|
Post by Vegas on Mar 2, 2017 13:32:45 GMT
Nothing against faith, but I wouldn't say that you're describing faith. Faith as an epistemic basis is different than empirical evidence and logic (the latter being the same as reason). This doesn't make faith desire-oriented. But it's not faith if it's empirical or logic-based. Those are different epistemic modes than faith. Too late. Great name, btw.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 13:36:01 GMT
Nothing against faith, but I wouldn't say that you're describing faith. Faith as an epistemic basis is different than empirical evidence and logic (the latter being the same as reason). This doesn't make faith desire-oriented. But it's not faith if it's empirical or logic-based. Those are different epistemic modes than faith. Too late. Great name, btw. What you quoted below "too late" has nothing to do with my view. And I made that clear by starting with "nothing against faith." I'm not saying or implying anything about faith a la value judgments of faith or religious belief. It's simply a different epistemic mode than empirical evidence and logic.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 3, 2017 10:31:03 GMT
RE the invariant laws of physics: in the abstract, I'd say this is something that can be assumed due to Occam's Razor a priori of any evidence. A variant universe would be innately more complex as you'd have to have multiple sets of laws occurring either at different times (in that they change) or different places. Invariant laws would mean one set would apply everywhere at all times. Now, the thing with Occam's Razor is that it doesn't give you proof of anything, all it does is tell you that the more complex hypothesis requires evidence in order to favor it over the simpler one. Plus, as cham went on to explain, we actually DO have evidence that the laws existed far away a long time ago into the past. So all the evidence we DO have is for invariable laws and none for variant Appealing to parsimony is a bias for simplicity in theory construction encapsulated in Ockham's razor: entities must not be posited beyond necessity. It is a tendency for simplicity in us, not necessarily a tendency of the universe itself. It could be that, due to this reductive tendency, we only know the structure of the universe, only the appearance but not what's intrinsic; not all hold fully with scientific realism. It is a fact that light speed is a constant that enables spatial and temporal information about the laws and I know that light itself has no frame of reference which implies invariance, but what I don't know is if the speed of light has always been a constant. I also don't know if cham's mentioned method (spectroscopy I think) is done within a metric of GR. If this is the case, then it may be somewhat circular.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 3, 2017 17:40:35 GMT
I think the general disconnect comes from the tendency that my fellow atheists have a tinted view of religion. To them, "faith" is a religious word, and therefore... it must be stupid. "It can't be reasonable, the religious are uneasonable." But.. There is far more non-religious things one can put faith in. And there are reasons for that faith. Hell.. The one dictionary definition uses this sentence as its example: "This restored his faith in the politician"Well.... What did? Obviously, it is a reference to something seen.. a bit of evidence.. that he could now base his faith on. His faith had evidence. THE END. And they all lived happily ever after. My general position is that most all human being are unreasonable to some extent; I don't think religious believers are uniquely unreasonable, merely that religious belief is one of the most pervasive outcomes of irrationality. I generally agree that people can have faith in anything, but my original point was that I think it's possible to have evidence/reason take you so far and be able to act on that without having anything additional. I'm just not sure what you think "faith" really adds to the evidence/reason. It would be nice if you could try to describe the different mentalities of the person who ONLY acts on reason/evidence and an assessment of risk/reward, VS the person who acts on reason/evidence plus faith. I'm wondering how you think the latter differs from the former. I think from your politician example it's a case of using "faith" where "trust" or "confidence" would be synonyms. IE, "I previously had X level of confidence in the politician, Y happened and reduced my confidence, Z happened and restored it." I'm not sure if this more general kind of faith is the same that we've been discussing.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 3, 2017 17:51:07 GMT
RE the invariant laws of physics: in the abstract, I'd say this is something that can be assumed due to Occam's Razor a priori of any evidence. A variant universe would be innately more complex as you'd have to have multiple sets of laws occurring either at different times (in that they change) or different places. Invariant laws would mean one set would apply everywhere at all times. Now, the thing with Occam's Razor is that it doesn't give you proof of anything, all it does is tell you that the more complex hypothesis requires evidence in order to favor it over the simpler one. Plus, as cham went on to explain, we actually DO have evidence that the laws existed far away a long time ago into the past. So all the evidence we DO have is for invariable laws and none for variant Appealing to parsimony is a bias for simplicity in theory construction encapsulated in Ockham's razor: entities must not be posited beyond necessity. It is a tendency for simplicity in us, not necessarily a tendency of the universe itself. This is incorrect. Occam has been formalized via Solomonoff Induction, which is a bit too complex to fully explain in this post, but to reference the most relevant parts: part of Solomonoff is Kolmogorov or Computational Complexity; which basically says that anything that exists can be modeled in binary, and the length of code needed to describe it is roughly equivalent to the level of complexity. Solomonoff is a means of inductively finding all the possible hypotheses that can explain the data, and because of Kolmogorov priorites are given to simpler hypotheses. You can also find plenty of real-world examples of how Occam works mathematically. The Conjunction Fallacy is a classic example: A+B can never be more likely than A or B alone. However, one important lesson that Kolmogorov Complexity teaches us is that ontological simplicity/complexity is different from our intuitive sense of simplicity/complexity. There are plenty of things that seem simple or complex to us that, if described formally, are the opposite. Maxwell's equations seem complex; Thor seems simple; but the former is far easier to program into a computer to produce the outcome "lightning." Still, the general point is that simpler models are innately, mathematically more likely to be correct. Much of the reason can be explained by the conjunction fallacy since the more complex a hypothesis the more chances it has of being wrong. I don't think if there's anyway to prove that something has always been a constant. That's why I brought up Occam as a means of pointing out that variance requires greater complexity which is innately less likely to be true and requires more evidence in order to overcome that.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 3, 2017 17:53:55 GMT
Sure... But.. Now, it's you who is actually arguing against the dictionary. No one ever said those words weren't interchangeable... The dictionary specifically says that they are.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 3, 2017 18:05:01 GMT
I'm not arguing against the dictionary, I'm just saying that "faith" in that sense seems synonymous with those other words. The way you had been using it seemed a very particular KIND of trust/confidence.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 3, 2017 18:34:39 GMT
The way you had been using it seemed a very particular KIND of trust/confidence. Good. Yes.. As is according to the dictionary. Can a person have a reason, based on prior knowledge, experience, or study for having faith IN ANYTHING... NOT SPECICALLY JUST "RELIGIOUS" FAITH? THAT is the entire argument. We've established - hopefully by now - that the answer is "Yes"... Because we just established that THAT kind of faith can... THE END... Again.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 3, 2017 18:41:13 GMT
tpfkar Synonyms are sometimes interchangeable, but often involve some subtle to significant shift in emphasis or outright meaning. ze fax
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 3, 2017 18:44:33 GMT
tpfkar Synonyms are sometimes interchangeable, but often involve some subtle to significant shift in emphasis or outright meaning. ze faxWhat's your eating schedule look like today, mooblie? A loaf of bread and a dozen eggs for breakfast followed by an entire box of donuts.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 3, 2017 18:49:05 GMT
tpfkar Synonyms are sometimes interchangeable, but often involve some subtle to significant shift in emphasis or outright meaning. He's a fat fcking retard. I don't give a sht what that dumbfck says. Especially since it's the actually dictionary that uses the word "faith" as an example where those other words are interchangeable. Like I said.. a dumbfck.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 3, 2017 18:53:48 GMT
Kitten, do you have Vegas whispering to you now? You can't seem to get him off the special mind behind those chubby cheeks on that Mennonite-looking face of yours.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 3, 2017 18:59:40 GMT
Kitten, do you have Vegas whispering to you now? You can't seem to get him off the special mind behind those chubby cheeks on that Mennonite-looking face of yours. Just imagine if you'd used a pic of Israel Kamakawiwoʻole!
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 3, 2017 19:04:49 GMT
tpfkar You and Ada and your identical ways. And you both have shared the pics to show who the cryptkeeper and the beergut with the shrunken head are. ze fax
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 3, 2017 19:06:05 GMT
Kitten, do you have Vegas whispering to you now? You can't seem to get him off the special mind behind those chubby cheeks on that Mennonite-looking face of yours. When did I say anything about Vegas?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 3, 2017 19:07:22 GMT
Gosh... What a "wonderful world" that would be... Fcking douche.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 3, 2017 19:08:12 GMT
Kitten, do you have Vegas whispering to you now? You can't seem to get him off the special mind behind those chubby cheeks on that Mennonite-looking face of yours. When did I say anything about Vegas? He's a moron.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 3, 2017 19:11:55 GMT
tpfkar You brought up his name again, chub cheeked glamour-kitten.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 3, 2017 19:13:24 GMT
tpfkar You brought up his name again, chub cheeked glamour-kitten. Quote me dumbshit.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 3, 2017 19:14:59 GMT
Already did, big thinker.
|
|