Title: Re: paleonet Faith and
skepticism
Peter,
I have been rethinking the matter of
faith but I think I am basically correct it is something that
grows with experience provided we are on the right track if we are on
the wrong track the opposite occurs.
And what are the criteria for determining that one is "on
the wrong track". For some, faith in a deity is the
wrong track because it closes off or at least constricts certain lines
of questioning about the workings of Nature.
When studying the topic of evolution, for instance, there is no
role for a deity (in spite of the ID 'arguments') that does not
complicate the picture.
We can have 'little faith' or 'great
faith'. I obviously should have said that faith begins with believing
and with experience grows into knowing rather than implying that faith
was something separate from believing and knowing.
I wouldn't deny that reflecting on one's beliefs leads to greater
faith. And I suppose that greater faith feels like 'knowing'.
But by the same token I could devote further study to the writings of
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck until I understood his ideas better than I do
now. But it wouldn't make those ideas any more correct. It
would only make me feel better about Lamarck (maybe).
I think the trouble with creationists is
they are on the wrong track and that makes them afraid to take a
square look at creation and evolution. As I see it their very
little faith is in a traditional interpretation of the bible which
is erroneous. I am sure they would deny that tradition has anything to
do with it but I think that would be due to lack of
understanding. I think this lack of understanding is
due to lack of faith in reason which makes them very difficult to get
on with.
We are in complete agreement here.
They just keep coming up with the same
old arguments borrowed from tradition. I suspect that much of what
religious people regard as faith is really make believe.
And here.
Our dictionary defines faith as
"confidence or trust in a person or thing, belief which is not
based on proof, etc.". The Lord likened faith to a small seed
which in another parable He said grew into a great tree'. The page I
referred Jack to on proof says scientists have confidence in their
ideas. I presume this confidence started as belief in an idea and
became strong faith when backed up by experience with theory and/or
experiment. Scientists publish their ideas so that others can test
them and eventually make use of them if they pass the tests. That is
what I would like to see happen to my solution to the
creation-evolution problem. Seeds may fail to grow for many reasons so
I will have to be patient and keep trying until I find the right
conditions.
The enormous difference between those with faith only in science
and those with faith in a deity is that the scientists revere a
process, while the 'faithful' worship a personification of unchanging
principles. The faithful are prohibited by the Bible from
rejecting certain 'truths'. Scientists are not. The
enormous 'revolutions' in science-the shift to a heliocentric model
of the solar system, the embrace of natural selection, the development
of quantum mechanics et al.-have been achieved by entirely
overturning earlier scientific models. Comparable revolutions in
matters of religious faith lead to mayhem (e.g., the
Reformation/Counter-reformation or the division between the Shi'a and
Sunni).
If there is no absolute proof of
anything, it seems to me that even knowing must be faith. Somehow I
think there must be exceptions to that rule though.
You are a closet Modernist. I am serious.
From :
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html
The basic ideas of the Enlightenment are roughly the same as the
basic ideas of humanism. Jane Flax's article gives a good summary of
these ideas or premises (on p. 41). I'll add a few things to her
list.
1. There is a stable, coherent, knowable self. This self is
conscious, rational, autonomous, and universal--no physical conditions
or differences substantially affect how this self operates.
2. This self knows itself and the world through reason, or
rationality, posited as the highest form of mental functioning, and
the only objective form.
3. The mode of knowing produced by the objective rational self is
"science," which can provide universal truths about the
world, regardless of the individual status of the knower.
4. The knowledge produced by science is "truth," and is
eternal.
5. The knowledge/truth produced by science (by the rational
objective knowing self) will always lead toward progress and
perfection. All human institutions and practices can be analyzed by
science (reason/objectivity) and improved.
6. Reason is the ultimate judge of what is true, and therefore of
what is right, and what is good (what is legal and what is ethical).
Freedom consists of obedience to the laws that conform to the
knowledge discovered by reason.
7. In a world governed by reason, the true will always be the
same as the good and the right (and the beautiful); there can be no
conflict between what is true and what is right (etc.).
8. Science thus stands as the paradigm for any and all socially
useful forms of knowledge. Science is neutral and objective;
scientists, those who produce scientific knowledge through their
unbiased rational capacities, must be free to follow the laws of
reason, and not be motivated by other concerns (such as money or
power).
9. Language, or the mode of expression used in producing and
disseminating knowledge, must be rational also. To be rational,
language must be transparent; it must function only to represent the
real/perceivable world which the rational mind observes. There must be
a firm and objective connection between the objects of perception and
the words used to name them (between signifier and signified).
These are some of the fundamental premises of humanism, or of
modernism. They serve--as you can probably tell--to justify and
explain virtually all of our social structures and institutions,
including democracy, law, science, ethics, and aesthetics.
Do you worry that somebody might prove
that the universe, the earth and us do not exist!?
No. I worry that the faithful will 'prove' that the self is
unimportant.
When I referred to small children
being believers I meant very little children. They do very quickly
learn to be skeptical. I think they get fed up with having too much
that they can't understand rammed down their necks.
And I think they get fed up with adults not taking the time to
explain things to them.
I am curious to know why you don't think
I believe the Bible is God's word.
This is old ground in the discussion of evolution vs. creation.
It has been pointed out again and again that there fragments of two
creation myths present in Genesis. In one Adam and Eve are
created from the dust of the Earth and in the other Eve is created
from Adam's rib. This example is offered as case in point to
stand for the obviously cobbled together nature of the Bible.
The Bible is not even primary literature, as it were, let alone the
'word of God'. If the original texts that went into the
construction of what we call 'the Bible' were the 'word of God', then
contingency and human frailty have long since muddied the narrative
waters.
The sort of 'multiple narratives about the same story' phenomenon
is found again, not only in the New Testament, but in Faulkner!
Yours in liberal arts,
Bill
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
William P. Chaisson
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY 14627
607-387-3892