Reliability

[Antlerman]

This topic is split from Why do you remain a Christian?, per request. -Reach

 

What do you mean by **reliable** witnesses or information?  Seems like something you'd have to accept or reject on faith...

I make a clear distinction between religious faith and someone having confidence in the credibility of reliable witnesses and overwhelming evidence. To say I "believe" that George Washington was the first president is not really the same as saying I have to have faith the God exists. Someone has to have faith with Christianity because you're dealing with the supernatural, and its only witnesses is its own word about its own reliability. Those two major points makes a leap of faith necessary because there isn't anything trustworthy, such as testability, external corroborations by a jury of peers, etc, that add *reliability* to someone having *confidence* (not faith) in something’s credibility.

 

I have heard many Christians who say they know the stories are not really true, but they accept the religion on a number of levels - emotional, social, etc. Again, I respect that, but have a very hard time with those who are inflexible in their beliefs when something comes along that says something different than what they are presupposing. It just seems like desperation and fear that they've built their entire faith on it being historically and scientifically reliable. I see those whose approach to faith is flexible as the ones ultimately whose faith will survive, whereas those who are inflexible in their understanding will become totally obsolete as our knowledge and education continue to grow. How can someone live their whole lives committing intellectual suicide? That can't be healthy. I couldn't do it. It's not faith at that point, it's denial.

[guacamole]

I make a clear distinction between religious faith and someone having confidence in the credibility of reliable witnesses and overwhelming evidence.  To say I "believe" that George Washington was the first president is not really the same as saying I have to have faith the God exists.

 

I agree.

 

  Someone has to have faith with Christianity because you're dealing with the supernatural, and its only witnesses is its own word about its own reliability.

 

How do you know that something that deals with the supernatural is not reliable?

 

  Those two major points makes a leap of faith necessary because there isn't anything trustworthy, such as testability, external corroborations by a jury of peers, etc, that add *reliability* to someone having *confidence* (not faith) in something’s credibility.

 

What external non-circular evidence confirms non-supernatuarl methods (like the scientific method) or witnesses as reliable?

 

I have heard many Christians who say they know the stories are not really true, but they accept the religion on a number of levels - emotional, social, etc.  Again, I respect that, but have a very hard time with those who are inflexible in their beliefs when something comes along that says something different than what they are presupposing.  It just seems like desperation and fear that they've built their entire faith on it being historically and scientifically reliable.  I see those whose approach to faith is flexible as the ones ultimately whose faith will survive, whereas those who are inflexible in their understanding will become totally obsolete as our knowledge and education continue to grow.  How can someone live their whole lives committing intellectual suicide?  That can't be healthy.  I couldn't do it.  It's not faith at that point, it's denial.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am sympathetic to that. That's why I try to maintain a belief that is a rigorous as I can accomplish on my own.

 

fwiw

guac.

[Antlerman]

How do you know that something that deals with the supernatural is not reliable?

Good question. The reason is something that deals with the supernatural is less reliable is because it is not something within the natural laws of the universe, and therefore cannot be substantiated directly. It would only be accessible through some form of transcendental experience. Transcendental experiences are purely subjective and non-testable.

 

I don't really need much faith to accept some guy named Bob telling me that there is a city in Illinois called Chicago, because I can see it for myself, plus there are mountains of evidence from everywhere that offer credibility to his claim. However, if he were to tell me he was actually 10,000 years old as of last Saturday, nothing within natural experience would lend itself to that be a credible claim. That would be something supernatural. For me to accept that would be an act of pure faith.

 

When it comes to something supernatural, you are totally dependent on faith in someone else's interpretation of their own subjective experiences, and/or in interpreting the meaning of your own subjective experiences - whether it's a belief in a god or just a "gut" feeling about something or someone. Subjective experience is overall less reliable than hard empirical data. This is why something from the supernatural is less reliable - because it is only accessible through subjective experience.

 

What external non-circular evidence confirms  non-supernatural methods (like the scientific method) or witnesses as reliable?

I'm not sure what the question is? The scientific method does not use circular reasoning to support theoretical models (faith typically has the corner on that method). The scientific method was devised in order to protect the theory from the personal biases of the scientist through a system of checks and balances. Many hypotheses fall by the way side when peers review and test a proposed model. I personally think it’s a vastly far more reliable method at finding reliable information because of that. Is it more reliable? Sure, because it's testable by anyone.

 

Do I have faith in science? Not faith - but respect at it's carefulness. Consequently, I have more confidence in it's reliability than someone's interpretation of gut feelings, or claims of supernatural powers.

 

Is this getting too off topic? If so, we can continue this in a different thread....

[guacamole]

Good question.  The reason is something that deals with the supernatural is less reliable is because it is not something within the natural laws of the universe, and therefore cannot be substantiated directly.  It would only be accessible through some form of transcendental experience.  Transcendental experiences are purely subjective and non-testable.

 

I don't really need much faith to accept some guy named Bob telling me that there is a city in Illinois called Chicago, because I can see it for myself, plus there are mountains of evidence from everywhere that offer credibility to his claim.  However, if he were to tell me he was actually 10,000 years old as of last Saturday, nothing within natural experience would lend itself to that be a credible claim.  That would be something supernatural.  For me to accept that would be an act of pure faith.

 

When it comes to something supernatural, you are totally dependent on faith in someone else's interpretation of their own subjective experiences, and/or in interpreting the meaning of your own subjective experiences - whether it's a belief in a god or just a "gut" feeling about something or someone.  Subjective experience is overall less reliable than hard empirical data.  This is why something from the supernatural is less reliable - because it is only accessible through subjective experience.

I'm not sure what the question is?  The scientific method does not use circular reasoning to support theoretical models (faith typically has the corner on that method).  The scientific method was devised in order to protect the theory from the personal biases of the scientist through a system of checks and balances.  Many hypotheses fall by the way side when peers review and test a proposed model.  I personally think it’s a vastly far more reliable method at finding reliable information because of that.  Is it more reliable?  Sure, because it's testable by anyone.

 

Quite right. The hypothesis are testable by anyone using the scientific method. By what standard is the scientific method itself testable?

 

Do I have faith in science?  Not faith -  but respect at it's carefulness.  Consequently, I have more confidence in it's reliability than someone's interpretation of gut feelings, or claims of supernatural powers.

 

Is this getting too off topic?  If so, we can continue this in a different thread....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

meh. This thread isn't exactly burning up at the moment. If you wanna start a new thread... okay...

 

fwiw

guac.

[Antlerman]

Quite right.  The hypothesis are testable by anyone using the scientific method.  By what standard is the scientific method itself testable?

meh.  This thread isn't exactly burning up at the moment. If you wanna start a new thread... okay...

 

fwiw

guac.

So I'm clear, are you in agreement that the supernatural is not testable using the scientific method? If yes, then would you be in agreement that knowledge of matters supernatural would be less reliable as a result, being dependent upon subjectivity and faith?

 

I think what I see many times is people looking at knowledge from the scientific community the same way the look at knowledge being delivered through the revelation of a prophet. When a scientist is disproved upon one particular thing or another, some in the religious community go,"Ah ha!" You were wrong, so what's to say you're not wrong on everything else?” Hence the question of reliability. I think the reason they approach science that way is because that is how they approach religious knowledge. If their Prophet is wrong on *anything*, everything they "reveal" is bogus because perfection is seen as the credentials of God for his revelators.

 

They don't seem to understand when it comes to human knowledge; it's about *degrees of reliability*. Science is very reliable, but not perfect. A scientist is not a prophet, so he can be wrong but still largely capable. To answer your question by what standard the scientific method is tested, the answer in part is "results". Time and time again it has been tested by the fact that when they use it, the knowledge gained can be used to *predict outcomes*. How do you think we accomplished space flight? Certainly not using the Bible or the prophet Bob! The fact they can reliably predict outcomes, to me would indicate the scientific method works. It has been tested, and has passed the test.

 

If it was unreliable, you would have as little consistency of accepted knowledge in the scientific community as you do within organized religions, whose method of knowledge is derived through subjective experiences and faith in individual men alone (believing a prophet speaks accurately for a god). That method's unreliability is pretty evident in it's ineffectiveness throughout history. It took science to teach us the earth is not at the center of the universe, and the earth is not 6000 years old. The church's responses speak clearly for the reliability of its methodology and it's *unchecked* biased motives. Which is the more reliable approach for getting to accurate knowledge? I ask you.

 

Now I know this is totally derailed from the original topic. How would I move these to a new thread?

[LloydDobler]

Just to add a little to what Antlerman said, one of the foundations of science is that it is inherently self checking as much as possible, at some level. Repeatability and logic are core attributes that make it reliable.

 

Guac, it sounds like you're just trying to attack the scientific method, to undermine its reliability. That's not something you can just do with conjecture, and is a presuppositionalist apologetic tactic that has zero merit.

[Reach]

Topic split as requested.

 

Better late than never. ;-)