Let's discuss this thing called "FAITH!"

Cephus,

I share a very similar opinion as yours in regard to most things religous. But I can't help but disagree with your characterization of Sofia as ignorant. It's a completely unecessary ad hominem and though i too consider religion to be silly it does not mean all of it's adherents are the backward people you'd portray them as.

0 Replies

I always believe actually reading Darwin ("The Voyage of the Beagle" is certainly an easier read) is essential to understand anything that is written after about the facts that support evolution. I don't think most Bible readers would get past the first few pages without abandoning the text as over their head. I had more of an epiphany reading those first few pages than anything in the Bible. I don't believe Sofia is ignorant but I also believe she hasn't done any reading in depth about evolution and is getting her knowledge of the subject secondhand, small amounts of reading on the subject and from TV shows. I'd like to see a bibliography of what she has read to support her opinion that all of us who know evolution is a fact are just "believers" who have "faith" in Darwinism or any evolutionists . Perhaps she's met people like that -- they're called sophists and the inference is definitely in her writing.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I share a very similar opinion as yours in regard to most things religous. But I can't help but disagree with your characterization of Sofia as ignorant. It's a completely unecessary ad hominem and though i too consider religion to be silly it does not mean all of it's adherents are the backward people you'd portray them as.

All of us are ignorant on things, that's just reality. The nice thing about ignorance, unlike stupidity, is that ignorance can be corrected. You can LEARN about the things you are ignorant about and thus be a better person.

It remains to be seen if Sofia wishes to remain ignorant or learn something. When someone posts things as ludicrous as Sofia does on evolution, any rational person *MUST* call her on it and show her where she is wrong. If she continues to be ignorant and continues to make the same false claims, even after corrected, then we have to wonder if she crosses the line from simple ignorance to willful stupidity.

We'll see.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

I don't believe Sofia is ignorant but I also believe she hasn't done any reading in depth about evolution and is getting her knowledge of the subject secondhand, small amounts of reading on the subject and from TV shows. I'd like to see a bibliography of what she has read to support her opinion that all of us who know evolution is a fact are just "believers" who have "faith" in Darwinism or any evolutionists . Perhaps she's met people like that -- they're called sophists and the inference is definitely in her writing.

Of course Sofia is ignorant, she doesn't know what she's talking about.

Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective

1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>

Sofia most certainly fits the definition of ignorant in this field.

She's not as bad as the guy I debated once who said, and I quote: "I don't know what an evolution is, I just know it doesn't exist."

0 Replies

Cephus, what extreme arrogance you possess.
You become childishly angry when someone doesn't agree with you. Should we all do as you wish, read what you suggest? What? Someone with a jumping cross? How does that avatar describe you?

Arrogance is a dangerous thing. The arrogant one is just begging for a fall.

0 Replies

Tex-Star wrote:

Cephus, what extreme arrogance you possess.
You become childishly angry when someone doesn't agree with you. Should we all do as you wish, read what you suggest? What? Someone with a jumping cross? How does that avatar describe you?

Arrogance is a dangerous thing. The arrogant one is just begging for a fall.

So what, you didn't have anything interesting to say so you engaged in an ad hominem attack? Nothing I've said has been indefensible, nor out of line. If you don't like it, show me where I'm wrong. I'll wait.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Nothing I've said has been indefensible, nor out of line. If you don't like it, show me where I'm wrong. I'll wait.

Cephus wrote:

Let's assume you have a brother or sister. Did you come from your brother or sister? Or did both of you come from your parents? Now if you live in the deep south, there might not be much difference, but I digress.

Implication of inbreeding.

Cephus wrote:

There's this amazing thing called a college education. You should try it sometime. There are also these things called books. They're better read than burned.

Ad hom suggesting that Sofia is a bookburner.

There were others. Cephus, I am not sure what got in your head about Sofia being so "ignorant". Could you explain?

And on a side note some of us debate "bareback" and others don't. I'd not have a single qualm with you talking down to me the way you did with Sofia. I'd prolly just be an ass right back.

I speak here because I do think it was unwarranted. Sofia is quite openminded and intellectually honest. She deserves better.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Cephus wrote:
Nothing I've said has been indefensible, nor out of line. If you don't like it, show me where I'm wrong. I'll wait.

Cephus wrote:
Let's assume you have a brother or sister. Did you come from your brother or sister? Or did both of you come from your parents? Now if you live in the deep south, there might not be much difference, but I digress.

Implication of inbreeding.

Implications are not statements. Besides, that was an obvious reference to the southern practice of having a family tree that doesn't branch, don't give me that.

Quote:

Cephus wrote:
There's this amazing thing called a college education. You should try it sometime. There are also these things called books. They're better read than burned.

Ad hom suggesting that Sofia is a bookburner.

Again, never said anything of the sort. Are you stating that books are better burned than read? I received a private message here from someone that said Sofia threw away Darwin after reading a couple pages in another debate.

Quote:

I speak here because I do think it was unwarranted. Sofia is quite openminded and intellectually honest. She deserves better.

I'm sure she is, but the whole "I don't understand it, therefore it can't be true" spiel doesn't come off as intellectually honest. If one doesn't understand something, they shouldn't try debating it. You can't simply say you don't know what something is, you just know it's wrong, that doesn't wash, nor should it. You should never try to debate something that you don't have a functional understanding of. I have nothing against Sofia, she's far and away a better person than someone like Ican or Maliagar
(not even in the same ballpark on the same planet in the same galaxy, in fact), but that doesn't mean she can get away with "Evolution is wrong because I don't understand it". No one can. No one should.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

I received a private message here from someone that said Sofia threw away Darwin after reading a couple pages in another debate.

I'm pretty sure the person who PMed you was joking or lying, there was no such debate that I can recall. You should check since you are to some degree basing your attacks against Sofia on this.

In any case I won't pursue this any further as it appears to be futile to suggest civility.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Cephus wrote:
I received a private message here from someone that said Sofia threw away Darwin after reading a couple pages in another debate.

I'm pretty sure the person who PMed you was joking or lying, there was no such debate that I can recall. You should check since you are to some degree basing your attacks against Sofia on this.

If it was untrue, then I certainly apologize to Sofia for any insult she took from any of this. It was never my intention to insult anyone.

Back to the debate.

0 Replies

I said above:

"I don't think most Bible readers would get past the first few pages without abandoning the text as over their head."

But I also don't recall her saying she discarded Darwin after a few pages on another forum.

I still feel although someone might be ignorant about a subject and be reticent to admit it after making such a rash statement about requiring "faith" to believe in an established science can't be labeled as ignorant (even though there are strong indications that she doesn't understand evolution). I'd hate to say that a rash statement like that would be called a stupid statement by many. Let's just say making a stupid statement is forgivable and making an ignorant statement is forgivable. Making an ignorant, stupid statement is extremely hard to forgive, especially when it is meant to reflect on specific persons. The poster might expect some rebuttal with a few inferances in return.

0 Replies

I got to this thread a bit late, but I'd like to go back to Frank's initial question concerning faith:
IMO faith is sometimes (or usually?) blind acceptance but need not be so.
E.g., in regards to the current creationism/evolution brouhaha, I accept by faith that there is a Creator; however, based on my understanding of science, I believe the earth is much older than 7000 years and that evolution has occurred to at least some degree. I have reasoned out my own position here, incorporating both faith in God and (somewhat less) faith in science--so, I hope I can truthfully say that my faith is not "blind acceptance". On the other hand, when it comes to core Christian beliefs such as Jesus' holiness, His resurrection from the dead, His identity as God's Son, etc.--what choice is there but either blind acceptance or categorical denial?
Stepping out on a limb, I would go so far as to argue that many of you agnostic types :wink: have pretty strong faith--in the case of many of the posters here, that faith is placed in the accuracy of human logic or the infallibility of "science". Do you feel defensive if someone characterizes such faith as "blind acceptance"? E.g., would you be offended if I stated, "you blindly accept the accuracy of human logic"?
(Please don't truly be offended here--I'm just throwing this out to see what flaws you find in my reasoning Confused

)

0 Replies

There is no blindly accepting the accuracy of human logic -- it has to be based on a perponderance of factual evidence as there has been presented for evolution. It is those who haven't examine the factual evidence fully and without bias and summarilly dismiss evolution as false that are in question. There is also the fact that they will not give up the superstition of a supernatural cause nor change their concept of a higher power to allow evolution in as a fact based science. Their faith is anchored in what fallable men have written in the Bible, accepting that it was guided by a supernatural being. It does not require faith to examine all the evidence for evolution and conclude that it is the truth.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

I still feel although someone might be ignorant about a subject and be reticent to admit it after making such a rash statement about requiring "faith" to believe in an established science can't be labeled as ignorant (even though there are strong indications that she doesn't understand evolution). I'd hate to say that a rash statement like that would be called a stupid statement by many. Let's just say making a stupid statement is forgivable and making an ignorant statement is forgivable. Making an ignorant, stupid statement is extremely hard to forgive, especially when it is meant to reflect on specific persons. The poster might expect some rebuttal with a few inferances in return.

Pretty much anything is forgivable and ignorance especially is easy to cure, you just learn about the subject that you're ignorant about. Simple stuff. However, when someone pointedly refuses to learn about a subject, but continually makes statements that it's not true, it pretty much ends any hope of debate.

In this case, Sofia has made some statements that demonstrate she doesn't understand the basics of evolution. That's fine, no problem at all. She can learn and she strikes me as a very intelligent person. But until she does learn, she should stop making the statements about evolution. To continue to do so lessens her in the eyes of all interested in rational, intelligent debate.

0 Replies

lab rat wrote:

On the other hand, when it comes to core Christian beliefs such as Jesus' holiness, His resurrection from the dead, His identity as God's Son, etc.--what choice is there but either blind acceptance or categorical denial?

How about critical examination of the facts surrounding those claims? While there are plenty of people who ignore the facts in order to maintain faith, there aren't many who maintain faith when they do examine the facts.

If faith is more important to people than reality, there is a problem.

Quote:

Stepping out on a limb, I would go so far as to argue that many of you agnostic types :wink: have pretty strong faith--in the case of many of the posters here, that faith is placed in the accuracy of human logic or the infallibility of "science". Do you feel defensive if someone characterizes such faith as "blind acceptance"? E.g., would you be offended if I stated, "you blindly accept the accuracy of human logic"?

If science found evidence tomorrow to support the existence of a deity, I'd examine the evidence and go where it led. That's exactly what I did when I was a Christian, I examined the evidence and went where it led... away from Christianity. The objective evidence simply doesn't support the Bible, sorry.

Faith in science is misplaced as science is open to examination. You don't have to believe in gravity, you can test it for yourself. You don't have to have faith in evolution, the evidence is available for all to see. That simply isn't the case with religion. You can't examine religion in many respects, and every place where religion is open to evaluation, it fails badly.

So who has blind faith?

0 Replies

lab rat wrote:

Stepping out on a limb, I would go so far as to argue that many of you agnostic types :wink: have pretty strong faith--in the case of many of the posters here, that faith is placed in the accuracy of human logic or the infallibility of "science".

And many of us do not.

I am agnostic when it comes to all answers to Ultimate Questions -- such as "What is the nature of Reality?"

I am agnostic when I hear the answers religion gives; and I am agnostic when I hear the answers science gives.

I will say this for science, however: Mostly, science does not say "This is the answer to Reality." They offer hypotheses -- and BEG others to try to chop it to pieces. That is the way they try to hone in on the correct answers.

Religion, on the other hand, says: "This is the answer! Accept it or end up in Hell being tortured relentlessly for all the rest of eternity."

(I know, I know! Some people don't "believe"in Hell. But the general notion holds -- and the Hell statement made me feel good!)

Quote:

Do you feel defensive if someone characterizes such faith as "blind acceptance"?

Answering only for myself -- I would not be defensive, but I would ask "what faith; what blind acceptance; of what?"

Quote:

E.g., would you be offended if I stated, "you blindly accept the accuracy of human logic"?

Not sure of what you mean by this? 2 + 2 = 4! That is both logical and a convention of our math using base 10.

No one "blindly accepts" that -- they simply use it.

I think you may have over-reached here, LabRat. But if you still see things differently, please explain what you mean by "blindly accepting" human logic -- and I will respond.

Good post!

0 Replies

Ew.

I thought it would make for interesting discussion to apply the question of faith to man's evolution.

I guess I should have done it like this...

Quote:

Stepping out on a limb, I would go so far as to argue that many of you agnostic types have pretty strong faith--in the case of many of the posters here, that faith is placed in the accuracy of human logic or the infallibility of "science". Do you feel defensive if someone characterizes such faith as "blind acceptance"? E.g., would you be offended if I stated, "you blindly accept the accuracy of human logic"?
(Please don't truly be offended here--I'm just throwing this out to see what flaws you find in my reasoning )

I left the thread when I'd recieved sufficient responses. I still think it's a good thing to ask people to defend popularly held views, or to look at something a different way. Faith is almost exclusively applied to religion. My comments were an attempt at applying it in another direction. The main reason I thought it was applicable is, despite gossip to the contrary, I have a belief in evolution, though I have never seen proof of it. I don't think I'm the only one.

0 Replies

In the United States, the progressive backwater of the world (a curious oxymoron), the majority of the people do not believe in evolution. It's still not a popularly held "view." Mainly because people aren't interested in studying it to the degree that they will be convinced. You're last sentence indicates you have a blind faith in evolution. I do not. People are also not interested and offered much less education in the arts. Therefore, in my personal experience, their taste runs toward commercially produced decorator art and they pay way too much for it. They are in blind faith that it is the real thing (and unfortunately the marketing technique in mall galleries is for the salesperson to use this as a hot button -- their ignorance is taken advantage of). I confess to owning some of what I consider better examples of this art but that is party because I buy it so cheaply (its real intrinsic value). I also confess to believing in some of the ideals of religion, Christian or otherwise. That's because I believe they are in accord with good character traits. I think we spend all of our lives trying to improve on character -- personality is either lacking or is part of a person's sensuality. I'm getting somewhat off the track here but it only says that secularists will accept the good parts of religious ideals but religious freaks will not accept such things as homosexuality, scientifically nothing more than like a difference in skin color or eye color. (Applicable to another thread, I admit, but aren't all these topics tied together?)

I do realize that Sofia is saying that some who do accept evolution are doing it in some kind of blind faith. However, they also have blind faith that a new Adam Sandler movie will be worth seeing. (Okay, "Punch Drunk Love" being an exception).

0 Replies

Quote:

I think you may have over-reached here, LabRat

More than likely Smile

I may be restating myself, but I'm going to try again:
Given a choice between Christian faith-based values and humanism, I choose the Christian values; presumably my choice only qualifies as blind acceptance if I fail to evaluate the alternative, right? If humanism is more popular/mainstream with the philosophers, does that somehow make it a more defensible, less blind choice? Why?
Back to my earlier meanderings, even if a belief meets the criterion of scientific repeatability, won't there always be some measure of faith involved? (Faith that our interpretation of data isn't tainted by our existing knowledge; faith in the reliability of our five senses; faith that "millions of people can't be wrong"; faith that we're not living in "The Matrix" Smile

)
I am very much at peace with my faith, even as a reasonably successful career scientist. Some of the posts I have seen would seem to suggest that that's a paradox--what do you think?

0 Replies

My mind can comprehend the abstraction of Aristotle's God, the abstraction of the Christian God attempts to ground itself in its own theories and declarations that too often defy modern sensibility.
But then, isn't there a fear of modernism that prevails, especially in the US? I'm not talking strictly of technology here.

0 Replies

Let's discuss this thing called "FAITH!"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know