Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?

Faith in yourself can lead to self-knowledge, but that's really as far as it can go.
 
Aqueous Id said:
Interesting statement, one I would not have framed myself, but the more I think about it, the more I agree. My favorite example of scientific discovery in the face of religious restrictions is that of Galileo, who was placed on house arrest for publishing his discovery that Jupiter has moons (contraverting the geocentric teaching of Renaissance Christian doctrine). It is fascinating to read his express frustration over the denunciations of so many secular leaders who he implored to pick up a telescope and confirm it for themselves (now that he had invented the telescope). Here we are 500 years later and the same stupidity prevails. Come on, dummies, confirm some of this stuff yourselves!


I like that point as well. The interesting phenomenon in post Nixon (and esp. post Reagan) America, is that Faith is beginning to claim knowledge of things while at the same time denying religion - as in people identifying as "Theists" not associated with any "organized religion". Yet in fact they are identifying with Fundamentalism (esp. Creationism), but trying to hide from this (as crypto-Creationists) to avoid the strident attacks on the fallacies such folks invite from people of an average education.


Yes, and that exclusion is often self-inflicted, as in the denial of science by Fundamentalists/Creationists. Dig a little deeper, and we note that the word "Faith" here is probably associated with the Protestant notion - esp. American Fundamentalism - of "salvation by faith alone", as opposed to the ancestral Christian teaching "salvation by Faith plus works" (usu. referring to the corporal works of mercy: sheltering the homeless, giving food and water to people who are hungry and thirsty, visiting the sick, the imprisoned, etc.) We see now that rejecting organized religion and calling themselves theists becomes a code word for rejecting social liberalism, i.e. rejecting the so called "welfare state" and analyze this further and you will hear whites complaining about "all those blacks on welfare".

Also, note that although the ancestral Western version of Christianity was for about 15 centuries Roman Catholicism the modern "Theist" (as defined above) will typically hold Catholicism and the Popes in great contempt, even though these are the cultures which handed down their own doctrines to them. In most cases they do not know their own history, as if nothing happened on Earth from the day a Bible magically appeared and the day they first opened one.

So now the facts which constitute an average high school level of education join the operative facts in question which we might construe as knowable (typically evolution, the fact of whether a non-viable fetus is alive and whether God gave Adam the Earth to use as he wished [crypto-deregulationists]) and to this modern mix of modern political agendas we add the actual historical facts that the so-called conservatives are either ignorant of, or pretending to be ignorant of: that for the first 15 centuries the Western Christians (most of Europe) were immersed in the love of the arts, sciences, and academia, and if they were illiterate, they still lived under doctrines enunciated by leaders who praised art, science and academia. Again, this is why our antagonists distance themselves from "membership in a church" since it would demand that they show precedence over the ancestral Christianity which is quite impossible to do. (And I deliberately did not use the word Catholicism, since that word took on a new meaning during the Reformation, and the crypto-Creationists will hang their hats on selective oversimplifications, as if 1500 years of development can be reduced to one word like "Papists" or one sweeping generalization, like "Sale of Indulgences").

To be sure, I am an atheist, but I find this behavior really moronic. The defenders of "faith" are almost exclusively crypto-social conservatives which simply means they want to regulate personal behavior and deregulate industry.


And if we were living in the 13th century, we would say that whenever Nature is revealed to humans (through science and academia) it is the work of The Holy Spirit, that it cannot possibly be untrue, because God would never create and perpetrate a deception on the people. Yes, they believed scientific discovery was divine revelation.


And here we have trouble discerning modern crypto-social conservatives from their alias ("the faithful") until they bash science and academia. Then the cat is out of the bag. They don't want to know that their ignorance of history has made them hopelessly cynical about the long standing doctrines and beliefs which preceded the Anabaptists and Puritans (from which their religious identity was born).


The only possible way is that the scales fall from their eyes, and they fall to the ground and beg God for mercy (just kidding, I am truly an atheist) for pretending to know more than "HE" does concerning the dissemination of facts of Nature upon the students who actually studied, passed exams, and stayed in school long enough to be able to discuss this subject intelligently (at least at the high school level FOR GAWD'S SAKE) !!!

Yep folks, Gawd truly wanted you to stay in school and learn for yourselves how the world works, not to sit on your laurels and claim that you are saved by faith alone. An easy test for that: which will save you from an oncoming train: (a) the ability to quickly estimate the effect of conservation of momentum, or (b) faith alone ...?

I don't usually "shout" in bold so much, but these folks obviously are having trouble reading.
Click to expand...
It's going to take more than shouting to teach a bunch of crypto-social conservatives to read anything they didn't write. So that's the official term for Ronald Reagan ... A crypto-social conservative.
 
brucep said:
It's going to take more than shouting to teach a bunch of crypto-social conservatives to read anything they didn't write. So that's the official term for Ronald Reagan ... A crypto-social conservative.
Click to expand...

They (Reaganites) certainly bred into a stealthier organization during that era, under the thinly veiled guise of religion (and esp. of its implied humanitarian objectives). Too bad the shameful agenda of capitalism as protesters in Nixon's era defined it, did not capture (or somehow foretell) the dangers of religious idealism, as it would become the refuge of, say, the folks who cut their teeth sponsoring terror in the 3rd world, purely as some bizarre experiment aimed at tilting the global balance of power that they perceived was dangerously close to proving the Domino Theory. Unfortunately, the true threat was indeed idealism, just not the idealism of Communism (except of course in the countries those monsters terrorized.) The true threat here at home concerned vulnerable minds being groomed by religion for that unholy matrimony between Church and Nixonite capitalism. And unfortunately the lexicon shifts so much we forgot what that meant. To me, they were primarily crypto-deregulationists, seeking carte blanche to wreak havoc around the world as they chose, to police the countries they were exploiting, and to make sure anyone here at home who opposed them ended up with their neck under the boot of some new law ordained by them, a Brave New World of sorts, which soon hid behind its accusations that the liberals were creating a New World Order. All of their victims are buried one way or the other, so that their electorate never see the dangers of voting Republican, much in the way society hides everything that would shock the conscience of vulnerable and impressionable minds. (Perhaps a lesson learned from televising all those body bags coming in from Vietnam every day.)

Of course, some percentage of readers here seem to be situated in various countries where the above history played out differently, and/or where we might say they were spectators moreso then gladiators, except, of course, those who were living under and perhaps opposing authoritarian governments of their own. That sort of leaves QQ out in the weeds, way too entrenched in what appears to be a case of deliberate ignorance, if not an ignorant cast of the typical "passive aggressive" poster, to be even remotely credible. It's a fairly stealthy form of trolling, evidenced by the way the mods almost tolerate him.

But your point is well taken. Stealth of this kind is, in mind mind, purely criminal. It's practiced and refined to almost guarantee that the haters of the world will band behind the greediest and most dangerous of the rich.
 
Aqueous Id said:
They (Reaganites) certainly bred into a stealthier organization during that era, under the thinly veiled guise of religion (and esp. of its implied humanitarian objectives). Too bad the shameful agenda of capitalism as protesters in Nixon's era defined it, did not capture (or somehow foretell) the dangers of religious idealism, as it would become the refuge of, say, the folks who cut their teeth sponsoring terror in the 3rd world, purely as some bizarre experiment aimed at tilting the global balance of power that they perceived was dangerously close to proving the Domino Theory. Unfortunately, the true threat was indeed idealism, just not the idealism of Communism (except of course in the countries those monsters terrorized.) The true threat here at home concerned vulnerable minds being groomed by religion for that unholy matrimony between Church and Nixonite capitalism. And unfortunately the lexicon shifts so much we forgot what that meant. To me, they were primarily crypto-deregulationists, seeking carte blanche to wreak havoc around the world as they chose, to police the countries they were exploiting, and to make sure anyone here at home who opposed them ended up with their neck under the boot of some new law ordained by them, a Brave New World of sorts, which soon hid behind its accusations that the liberals were creating a New World Order. All of their victims are buried one way or the other, so that their electorate never see the dangers of voting Republican, much in the way society hides everything that would shock the conscience of vulnerable and impressionable minds. (Perhaps a lesson learned from televising all those body bags coming in from Vietnam every day.)

Of course, some percentage of readers here seem to be situated in various countries where the above history played out differently, and/or where we might say they were spectators moreso then gladiators, except, of course, those who were living under and perhaps opposing authoritarian governments of their own. That sort of leaves QQ out in the weeds, way too entrenched in what appears to be a case of deliberate ignorance, if not an ignorant cast of the typical "passive aggressive" poster, to be even remotely credible. It's a fairly stealthy form of trolling, evidenced by the way the mods almost tolerate him.

But your point is well taken. Stealth of this kind is, in mind mind, purely criminal. It's practiced and refined to almost guarantee that the haters of the world will band behind the greediest and most dangerous of the rich.
Click to expand...
You've been paying very close attention for a long time. Your analysis of what's transpired is very informative. Should scare the crap out of most Americans. Last night I stumbled on the interview Ellen Degeneres did with Bernie Sanders. I have huge respect for Bernie Sanders. What caught my attention was how uninformed Ellen Degeneres was concerning what's been happening to the middle class over the time span you detailed. She's a good person and a good example of how folks are to involved in their daily lives to notice the sedition going on around them. Freaks me out that so many Americans are willing to wallow in ignorance. It's my opinion that any elected public servant who votes to shutdown the government of the United States should be charged with sedition.
 
Informed people become responsible for their own actions, uninformed people can always find absolution in confession to god.
An effective religious strategy to keep people ignorant.
 
krash661 said: ↑
" Is faith a reliable path to knowledge? "
why not ?
Click to expand...
Why not? Because faith in God is not founded on knowledge but imagination. Those are different things.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Why not? Because faith is not founded on knowledge but imagination. Those are different things.
Click to expand...

Not sure faith is founded on imagination.

I can imagine many things without faith in their existence.

Faith, I would contend as mentioned elsewhere, can be viewed as a stronger version of hope.

Faith is NOT a reliable starting point for knowledge because faith itself is totally unreliable.

Curiosity as well as your mentioned imagination very likely to lead to knowledge.
 
Michael 345 said:
Not sure faith is founded on imagination.
Click to expand...
Oh , I would argue the opposite is true, a lemur can count just as fast as a human. It implies the cognition and recognition of patterns and for humans to wonder , and ask the question, *Why*? And then ask the question *How*?
I can imagine many things without faith in their existence.

Faith, I would contend as mentioned elsewhere, can be viewed as a stronger version of hope.

Faith is NOT a reliable starting point for knowledge because faith itself is totally unreliable.

Curiosity as well as your mentioned imagination very likely to lead to knowledge.
Click to expand...
I agree with all above.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Why not? Because faith is not founded on knowledge but imagination. Those are different things.
Click to expand...

Not sure faith is founded on imagination.

I can imagine many things without faith in their existence.

Faith, I would contend as mentioned elsewhere, can be viewed as a stronger version of hope.

Faith is NOT a reliable starting point for knowledge because faith itself is totally unreliable.

Curiosity as well as your mentioned imagination very likely to lead
Write4U said:
Oh , I would argue the opposite is true, a lemur can count just as fast as a human. It implies the cognition and recognition of patterns and for humans to wonder , and ask the question, *Why*? And then ask the question *How*?
I agree with all above.
Click to expand...

I didn't know anything about lemurs counting so I checked out what it was about.

"When participating in these tests, "the animals are not coerced or forced in any way," Brannon said. When the touch screen is wheeled into Aristides' home cage, he eagerly runs over and begins touching immediately to obtain sugar pellet rewards."

Found this in the explanation of testing of lemurs. "...not coerced". "....pellet rewards".

Are you kidding me?

Sure the results of the test may show lemurs count faster. And the answer why will probably turn out to be they developed this ability to count, what ever it was they were counting in the wild, faster gave the fastest counter an advantage.

Yes it may have some bearing on providing clues to evolution of the human brain.

"It implies the cognition and recognition of patterns...."

Yes it does. But it does not imply understanding. And, I am guessing here, the ability to count fast in the wild is easy for a researcher to adapt to counting fast in the lab.

Easy peasy for the technician.

Let's see the technician in the wild place random piles of suitable size items within the lemurs sphere and detect if lemurs make the connection between the numerical value of the lemurs interest to the numerical value of lemurs non interest.

I'm guessing again. It's never going to happen.

To quote again from the report:-"One experiment tests a lemur's ability to reliably pick the larger of two piles of raisins. (Like many animals, lemurs get better at this the larger the difference between the two piles.)

No shit!!!

Reminds me of another test where researchers determined the mental age of the subject apes was about the age of a 5 year old child.

The apes were offered two bunches of bananas, one bunch larger than the other. The apes, regardless of chronological age, always pick the largest bunch. They were always given the smaller bunch.

Human children in this test situation at about the age of 5 work out if they select the smaller bunch they will be given the larger.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0604_040604_lemurs_2.html
 
@Michael 345

I think you seriously underestimate the extraordinary abilities in other animals, which evolved in specific environments. As all these abilities are a product of biochemical mathematical functions, the neural network is geared toward pattern recognition and is already present in insects. Patterns are a common denominator of all things. It is not necessarily a matter of *counting* but an instant cognition which would indicate it is an inherent ability.

I don't know what program you saw, but if it was this one;

If this is the one, you perhaps missed the part when choosing the hand-fed candy, they would choose the larger quantity , but in the test the lemurs had to select the lesser quantity, regardless of shape or color for the most satisfactory outcome.

If you haven't seen this clip start the presentation at 23:00
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
@Michael 345

I think you seriously underestimate the extraordinary abilities in other animals, which evolved in specific environments. As all these abilities are a product of biochemical mathematical functions, the neural network is geared toward pattern recognition and is already present in insects. Patterns are a common denominator of all things. It is not necessarily a matter of *counting* but an instant cognition which would indicate it is an inherent ability.

I don't know what program you saw, but if it was this one;

If this is the one, you perhaps missed the part when choosing the hand-fed candy, they would choose the larger quantity , but in the test the lemurs had to select the lesser quantity, regardless of shape or color for the most satisfactory outcome.

If you haven't seen this clip start the presentation at 23:00
Click to expand...


I had not seen that video and thanks for the chance to do so.

I think you over estimate the abilities in animals which have acquired such abilities through natural selection and not by expenditure of deliberate conscious actions.

A human champion in any sport is not born with an inherent ability to perform that sport but obtains such ability through conscious training.

Agree the athletes may have attributes which are conducive to the chosen sport and to us mere mortals performance of the sport at high levels may appear to be an extraordinary ability tending to overlook the TRAINING.

Agree the lemur picks the larger quantity of hand held candy but is TRAINED (as stated in the video) to select the "lesser quantity, regardless of shape or color for the most satisfactory outcome" (candy pellet).

The example of the subject ape was an article and I have no idea if it is on video.

The children who picked the smaller bunch to receive the larger bunch were not TRAINED to do so. The children worked it out by themselves.

Apes in the test do not.
 
Michael 345 said:
The example of the subject ape was an article and I have no idea if it is on video.

The children who picked the smaller bunch to receive the larger bunch were not TRAINED to do so. The children worked it out by themselves.

Apes in the test do not.
Click to expand...

Well, watch this informative view of interaction and Koko and what she learned just like a child.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oh1uhrdc6w

and a little story of Chimpanzees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkiPCKlNjX0
and a little story of Bonobo Chimps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-Hj73ES2U
Remember to look at these clips in context of *necessity and sufficiency*
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Well, watch this informative view of interaction and Koko and what she learned just like a child.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oh1uhrdc6w

and a little story of Chimpanzees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkiPCKlNjX0
and a little story of Bonobo Chimps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-Hj73ES2U
Remember to look at these clips in context of *necessity and sufficiency*
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I watched KoKo and I have been aware of her in dribs and drabs for some time.

I'll be brief here but might get back with more later. After all I am on holiday in Bali.

Watching KoKo learn in every situation I could so easily see a human child with some sort of brain defect.

The level reached fits with a mental age of about 5.

I would like to have seen a split screen with KoKo on one side and the raising of human baby on the other.

Brief brief. Much much more to say but relaxation beckons. So much time so little holiday. :)
 
The short answer to the OP question is;......NO......! By definition, Faith is belief without knowledge.
Knowledge is acquired through Science.
 
Write4U said:
Pretty damn smart for a living organism, if you ask me.

The point was that (especially) great apes have sophisticated brains and the ability to Learn.
Click to expand...

No not smart.

Considering brain size as the saying goes "size isn't everything".

But it does appear the size of the brain allows more complex folds to form with an increase in neurones.

It seems the forefront of the brain gained the most and also the composition changed with more white matter appearing.

No one disputes the ability of apes to learn. But the size and composition of the brain restricts ability to progress beyond mental age 5.

Just as the position of the vocal cords restricts ability to form complex speech.

(Thought bubble - anyone considered a operation on the vocal system with the aim of giving apes speech abilities).

And as noted in KoKo video apes do have their own language suited to their conditions.

Humans ability to build (teach another language) on language potential within KoKo is interesting.

I would like to see an effort to result ratio between human/human baby and human/ape baby. Suspect more effort required for ape.

Back to holiday.
 
Write4U said:
The short answer to the OP question is;......NO......! By definition, Faith is belief without knowledge.
Knowledge is acquired through Science.
Click to expand...
Using the oft-used "Knowledge is a Justified True Belief", the definition would rather say that faith is a justified belief with a strongly committed acceptance of an unproven truth.
A belief without knowledge, using the JTB understanding, is simply a belief. Faith is something more than merely a belief, and something more than a justified belief, and that is the commitment to the belief.
But in all instances it lacks a demonstrable value of truth/falsehood.
 
Write4U said:
Pretty damn smart for a living organism, if you ask me.

The point was that (especially) great apes have sophisticated brains and the ability to Learn.
Click to expand...

No not smart.

Considering brain size as the saying goes "size isn't everything".

But it does appear the size of the brain allows more complex folds to form with an increase in neurones.

It seems the forefront of the brain gained the most and also the composition changed with more white matter appearing.

No one disputes the ability of apes to learn. But the size and composition of the brain restricts ability to progress beyond mental age 5.

Just as the position of the vocal cords restricts ability to form complex speech.

(Thought bubble - anyone considered a operation on the vocal system with the aim of giving apes speech abilities).

And as noted in KoKo video apes do have their own language suited to their conditions.

Humans ability to build (teach another language) on language potential within KoKo is interesting.

I would like to see an effort to result ratio between human/human baby and human/ape baby. Su
Sarkus said:
Using the oft-used "Knowledge is a Justified True Belief", the definition would rather say that faith is a justified belief with a strongly committed acceptance of an unproven truth.
A belief without knowledge, using the JTB understanding, is simply a belief. Faith is something more than merely a belief, and something more than a justified belief, and that is the commitment to the belief.
But in all instances it lacks a demonstrable value of truth/falsehood.
Click to expand...


be·lief
\bə-ˈlēf\
noun
  • : a feeling of being sure thatsomeone or something exists or that something is true
  • : a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable
  • : a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone

faith
\ˈfāth\
noun
  • : strong belief or trust in someoneor something
  • : belief in the existence of God :strong religious feelings or beliefs
  • : a system of religious beliefs
Both from Merriam-Webster.

Lets not reinvent the square wheel era (a little known period in history where in a small village close to Babal everyone had their own dictionary)

Remnants of the period resurface at odd times when, usually young persons, call elders who disagree with the young crowd "squares".

No village occupent had a word for round. So when the wheel turned up a meeting was called and all (except Fred) decided the wheel was square.

This system, having everyone (except Fred), agreeing on definitions, soon cut the number of dictionaries from a few thousand to about 12. Fred's was not counted and he was allowed to keep his copy.

If anyone has the time they should go to the Museum of Dictionaries where Fred's takes pride of place.

Why the letter A takes 25 pages to define. People can add their own definitions (only in electronic form - no writing in the original).

Little known fact. You can spot a tribute to the village if you look at the road wheels of cars you will see the flat spot on the bottom.

Have I made my point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top