainty seems to be the one and only criterion he's using in his argument.

 

 

 

It seems as though we could make a list, one for science and one for religion. Then we could list everything relevant about reality starting with origins and moving down the line. Then we could check off which of the two better describes reality in terms of a point by point analysis. I suspect that science would come out better at describing reality than religion. Uncertainty doesn't seem to level the playing field because just off hand it seems that there's way more uncertainty involved in religion than in science. 

 

Likewise I wouldn't put agnostic theism and agnostic atheism on level ground either. One doesn't know but makes a positive assertion. The other doesn't know and so logically doesn't make a positive assertion. The latter seems the preferred position. Positive assertions carry burden of proof requirements. Negative responses do not. This boils down to the question of which is a more logical way of dealing with inherent uncertainty, which is also what the issue of religion verses science boils down to. 

[bornagainathiest]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

It seems as though we could make a list, one for science and one for religion. Then we could list everything relevant about reality starting with origins and moving down the line. Then we could check off which of the two better describes reality in terms of a point by point analysis. I suspect that science would come out better at describing reality than religion. Uncertainty doesn't seem to level the playing field because just off hand it seems that there's way more uncertainty involved in religion than in science. 

 

Likewise I wouldn't put agnostic theism and agnostic atheism on level ground either. One doesn't know but makes a positive assertion. The other doesn't know and so logically doesn't make a positive assertion. The latter seems the preferred position. Positive assertions carry burden of proof requirements. Negative responses do not. This boils down to the question of which is a more logical way of dealing with inherent uncertainty, which is also what the issue of religion verses science boils down to. 

 

I've highlighted certain words from your last post, Josh.

 

If 'we' means you and I, then I'm happy to do the three things you listed.  But are including the Dude in 'we'?  If I read him right, he won't do any of them.  Despite stating his support for science, he hasn't shown any willingness to move beyond the one criterion of his argument.  All roads lead to uncertainty.  Therefore all roads are the same.  Why list or check anything when the outcome (uncertainty) is always the same?

 

If you can get him to move beyond his one one-criterion argument, please try.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

Yeah, the three of us. 

 

It would be compelling to look right at a list and see the imbalance between religion and science describing reality. And it seems an important part of analyzing the strong uncertainty claim. I say strong because claiming that all roads lead to uncertainty, therefore all roads are the same, only makes sense according to the question of ultimate's. In that one case, yes, they are on equal footing. But down the line, not so much. 

 

So the question is whether the one instance of equal footing is sufficient to then conclude that both religion and science are the same, as in all roads are the same?

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

On 4/12/2017 at 3:32 AM, bornagainathiest said:

 

 

Assuming this is your argument, you're happy to leave it there and lump Ironhorse and me together, as two people who think in the same way?

Even after everything I've tried to explain in this thread, because he and I are human, there's no difference in what we think?

That, because nothing can be known with certainty by either of us, our thinking is just the same? 

 

Really?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That isn't my argument, BAA.  Add that fact to your post # 121, and I have to say it still looks like you are assuming you know what I think.  

Tell me again, what is my one criteria argument?

 

Also, although I have found time to check in on the forums and have some fun and goof off a bit, I haven't had a lot of time lately to address more serious stuff like our discussion here and so many others. I hope you understand. 

[bornagainathiest]

22 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

That isn't my argument, BAA.  Add that fact to your post # 121, and I have to say it still looks like you are assuming you know what I think.  

Tell me again, what is my one criteria argument?

 

Also, although I have found time to check in on the forums and have some fun and goof off a bit, I haven't had a lot of time lately to address more serious stuff like our discussion here and so many others. I hope you understand. 

 

Of course I understand, Dude.

LogicalFallacy, JoshP and I have another thread on hold, which we'll come back to when the time is right for all three of us.  There's definitely no time pressure and definitely no peer pressure. Ok?

.

.

.

Now, to my (mis)understanding of your argument.

If you look at posts # 117 thru # 122 you'll see Josh and I discussing and then misunderstanding your argument.  It seems that we both misunderstood your argument.  I thought it hinged on only one criterion and Josh seemed to be in agreement with that.  Mea culpa!  If that's not the case, then I totally and unequivocally hold my hand up to that fault and failure.  Since the issue (as far as I comprehend it) hinges on the difference/similarity between my thinking and Ironhorse's, I can only see one significant similarity between us.  That we are both human and therefore we cannot know anything with 100% certainty.  As far as I'm aware, our thinking differs in almost every other way.  

 

Ok, you've now told us that this is not the case.

My friend, please do Josh and I the service of going beyond saying, "That's not my position or argument".  Please don't let us flounder any longer or make blind stabs in the dark as we try to fathom out just what your position is.  Please be proactive about this and not just reactive.  Please tell us what your position/argument is.  Please explain.  

 

Earlier in this thread you asked me to... "Just spit it out' ...and I did so.  

I didn't ask you any new questions, I didn't ask for definitions of anything and I didn't raise new points.  So, it's my hope that your response to this message won't involve any new questions, won't require looking at any definitions and won't raise any new points for us to cover.  I sincerely hope that your response will be a clear and concise explanation of what your argument and your position is.

 

In hope,

 

BAA. 

 

 

[duderonomy]

BAA,

 

My simplest response and the simplest explanation of my point is this...

 

Science is cool, and medical science (or was it "God's" will?) has saved my life quite a few times, yet science can't show that Earth is not standing still at the center of the entire universe. 

 

Science says that the universe is expanding, but it doesn't even know where the edges of the universe are, and if it did, it can't tell me what the universe is expanding into.

 

So then, science has limitations, and should not be looked upon as a substitute for "God".  Likewise, "God" should not be used as a substitute for science. 

 

People that believe that science will one day make everything known are no different than the people that believe that someday "God" will one day make everything known.

 

Both sides need to bring proof, and neither side can.

[bornagainathiest]

Catch is Dude, you don't live your life by trusting in proof - you live your by trusting in evidence.

So, in this thread you are asking for something other than the standard you live by.  Pick something.  Anything at all.  Whatever you choose, you cannot prove it to me.  Instead, you will be asking me to trust the evidence for it.

 

Neither side can bring proof because nobody can bring proof.

So, you are applying a false equivalence to science and religion.  Science proceeds by evidence and religion proceeds by faith.  You equate religion with science on the grounds of proof, when neither of them employs proof.   It's time to ditch this fallacious argument Dude.  

.

.

.

Now let me answer some of the points you've raised.

 

BAA,

 

My simplest response and the simplest explanation of my point is this...

 

Science is cool, and medical science (or was it "God's" will?) has saved my life quite a few times, yet science can't show that Earth is not standing still at the center of the entire universe. 

 

Science cannot prove this, but since nobody can, why are you still asking for proof?  Isn't the evidence good enough for you?

 

Science says that the universe is expanding, but it doesn't even know where the edges of the universe are, and if it did, it can't tell me what the universe is expanding into.

 

Science can offer evidence to answer these questions.  But not proof.  Will you accept the evidence?

 

So then, science has limitations, and should not be looked upon as a substitute for "God".  Likewise, "God" should not be used as a substitute for science. 

 

I've never substituted science for religion, Dude.  You're making a point about someone else, not me.

 

People that believe that science will one day make everything known are no different than the people that believe that someday "God" will one day make everything known.

 

Not me again.  I don't believe that someday science will make everything known.  I simply believe it's the best shot we've got at discovering what we can.  

 

Both sides need to bring proof, and neither side can.

 

Neither side can bring proof, so why not go with the side that can bring the best evidence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Dude,

 

It's becoming clear to me that your position is based upon at least two misunderstandings.

First, that science proves things and second, that I hold the belief that science will answer everything.  Please let me put you straight about the second and then offer you some evidence about the first.  I do not hold the belief that science will ultimately answer every question there is.  That is not what I believe about science.  From this time forward please do not ascribe that belief to me.  Thank you.

 

My evidence that science doesn't prove things comes from the first page of hits, when I put this question into Google, "Does science prove things?"  Please read, digest, understand and embrace the evidence that science doesn't prove things.  If, after this point, you still claim or assert that science proves things, then I'll have to conclude that you don't accept this evidence.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof

 

Lastly, if you do accept this evidence, can you see what this does to your argument?

You say that both science and religion should bring proof.  But proof is not within science's remit.  Therefore, you ask for that which cannot be given and when it isn't given, you take that failure to deliver as a sign of failure on science's part.  This is false.  Science can only fail on what it says it can deliver - not on what it cannot.  Your argument is therefore fallacious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

On 4/30/2017 at 0:14 PM, bornagainathiest said:

Catch is Dude, you don't live your life by trusting in proof - you live your by trusting in evidence.

So, in this thread you are asking for something other than the standard you live by.  Pick something.  Anything at all.  Whatever you choose, you cannot prove it to me.  Instead, you will be asking me to trust the evidence for it.

 

Neither side can bring proof because nobody can bring proof.

So, you are applying a false equivalence to science and religion.  Science proceeds by evidence and religion proceeds by faith.  You equate religion with science on the grounds of proof, when neither of them employs proof.   It's time to ditch this fallacious argument Dude.  

.

.

.

Now let me answer some of the points you've raised.

 

BAA,

 

My simplest response and the simplest explanation of my point is this...

 

Science is cool, and medical science (or was it "God's" will?) has saved my life quite a few times, yet science can't show that Earth is not standing still at the center of the entire universe. 

 

Science cannot prove this, but since nobody can, why are you still asking for proof?  Isn't the evidence good enough for you?

 

Science says that the universe is expanding, but it doesn't even know where the edges of the universe are, and if it did, it can't tell me what the universe is expanding into.

 

Science can offer evidence to answer these questions.  But not proof.  Will you accept the evidence?

 

So then, science has limitations, and should not be looked upon as a substitute for "God".  Likewise, "God" should not be used as a substitute for science. 

 

I've never substituted science for religion, Dude.  You're making a point about someone else, not me.

 

People that believe that science will one day make everything known are no different than the people that believe that someday "God" will one day make everything known.

 

Not me again.  I don't believe that someday science will make everything known.  I simply believe it's the best shot we've got at discovering what we can.  

 

Both sides need to bring proof, and neither side can.

 

Neither side can bring proof, so why not go with the side that can bring the best evidence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BAA,

 

I was explaining my point as you asked me to do. Not everything I said relates to you personally and what you believe, but it all related to the point I was making.  

 

I never said you substituted religion for science, BAA, and I also said "people that believe..." are no different than "people that believe..." 

 

Please don't take this discussion as a me vs. you discussion BAA.  I understand that we are throwing idea at each other, but they are just ideas, not mud. I'm sorry if you think that I am putting words in your mouth, but you have to understand that perhaps (perhaps my ass!) you are doing the same to me. 

 

Oh, and now that you mention it, maybe you can tell me what the difference is between evidence and proof?  In your second response (post # 128) you say:

 

"You say that both science and religion should bring proof.  But proof is not within science's remit.  Therefore, you ask for that which cannot be given and when it isn't given, you take that failure to deliver as a sign of failure on science's part.  This is false.  Science can only fail on what it says it can deliver - not on what it cannot.  Your argument is therefore fallacious."

 

BAA, that paragraph of yours alone explains and exonerates the Christian faith, let alone a belief in a generic "God", don't you think?  

[LogicalFallacy]

50 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

"You say that both science and religion should bring proof.  But proof is not within science's remit.  Therefore, you ask for that which cannot be given and when it isn't given, you take that failure to deliver as a sign of failure on science's part.  This is false.  Science can only fail on what it says it can deliver - not on what it cannot.  Your argument is therefore fallacious."

 

BAA, that paragraph of yours alone explains and exonerates the Christian faith, let alone a belief in a generic "God", don't you think?  

 

It occurs to me that perhaps agreed upon definitions of what each term means collectively would help understanding?

 

For example I could think that proof means 2+2=4. And if you can't 'prove' something to me I won't believe it. This would create massive problems because not everything can be proven in an absolute mathematical sense.

 

So far I've found Aron Ra's definitions helpful. Here are a bunch that are relevant to this discussion: Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvocates/2012/09/15/offerings-to-the-atheist-dictionary/

 

Science: An objective method of measurably or verifiably improving our understanding of physical nature in practical application or mathematics, through observation and experimentation with falsifiable hypotheses explaining a body of facts in a theoretical framework, to be subjected to a perpetual battery of critical analysis in peer review.

• Fact: A point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable.

• Evidence: Factual circumstances which are accounted for, or supported by, only one available explanation over any other.

• Hypothesis: A potentially-falsifiable explanation one which includes predictions as to what different test results should imply about it.

• Law [of nature]: A general statement in science which is always true under a given set of circumstances. Example: That “matter attracts matter” is a law of gravity.

• Theory: (1) A body of knowledge including all known facts, hypotheses, and natural laws relevant to a particular field of study.  A proposed explanation of a set of related facts or a given phenomenon. Example: *How* “matter attracts matter” is the theory of gravity.

• Proof: [legal sense, common vernacular] Something shown to be at least mostly true according to a preponderance of evidence.  [scientific sense] Inapplicable except in the negative: It is only possible to dis-prove a hypothesis or theory. It isn’t possible to prove them positively.

 

Note Aron's definition of proof - I think this lines up with BAA's thoughts on proof

 

 

I don't think BAA's statement exonerates Christian faith. If we change the opening line to "Religion and Science should both bring evidence such that it meets the common definition of proof" then we can see that Christianity fails in this. (And at times science does too?)

 

I will think more on this. You both have my brain cogs spinning widely on the implications of it all!

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

BAA,

 

I was explaining my point as you asked me to do. Not everything I said relates to you personally and what you believe, but it all related to the point I was making.  

I never said you substituted religion for science, BAA, and I also said "people that believe..." are no different than "people that believe..." 

Please don't take this discussion as a me vs. you discussion BAA.  I understand that we are throwing idea at each other, but they are just ideas, not mud. I'm sorry if you think that I am putting words in your mouth, but you have to understand that perhaps (perhaps my ass!) you are doing the same to me. 

 

Ok Dude,

We're cool.  No (intentional) mud and words in each others mouths. But please understand that I can't really answer for or be held responsible what others think about science and how they think it works.  I can only answer for myself and my understanding of it.  Ok?

 

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Oh, and now that you mention it, maybe you can tell me what the difference is between evidence and proof?  In your second response (post # 128) you say:

 

Imho, this (from my first cited link) answers your question better than I can, Dude.

 

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science:  They are final, and they are binary.  Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof).  Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.  Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.  No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.  That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

 

Does this help?

I hope so.  For the longest time I muddled evidence with proof and didn't 'get' the important differences between the two.  But if you recall, for years in Ex-C, when debating with Ironhorse and End3, I've been careful to explain to them that science doesn't prove things - it only offers the best explanation, according to the available evidence.  

 

Here's an example of the best available evidence failing and being replaced from the history of astronomical science.

Before Einstein formulated his theory of General Relativity in 1916, scientists used Isaac Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation, because that was the best one they had.  But Newton's theory was incomplete and couldn't account properly for one aspect of the planet Mercury's movement around the Sun.  To account for this anomaly astronomers proposed that Mercury was being subtly deflected from it's Newtonian orbit by an undiscovered planet.  But as hard as they searched no new planet turned up.  So the mystery and the anomaly remained.  

 

Before 1916 science had failed to fully account for the deviation in Mercury's orbit.

If you look back at the cited text above, it says that a proof is final.  Therefore, prior to 1916, had astronomical science proved how mercury orbits the Sun?  The answer is, of course, No.  Has it done so after 1916, using Einstein's work?  Again, No.  Einstein's calculations are very, very, good indeed - but they are still not a proof.  We know this because General Relativity (GR) cannot currently be reconciled with Quantum Mechanics (QM).  So, it's expected that just as Newton was replaced by Einstein (as the best current explanation) so Einstein will one day be replaced by a better theory that successfully unites GR and QM.  

 

Does this example help explain how science is always evolving and never final?  Unlike a proof, which MUST BE final.

 

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

"You say that both science and religion should bring proof.  But proof is not within science's remit.  Therefore, you ask for that which cannot be given and when it isn't given, you take that failure to deliver as a sign of failure on science's part.  This is false.  Science can only fail on what it says it can deliver - not on what it cannot.  Your argument is therefore fallacious."

 

BAA, that paragraph of yours alone explains and exonerates the Christian faith, let alone a belief in a generic "God", don't you think?  

 

Uhhh... no.  Sorry, I don't think that, Dude.

 

Why?  Because you set a condition (proof) for both science and religion that they had to satisfy.

But since science doesn't do proofs, you're proceeding from a faulty understanding of science and therefore drawing a false comparison between science and religion. If you realize that proofs aren't in science's remit, then you can no longer make that comparison.  So your point about science's limitations vanishes.  You see that what you thought were it's limitations, depended on a misunderstanding of what science can do.  In the same way, if you misunderstand the remit of religion (that it can deliver proofs) then you will make the same kind of mistake.

 

Ok, the Christian faith cannot deliver proof and science cannot deliver proof, but the reasons why they cannot do this are NOT the same.

It's not in the remit of Christianity to deliver proof, because it operates on faith and not evidence.  It's not in the remit of science to deliver proof, because it operates on evidence and not proof.  Can you see how you're comparing apples and oranges and using an impossible-to-satisfy standard in doing so?

 

Proofs only exist in math and in logic, not in science and not in religion.

If you understand that, can you see how your comparative argument and your request for proof form both of them... fails?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.