Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[remez]

No, not "just by doing it": it is not that you do it that is wrong. It is HOW you do it.

I was challenged earlier with the notion the faith based beliefs could not be tested by reality.

I claimed the task in procedure would be no big deal. Create an exhaustive list of the major worldviews regarding Gods existence and then hit them with our best understandings of reality.

As I have told you I’m trying to build a case that theism is the best explanation for our best understandings of reality. Reality and those best understandings are what I’m presenting as evidence to build my case.

Here are the participants……

We have theism (God made all)….. Pantheism (God is all) and…. atheism (no God at all).

Rationally that is exhaustive.

The first pitch was an expanding universe.

Now which of these best explains a universe that began to exist?

Juma that is a question to you. You seem to be assuming your position. Well be prepared to defend.

You havent yet provided any argument for why there should be god(s).

Defend your rational here. I’m attempting to build a case for theism. I have to do that only by providing an argument.

Now an argument may be in the near future but for right now I trying to lay the groundwork. You were the one claiming I assumed God and that was wrong. Here I’m showing you that I’m building a case for that and not assuming it and I’m still wrong. So defend your rational here.

Really you are the one demonstrating a closed mind.
Evidenced here…………

Until there is good reason and evidence for god(s), atheism is the default position.

I haven’t seen this relic in a while.
The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
Go ahead and try to explain how that is rational.

Just for fun, provide some evidence for an early inflationary era in the expansion of the universe. Have fun with that.

 

[abaddon]

… an argument may be in the near future but for right now I trying to lay the groundwork…

Does that mean you have reasoned this through very thoroughly but are just very slow about presentation? Or are you currently working out your reasons?

 

[DBT]

I haven’t seen this relic in a while.
The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
Go ahead and try to explain how that is rational.

That's easy. We do it all the time.

You may open your fridge door, for instance, expecting to see (evidence) a carton of milk that your partner said was there, but upon thoroughly searching every nook and cranny of the fridge you are dismayed to find that your partner was wrong, there is no carton of milk in the fridge.

The absence of evidence where it should be found (the physical presence of carton) is in fact evidence for the absence of the article.

The absence of evidence, where it should be found, is indeed evidence of absence.

Your objection is without merit.

Think of all the things that you yourself don't believe for the very reason that there is insufficient reason in terms of available evidence with which to form a conviction.

 

[DBT]

We’ve already had this conversation. Weren’t you there?

I was there, but you preferred your own interpretation. An interpretation that is not supported by what I was pointing out.

It was decided (or determined?) we had to go with the dictionary meanings of faith and atheism. Thus I made my forced confession about faith (your understanding) being without reason and pointed out the dictionary definition of atheism is not as you have stated.

The word 'atheism' literally means 'without god' - or more accurately 'without a belief or conviction in the existence of a God or god.

Which says nothing about positions in relation to ideology, politics or anything else

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).

 

[Juma]

Now an argument may be in the near future but for right now I trying to lay the groundwork..

No, you are not. You are wasting everybodies time by repeating hourself ad nauseam.

It is obvious that you have no case.

 

[remez]

… an argument may be in the near future but for right now I trying to lay the groundwork…

Does that mean you have reasoned this through very thoroughly but are just very slow about presentation?

Yes I have reasoned this through thoroughly. Remember our earlier discussions on faith and reason?

Rate of presentation matches reasonable progress with you guys engaging with the evidence. Courts move slowly these days. I’m building a case for theism one piece of evidence at a time. Once and if I can establish some evidence then I can present a argument.

Remember you are the main reason I’m using this reasonable approach. To combat this……….

I mean it’s because you already believe in God that you see God as a good explanation for anything.

Exhibit A, an expanding universe, is on the table but no one is responding to the evidence.

Observe the procedure. I’m asking you and not assuming what the evidence is. I’m ready to fight for each piece I’ll bring before you but I’m not assuming. Is that not fair? That’s how you build a case.

Everyone is attacking the procedure without merit claiming I’m wasting time. But if I don’t establish the evidence first then I’m accused of assuming my conclusion. Trust me I’ve tried that before here. The end result was I assumed the conclusion and had no evidence.

Or are you currently working out your reasons?

No my reasons are well set, but open to adjustment if needed. I’m currently trying to establish the evidence with the court.

You are part of that court so please address the evidence on the table. Or reasonably point out why my procedure is wrong.

More latter.

 

[Juma]

Or reasonably point out why my procedure is wrong.

We have been doing that for a while but you doesnt listen.

You must present the the argument that connects the fact (expanding universe) with your theory (gods). Without that the fact isnt evidence of anything.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Reading through this thread, it seems to me that remez is simply attempting to shift the burden of proof. In addition, he's trying to shift this burden to an area of cosmology currently under tense research and so far not fully understood, so he can tease god out of the fog and uncertainty. He is trying to enforce a false dichotomy in his question about an expanding universe. All this in order to avoid answering the question: Is faith a different kind of reasoning?

It's not just a ninja throwing up a smokescreen as he runs away, instead of a smoke bomb, he's using a god damn volcano.

 

[abaddon]

Reading through this thread, it seems to me that remez is simply attempting to shift the burden of proof. In addition, he's trying to shift this burden to an area of cosmology currently under tense research and so far not fully understood, so he can tease god out of the fog and uncertainty. He is trying to enforce a false dichotomy in his question about an expanding universe. All this in order to avoid answering the question: Is faith a different kind of reasoning?

It's not just a ninja throwing up a smokescreen as he runs away, instead of a smoke bomb, he's using a god damn volcano.

Yet he shows how the “reasoning” is very different anyway. He needs us to think more like him to recognize his “reasons” for God as evidence. So he works at that stuff about either atheists or scientists ("materialists") are "suppressing evidence", when they're just not so "openminded" that any fanciful notion can pass as reasonable or evidenced. His impediment to demonstrating some evidence for God (and for not being a blind faith believer) is, to his mind, the way we think. Whatever it takes to not actually apply the scientific method because that method requires you toss an idea if it doesn't work, no matter one's emotional attachment to it, and that's not an option to theism.

If how we think matters so much then that’s a very weird thing if God exists outside the mind. I shouldn’t have to be in a state of special receptivity to see the body is made of cells or find the signs of “who did it” at an archaeological dig.

 

[DBT]

I haven’t seen this relic in a while.
The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
Go ahead and try to explain how that is rational.

That's easy. We do it all the time.

You may open your fridge door, for instance, expecting to see (evidence) a carton of milk that your partner said was there, but upon thoroughly searching every nook and cranny of the fridge you are dismayed to find that your partner was wrong, there is no carton of milk in the fridge.

The absence of evidence where it should be found (the physical presence of carton) is in fact evidence for the absence of the article.

The absence of evidence, where it should be found, is indeed evidence of absence.

Your objection is without merit.

Think of all the things that you yourself don't believe for the very reason that there is insufficient reason in terms of available evidence with which to form a conviction.

Hi, remez....just curious, do you have any objections to this?

 

[hyzer]

remez

You have stated multiple times that an expanding universe implies a mono-theistic god.
Q1 Is it your contention that an expanding universe implies any mono-theistic god? Or just your particular version?
Q3 Does a non-expanding universe imply multiple gods? Or no gods?
Q4 Do you agree that science, and not faith, determined that the universe is expanding?
Q5 What if tomorrow, the scientific paradigm were to change with the discovery of new data and new observations that showed that in fact the universe is not expanding - would you renounce your faith in god?

 

[atrib]

Here are the participants……

We have theism (God made all)….. Pantheism (God is all) and…. atheism (no God at all).

Rationally that is exhaustive.

The first pitch was an expanding universe.

Now which of these best explains a universe that began to exist?

Juma that is a question to you. You seem to be assuming your position. Well be prepared to defend.

You are yet to explain how an expanding universe supports your case for theism. Now would be a good time to do so if you continue to assert such is the case.

Second. neither of the three, theism, pantheism or atheism explains why the universe began to exist. Certain sets of theistic beliefs make the claim that the universe was created by a supernatural entity external to the universe, but such claims are not supported by evidence. If you assert otherwise, it in incumbent on you to provide the evidence to support the claim.

Cosmology is a branch of the physical sciences that seeks answers to this question, and at the present time, our understanding of the origins of the universe is nebulous at best. Researchers have proposed mathematical models for this event based on the state of the science and the math, but these are, at best, hypotheses that cannot be confirmed with substantial evidence.

 

[ronburgundy]

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
--Quote from Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism.

One of the few ways that the Protestant reformation was an improvement upon Catholicism was that it embraced the fact that religious faith is purely emotional and that reasoned thought was its enemy. The motive for doing this was to wrest control over Christianity away from Church authority. Since they controlled education and literacy, the Church manufactured the idea that only their learned and educated priest and theologians could determine for the masses what God is and wants. They created a pretense of pseudo-intellectualism around their religion. The Enlightenment exposed this pretense as fraudulent and religion as anti-reason, while Martin Luther and friends pointed out that the inherent emotional nature of all religious belief makes the Church superfluous and God equally accessible to all.

As science began to develop, the pseudo-intellect of the Church became more and more exposed, so it made an effort to follow the Protests lead and retreat into accepting emotion as its source and that faith must be held outside of and often in spite of reasoned thought.

 

[PyramidHead]

If the universe is everything that exists, and the universe began to exist, there could not possibly have been anything before the universe began to exist, by definition. So atheism is most compatible with a universe that began to exist.

 

[braces_for_impact]

There are other observable facts about the universe that I think do point more towards atheism than theism, but the beginning of the universe isn't one of them.

 

[PyramidHead]

There are other observable facts about the universe that I think do point more towards atheism than theism, but the beginning of the universe isn't one of them.

I'm just saying that we should be consistent with our terms. If all that exists began to exist, then there is nothing that could have caused it to exist, because that thing would also have begun to exist along with everything else. If the only concept on the table is a creator god, then a universe with a beginning rules it out unless we change the meaning of "universe" to "all that exists except for its creator," which is begging the question.

 

[abaddon]

There are other observable facts about the universe that I think do point more towards atheism than theism, but the beginning of the universe isn't one of them.

I'm just saying that we should be consistent with our terms. If all that exists began to exist, then there is nothing that could have caused it to exist, because that thing would also have begun to exist along with everything else. If the only concept on the table is a creator god, then a universe with a beginning rules it out unless we change the meaning of "universe" to "all that exists except for its creator," which is begging the question.

Universe doesn’t mean all that exists, it means “all existing matter and space considered as a whole”. Theists want to know where all that matter and space came from, and so figure the universe is not all that is. A theist is going to see you as begging the question if you’re asserting that the universe is all there is.

If the universe is all there is, then pantheism. Pantheists assert it’s all there is. Atheists might or might not… I don’t. I have no knowledge about the full extent of all there is. I just don’t see gods in it anywhere, or God as a logical necessity.

 

[Factinista]

I've recently got into a discussion with a friend of mine about Christianity. Long story short...

I argue that some of the claims of Christianity, like "Jesus was bodily resurrected" or "God exists" are of a different kind of reasoning than those found in Science.
A claim like "evolution is a fact" or "the earth is several billion years old" are based in a different kind of thought process than those of faith.


So do you agree that Religion is a different "kind" of thought process than Science. If so, what evidences and arguments would you make to prove that point?

Thank you all for continuing this discussion, I think we've found some interesting points that demonstrate what I'm trying to get at. But first I'd like to clarify my claim.
Claims of religion, specifically the case of Christianity, are based on the thought process of Faith.
Claims of science are based in a methodology that is fundamentally different and superior from Faith.

Let's take the example of the biblical claim of how the universe started, namely that the Universe was created in 7 days by a being known as God.

Based upon all the evidence available to us we have every justifiable reason to think this claim is not true. The study of Physics has shown the earth is several billion years old, just look at the facts of Geology and Physics, there is no sense in which 7 days has anything to do with it. In fact we know that 'days' only has any meaning while you are on a planet that orbits a star, furthermore if your not on the Earth the time period of a day will change or if you aren't on a planet days will cease to exist. So within this example the Faithfull will cling to their beliefs that the Universe was created in 7 days in a variety of ways, either redefining the definition of day, moving the goalposts and saying the bible really just mean the Earth, or rejecting the validity of Radio-Carbon Dating. While the Rational will realize they were wrong and will adjust their beliefs to better fit the facts.

In the face of this there seem to be 2 main ways of maintaining Faith in the assertion, either rationalization or rejection. Either you try to change the rules of move the goalposts as other posters have shown, or you reject the facts entirely. I would argue that this shows the key difference between rational thinking and faith thinking. To have Faith means to accept the validity of a claim without evidence, and some times in spite of it. While the methods of Science rely explicitly on objective facts that can be proven. Therefore the claims of Religion and Science are of a different "kind".

However this doesn't support the idea of Non-Overlapping Magisterium, instead what we seem to have is the Magisterium of Science and Reason ever eroding the claims of Faith. I like to call this idea Incompatible Magisterium.

 

[remez]

You must present the the argument that connects the fact (expanding universe) with your theory (gods). Without that the fact isnt evidence of anything.

The universe has a finite past, a beginning.
Therefore by logic it needs a cause.
So which “ism” best explains a universe in need of a cause?
Theism states an eternal God is the cause.
Pantheism is any ready in trouble because they claimed the universe was eternal.
Atheism ran out of nature and materials. How reasonably can nature cause itself?
Thus theism the best explanation for a universe that needs a cause.
Now of course that is not the whole case and this evidence is open for you to debate. But any attempted refutations or rebuttals need to be defended not only asserted as fact.

 

[remez]

I was there, but you preferred your own interpretation. An interpretation that is not supported by what I was pointing out.

Ditto to what I said of your stretch for the definition of atheist. Post 32

The word 'atheism' literally means 'without god' - or more accurately 'without a belief or conviction in the existence of a God or god.

Which says nothing about positions in relation to ideology, politics or anything else

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).

I liked YOUR slipped in clarification part there….. or more accurately bla bla bla
Nope …….. we need to stick with the definition I quoted earlier in post 32, which in fairness was from the same dictionary you quoted against me to denounce my attempted clarifications about faith. No Clarifications. Those were your rules. Thus by definition an atheist is a person who believes that God does not exist.