Come on guy You act as if you know everything, Of course she also could not have waked up and die because of the blood cloth. The fact is something unusual was done , scientifically it did not make sense , but by faith it was done and it was a success for the family.
Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Come on guy You act as if you know everything, Of course she also could not have waked up and die because of the blood cloth. The fact is something unusual was done , scientifically it did not make sense , but by faith it was done and it was a success for the family.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It wasn't faith, it was an experiment. And no new knowledge was in fact gained by this. We don't know that a patient touching her baby will wake them up. We don't even know that it was the cause in this case. Correlation isn't causation.
And that is what seems to have happened in this case. It was a hunch which could lead to knowledge in the future.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
It isn't just science, it's any subject, all of human knowledge basically. It's why I was talking about textbooks and lectures. Students typically begin their studies believing most of what they are taught. (That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not criticizing it, just pointing it out.)
Even when proof and justification are addressed, they are going to make use of additional assumptions of their own. Methodological assumptions, logical assumptions, theoretical assumptions. Many of those things in turn can be justified, but if regresses are to be avoided, something will just have to be accepted.
Among atheists 'faith' seems to be a perjorative, useful for pounding on 'religion' which is viewed with disdain. In some religious communities 'faith' is an honorific, something that they want associated with themselves. So there are forces on both sides of this little war that want 'faith' associated with 'religion'.
But if we define 'faith' as committing one's self to the truth of beliefs without complete justification, then we probably should recognize that it's happening constantly, even in science. That's just a fact of life, part of the human condition.
It's just that religion is one of the places where it is most obvious and blatant.
No, I don't want to go that far. I'm suggesting that faith is inherent in human cognition. I don't think that faith should be equated with religion.
But yes, I agree that if we do bend to the rhetoric and identify faith with religion, and if it's true that science isn't immune from faith, then your conclusion would seem to follow.
Last edited:
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It's just that when it happens in religion, it's a virtue. When it happens in science, it's a fault.
Religion accepts faith as part of its equation, while science goes into denial about its areas of faith. This is the difference. Manmade global warming has an element of faith, which is why it needed a consensus prestige effect to appeal to the masses. If science admitted an element of faith, then this would indicate a level of enhanced consciousness. Knowing about faith allows one to see the data better. Faith becomes a virtue, since it create an awareness that allows one to separate out the imagination. If you deny faith you will maintain the fuzzy element.
If you were an animal, you will depend upon your sensory systems to react to the environment. Faith is the belief in things not seen. The animal cannot survive if he starts to imagine and react to things not seen in a tangible way with the eyes. With humans the invention of language allowed one to construct things, in the imagination, not seen with the eyes, but which nevertheless can be extrapolated into reality. I can see myself wearing a new suit. This image is based on faith since nobody can see this with their eyes, until I make it real. Those who know me and who anticipate me, may assume this real just by me saying so; faith.
They're not mutually exclusive. They may even be important to each other. I've seen evidence for God so I know he's real.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
No it doesn't.
That is correct and necessary for science. It's conclusions are not absolute, there will almost always be areas of possible refinement.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Well you haven't managed to convince anyone else.
It is of no consequence to me whether or not you decide to see truth or turn a blind eye to it.
Wrong as usual. Global warming is based on evidence and not faith. The evidence is not 100% (nor is it ever). You apparently do not understand faith. Faith is believing in something without evidence.
Faith is an impediment to reason.
I am an animal (so are you) and I depend on my sensory system (so do you).
Close. Faith is belief in things with no evidence.
That is not faith that is an extrapolation based on tangible evidence.
Just more anti-science rhetoric.
Did Cristobal Colon have any evidence of American continent?
He didn't need any.
That is a quick answer. He found the way to India . If you would tell about about Magallanes I would agree.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I'm not turning a blind anything, it's just that your "reasoning" is flawed to non-existent.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
You don't need evidence to try things.
My arguments throughout these forums in favor of God and support of the CTMU have been decent and coherent. Plus I have enough empirical evidence. That's really all that matters to me.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
No one thinks CTMU is coherent. And even if it were, it would only support a deist God, not a personal God that one could turn to, for instance, in troubled times.
FINALLY! WE AGREE ON THE LATTER.
No, they haven't.
The closest you've got to "coherent" is ignoring argument (and evidence) against.
As I've pointed out many times the CTMU is a circular argument that starts by assuming the conclusion. (Besides being insupportable word salad).
Not by any rational definition of "empirical" you don't.
No, it was dumb blind luck that he ran into it.