The Genesis Conflict - 101 - The Earth in Time and Space

[Dragon]

Faith is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; and is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Just nitpicking because this is slightly off-topic, but I'm going to disagree. You're confusing faith with dogma, a common mistake made by both atheists and dogmatic theists.

Faith is founded in verifiable evidence that is incomplete. Moreover, it is not a belief that but rather a belief in. That is to say, it is not the assertion of claims of fact that can be expressed in language, but rather a confidence that is expressed in action, and that bridges the inevitable gaps in knowledge.

Faith is what allows us to put one foot in front of the other when we cannot be certain the ground will support us. Faith is what allows us to go on living when we have every reason to believe our lives will inevitably end. Faith is what allows us to love when we can never be certain our love is returned. Faith is what allows us to be happy when we know that happiness can never be assured.

On a more cosmic level, faith is what leads us to the certainty that the cosmos is benign, even when objective evidence does not support that conclusion.

The insistence that a proclamation of authority is The Truth regardless of conflicting evidence or lack of supporting evidence is not faith. That is dogma.

 

[MarcATL]

Tonight I'll post another vid of Veith, that really explains his "origins" for lack of a better word.

 

[LOki]

Faith is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; and is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Just nitpicking because this is slightly off-topic, but I'm going to disagree. You're confusing faith with dogma, a common mistake made by both atheists and dogmatic theists.

No. I am not making a mistake here. You can be dogmatic in beliefs founded in evidence and/or valid logic, and you can be dogmatic in faith.

The difference between beliefs based in reason and those based on faith is that where reason seeks validation through verification in reality, faith is a denial of verifiable reality, and it's strength is measure by the strength of that denial.

The irrational find it easy (and sometimes useful) to confuse "dogma" with faith because of the similarity the terms share in expressing stoic closed-mindedness.

Faith is founded in verifiable evidence that is incomplete.

False. Beliefs founded in verifiable evidence that is incomplete are rational beliefs; the degree that certainty in the objective validity of those beliefs exceeds the incomplete validity offered by the incomplete evidence is the degree of faith involved.

Faith-based beliefs often appear to be linked in some manner to verifiable evidence, but they are not--verifiable evidence is often used to rationalize the validity of faith, but the foundations faith still have no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Take note how often it is required that one be a believer first, in order to "see" the evidence. 100%

Faith is unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and faith is validated by an obtuse denial of all verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that challenges and/or contradicts that certainty.

Moreover, it is not a belief that but rather a belief in. That is to say, it is not the assertion of claims of fact that can be expressed in language, but rather a confidence that is expressed in action, and that bridges the inevitable gaps in knowledge.

This only says that the faithful make assertions of certainties where they have no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support those certainties.

One way to interpret this is to say that your suggestion appears to be that they should exercise intellectual honesty and just say, "I am uncertain" or "I don't know." I don't think this is what you really want to say.

No faithful Christian would EVER claim that their faith expresses ANY uncertainty--ANY gap IN their certain knowledge--that Jesus is our Lord, God and Savior.

Faith is what allows us to put one foot in front of the other when we cannot be certain the ground will support us.

This is an assertion unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

It is entirely unnecessary to fabricate certainty out of nothing, and then deny the verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that challenges and/or contradicts that certainty, so that we can put one foot in front of the other when we cannot be certain the ground will support us.

In fact, it is this precise (faith-based) certainty that is the greatest impediment to the intellectual growth and maturity to reliably determine what ground cannot support our next step.

Faith is what allows us to go on living when we have every reason to believe our lives will inevitably end.

This is an assertion unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

It is entirely unnecessary to fabricate certainty out of nothing, and then deny the verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that challenges and/or contradicts that certainty, so that we go on living when we have every reason to believe our lives will inevitably end.

In fact, it is this precise (faith-based) certainty that is the greatest impediment to discovering the means to solving the problems of living, living well, and having truly meaningful lives in the face of the inevitable end of our lives.

Faith is what allows us to love when we can never be certain our love is returned. Faith is what allows us to be happy when we know that happiness can never be assured.

This is an assertion unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

It is entirely unnecessary to fabricate certainty out of nothing, and then deny the verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that challenges and/or contradicts that certainty, so that we love and/or be happy when we have no certainty or assurances that we will receive love and/or be happy.

In fact, it is this precise (faith-based) certainty that is the greatest impediment to the realization that receiving love is not validation of love or giving love; that happiness is not found in the assurances or guarantees offered from without, but from valid rewards granted within.

On a more cosmic level, faith is what leads us to the certainty that the cosmos is benign, even when objective evidence does not support that conclusion.

In fact, it is this precise (faith-based) certainty that will prove to be the greatest impediment to our survival if the objective truth of reality is that the cosmos is not benign.

The insistence that a proclamation of authority is The Truth regardless of conflicting evidence or lack of supporting evidence is not faith. That is dogma.

Correct. And the certainty of the existence of that authority, and the validity of the consequent dogma is faith exactly as I have expressed it: "... belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; and is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic."

 

[LOki]

Tonight I'll post another vid of Veith, that really explains his "origins" for lack of a better word.

I'm going for [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ0Sp5n9ugs&feature=player_embedded"]102 - A Universal Flood / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith[/ame] to see if he's as fair with the "Noah's Ark" fable as he is with cosmology and geology.

 

[MarcATL]

Tonight I'll post another vid of Veith, that really explains his "origins" for lack of a better word.

I'm going for [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ0Sp5n9ugs&feature=player_embedded"]102 - A Universal Flood / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith[/ame] to see if he's as fair with the "Noah's Ark" fable as he is with cosmology and geology.

Actually...I was planning to post this one next week.

I have another one for a little while from now.

 

[MarcATL]

I just watched 102 for like the 6th time. Awesome stuff!

 

[LOki]

I just watched 102 for like the 6th time. Awesome stuff!

I think I'd like some clarification from you about something.

When you say "Powerful stuff!" and "Awesome stuff!", do you mean powerful and awesome in their validity and consistency with reality ... or do you mean powerful and awesome in the breadth and depth of the deliberate misinformation these presentations bring, and/or the powerful and awesome stupidity of the people who embrace this misinformation?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't think you understand what an atheist is.

I also don't think you grasp the concept that disproving science, or failing to do so in your case, in no way proves religion.

I thought real science will correct itself as evidence presents itself ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I just watched 102 for like the 6th time. Awesome stuff!

I think I'd like some clarification from you about something.

When you say "Powerful stuff!" and "Awesome stuff!", do you mean powerful and awesome in their validity and consistency with reality ... or do you mean powerful and awesome in the breadth and depth of the deliberate misinformation these presentations bring, and/or the powerful and awesome stupidity of the people who embrace this misinformation?

If layers of strata were solid rock and formed over millions of years why is lower layers of strata mixed in with the layer of strata above it ?

Since each layer of strata was once the surface of the earth why is it that only the top layer of strata shows erosion ?

 

[Dragon]

No. I am not making a mistake here. You can be dogmatic in beliefs founded in evidence and/or valid logic, and you can be dogmatic in faith.

The first statement is, I suppose, true. I hadn't thought about that, but I suppose one could for example be dogmatic about the theory of relativity. It would be a true dogma (or at least the evidence we have suggests as much), but if one was rigid about it and refused to examine any arguments or evidence to the contrary, one would still be dogmatic.

However, your second statement is untrue. You cannot be "dogmatic" in faith, because faith is not a belief that, and dogma is always a belief that.

The difference between beliefs based in reason and those based on faith

There are no beliefs based in faith, or anyway no beliefs-that -- no beliefs that can be stated in words.

Faith-based beliefs often appear to be linked in some manner to verifiable evidence

Since there is no such thing as a faith-based belief, this statement is untrue.

This only says that the faithful make assertions of certainties where they have no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support those certainties.

No, it says that faith makes no assertions of certainties, or assertions of any kind for that matter. There are no faith-based assertions.

No faithful Christian would EVER claim that their faith expresses ANY uncertainty--ANY gap IN their certain knowledge--that Jesus is our Lord, God and Savior.

"That Jesus is our Lord, God and Savior" is not a faith-based assertion. There are no faith-based assertions. Faith has nothing to do with assertions. As I said in the beginning, what you are calling "faith" isn't faith, it's dogma. Or doctrine, if you prefer that term.

This is an assertion unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

It is entirely unnecessary to fabricate certainty out of nothing, and then deny the verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that challenges and/or contradicts that certainty, so that we can put one foot in front of the other when we cannot be certain the ground will support us.

Faith is not fabricating certainty out of nothing, nor is it denying verifiable evidence or valid logic. As I said in the beginning, what you are calling "faith" isn't faith, its doctrine or dogma. In the case of putting one foot in front of the other, faith is acting in heartfelt confidence without certainty. It has nothing to do with what one believes, intellectually, to be true or false.

The problem with all of your repeated statements along these lines is that you are replacing the word "faith" in what I posted with your own misconceptions about what faith is, arguing against that misperception rather than against what I said, and so failing to say anything even remotely relevant.

Let me clarify it a little further. Faith has nothing to do with religious belief. Religious beliefs are not held on the basis of faith.

If you are talking about or against religious beliefs, you are not talking about or against faith. I believe, in fact I'm pretty certain, that everything you said in this post was about religious belief. My entire point is that you are confusing these two quite different things.

Regarding the benignity of the universe, I'm afraid I didn't express myself well. I was referring to the feeling that the universe is benign and that one has a personal relationship with it and/or that one is or can become one with it. This has nothing to do with any intellectual beliefs that one might hold regarding, for example, the need to responsibly husband natural resources or control our own numbers and breeding. It has, in fact, nothing to do with any intellectual beliefs of any kind or nature.

That feeling of being a part of a benign cosmos is faith. One makes no statements of fact on the basis of that feeling. One merely is, and acts. If one loses that feeling altogether, one commits suicide by one means or another, directly or indirectly. Faith is a necessity of survival.

 

[Montrovant]

No. I am not making a mistake here. You can be dogmatic in beliefs founded in evidence and/or valid logic, and you can be dogmatic in faith.

The first statement is, I suppose, true. I hadn't thought about that, but I suppose one could for example be dogmatic about the theory of relativity. It would be a true dogma (or at least the evidence we have suggests as much), but if one was rigid about it and refused to examine any arguments or evidence to the contrary, one would still be dogmatic.

However, your second statement is untrue. You cannot be "dogmatic" in faith, because faith is not a belief that, and dogma is always a belief that.

The difference between beliefs based in reason and those based on faith

There are no beliefs based in faith, or anyway no beliefs-that -- no beliefs that can be stated in words.



Since there is no such thing as a faith-based belief, this statement is untrue.



No, it says that faith makes no assertions of certainties, or assertions of any kind for that matter. There are no faith-based assertions.

No faithful Christian would EVER claim that their faith expresses ANY uncertainty--ANY gap IN their certain knowledge--that Jesus is our Lord, God and Savior.

"That Jesus is our Lord, God and Savior" is not a faith-based assertion. There are no faith-based assertions. Faith has nothing to do with assertions. As I said in the beginning, what you are calling "faith" isn't faith, it's dogma. Or doctrine, if you prefer that term.

This is an assertion unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

It is entirely unnecessary to fabricate certainty out of nothing, and then deny the verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that challenges and/or contradicts that certainty, so that we can put one foot in front of the other when we cannot be certain the ground will support us.

Faith is not fabricating certainty out of nothing, nor is it denying verifiable evidence or valid logic. As I said in the beginning, what you are calling "faith" isn't faith, its doctrine or dogma. In the case of putting one foot in front of the other, faith is acting in heartfelt confidence without certainty. It has nothing to do with what one believes, intellectually, to be true or false.

The problem with all of your repeated statements along these lines is that you are replacing the word "faith" in what I posted with your own misconceptions about what faith is, arguing against that misperception rather than against what I said, and so failing to say anything even remotely relevant.

Let me clarify it a little further. Faith has nothing to do with religious belief. Religious beliefs are not held on the basis of faith.

If you are talking about or against religious beliefs, you are not talking about or against faith. I believe, in fact I'm pretty certain, that everything you said in this post was about religious belief. My entire point is that you are confusing these two quite different things.

Regarding the benignity of the universe, I'm afraid I didn't express myself well. I was referring to the feeling that the universe is benign and that one has a personal relationship with it and/or that one is or can become one with it. This has nothing to do with any intellectual beliefs that one might hold regarding, for example, the need to responsibly husband natural resources or control our own numbers and breeding. It has, in fact, nothing to do with any intellectual beliefs of any kind or nature.

That feeling of being a part of a benign cosmos is faith. One makes no statements of fact on the basis of that feeling. One merely is, and acts. If one loses that feeling altogether, one commits suicide by one means or another, directly or indirectly. Faith is a necessity of survival.

Sorry, I felt the need to jump in here. Are you saying that if a person loses the feeling of being part of a benign cosmos they will want to kill themselves? That sounds fairly ridiculous; I'm not sure why you'd think you know how anyone would react to losing such a vague and unexplained feeling. Perhaps I'm misreading this, though. I'd like clarification if you don't mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. I am not making a mistake here. You can be dogmatic in beliefs founded in evidence and/or valid logic, and you can be dogmatic in faith.

The first statement is, I suppose, true. I hadn't thought about that, but I suppose one could for example be dogmatic about the theory of relativity. It would be a true dogma (or at least the evidence we have suggests as much), but if one was rigid about it and refused to examine any arguments or evidence to the contrary, one would still be dogmatic.

However, your second statement is untrue. You cannot be "dogmatic" in faith, because faith is not a belief that, and dogma is always a belief that.



There are no beliefs based in faith, or anyway no beliefs-that -- no beliefs that can be stated in words.



Since there is no such thing as a faith-based belief, this statement is untrue.



No, it says that faith makes no assertions of certainties, or assertions of any kind for that matter. There are no faith-based assertions.



"That Jesus is our Lord, God and Savior" is not a faith-based assertion. There are no faith-based assertions. Faith has nothing to do with assertions. As I said in the beginning, what you are calling "faith" isn't faith, it's dogma. Or doctrine, if you prefer that term.

This is an assertion unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

It is entirely unnecessary to fabricate certainty out of nothing, and then deny the verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that challenges and/or contradicts that certainty, so that we can put one foot in front of the other when we cannot be certain the ground will support us.

Faith is not fabricating certainty out of nothing, nor is it denying verifiable evidence or valid logic. As I said in the beginning, what you are calling "faith" isn't faith, its doctrine or dogma. In the case of putting one foot in front of the other, faith is acting in heartfelt confidence without certainty. It has nothing to do with what one believes, intellectually, to be true or false.

The problem with all of your repeated statements along these lines is that you are replacing the word "faith" in what I posted with your own misconceptions about what faith is, arguing against that misperception rather than against what I said, and so failing to say anything even remotely relevant.

Let me clarify it a little further. Faith has nothing to do with religious belief. Religious beliefs are not held on the basis of faith.

If you are talking about or against religious beliefs, you are not talking about or against faith. I believe, in fact I'm pretty certain, that everything you said in this post was about religious belief. My entire point is that you are confusing these two quite different things.

Regarding the benignity of the universe, I'm afraid I didn't express myself well. I was referring to the feeling that the universe is benign and that one has a personal relationship with it and/or that one is or can become one with it. This has nothing to do with any intellectual beliefs that one might hold regarding, for example, the need to responsibly husband natural resources or control our own numbers and breeding. It has, in fact, nothing to do with any intellectual beliefs of any kind or nature.

That feeling of being a part of a benign cosmos is faith. One makes no statements of fact on the basis of that feeling. One merely is, and acts. If one loses that feeling altogether, one commits suicide by one means or another, directly or indirectly. Faith is a necessity of survival.

Sorry, I felt the need to jump in here. Are you saying that if a person loses the feeling of being part of a benign cosmos they will want to kill themselves? That sounds fairly ridiculous; I'm not sure why you'd think you know how anyone would react to losing such a vague and unexplained feeling. Perhaps I'm misreading this, though. I'd like clarification if you don't mind.

I am not speaking for Dragon, but what I read in this was that, if you actually believe the universe is out to get you, you will eventually do something that results in the universe getting you. It is not a reaction to loosing a feeling, it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Montrovant]

Thanks QW, hopefully Dragon will let me know if that's what he meant to say. Maybe something about that post is just not getting through to me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

so the conclusion? religious nutjobs use underhanded methods, misinformation, and misdirection to achieve their goals of discrediting reputable reproducible scientific evidence.

Parrot.

 

[Youwerecreated]

were you expecting honest discussion from someone with an education actually in the field being discussed? this is religious misinformation we're talking about.

Who cares his degree is in one field how do you know his experience in the field he is speaking about.

Anyone can read and learn from what they read.

Do you have this same view when let's say, your hero dawkins, speaks on subjects he is not educated in ?

 

[Dragon]

Sorry, I felt the need to jump in here. Are you saying that if a person loses the feeling of being part of a benign cosmos they will want to kill themselves? That sounds fairly ridiculous; I'm not sure why you'd think you know how anyone would react to losing such a vague and unexplained feeling. Perhaps I'm misreading this, though. I'd like clarification if you don't mind.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We are born with that feeling. When things go badly, we tend to lose it temporarily, then it snaps back. When it doesn't snap back, we call the result "depression." Depression is the feeling that the universe is not benign. (Although depression can also result from a chemical imbalance in the brain, as well as from things going wrong.) Depression often leads to suicide; even when suicide per se does not result, suicide by failure to pay attention or by neglect usually does, if the depression lasts without either recovery or medical intervention.

That feeling of living in a benign universe is faith at its most basic. It's not a rational idea, or an irrational one, either. It's not an idea at all. You can maintain the sense of being in a benign universe while intellectually believing that the universe is indifferent or even hostile. Belief that the universe is benign on an intellectual level is not necessary for survival, but the feeling of being in a benign world is.

The confusion of faith with intellectual beliefs is the core mistake made by doctrinaire religions. The same mistake is made by self-defined atheists (although not always by atheists who don't make a big deal out of it and talk about it all the time), because they are the mirror-image of the doctrinaire religious.

 

[Montrovant]

Sorry, I felt the need to jump in here. Are you saying that if a person loses the feeling of being part of a benign cosmos they will want to kill themselves? That sounds fairly ridiculous; I'm not sure why you'd think you know how anyone would react to losing such a vague and unexplained feeling. Perhaps I'm misreading this, though. I'd like clarification if you don't mind.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We are born with that feeling. When things go badly, we tend to lose it temporarily, then it snaps back. When it doesn't snap back, we call the result "depression." Depression is the feeling that the universe is not benign. (Although depression can also result from a chemical imbalance in the brain, as well as from things going wrong.) Depression often leads to suicide; even when suicide per se does not result, suicide by failure to pay attention or by neglect usually does, if the depression lasts without either recovery or medical intervention.

That feeling of living in a benign universe is faith at its most basic. It's not a rational idea, or an irrational one, either. It's not an idea at all. You can maintain the sense of being in a benign universe while intellectually believing that the universe is indifferent or even hostile. Belief that the universe is benign on an intellectual level is not necessary for survival, but the feeling of being in a benign world is.

The confusion of faith with intellectual beliefs is the core mistake made by doctrinaire religions. The same mistake is made by self-defined atheists (although not always by atheists who don't make a big deal out of it and talk about it all the time), because they are the mirror-image of the doctrinaire religious.

Well, you're welcome to believe what you want, but I think you are wrong. I don't remember ever feeling that the universe is benign, nor do I remember anyone else ever expressing such a feeling.

 

[Dragon]

Well, you're welcome to believe what you want, but I think you are wrong. I don't remember ever feeling that the universe is benign, nor do I remember anyone else ever expressing such a feeling.

When you wake up in the morning, do you feel afraid? Hopeless? In despair? Depressed? Like nothing you do is going to succeed?

If not, then you feel you are living in a benign universe. Whether you THINK that or not, it is what you FEEL.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, you're welcome to believe what you want, but I think you are wrong. I don't remember ever feeling that the universe is benign, nor do I remember anyone else ever expressing such a feeling.

When you wake up in the morning, do you feel afraid? Hopeless? In despair? Depressed? Like nothing you do is going to succeed?

If not, then you feel you are living in a benign universe. Whether you THINK that or not, it is what you FEEL.

Again, believe what you want, but I disagree. I don't understand why it is necessary to feel the universe is benign to not be hopeless and depressed. I don't feel one way or another about the universe. It's the universe, not a person.

 

[Dragon]

Again, believe what you want, but I disagree. I don't understand why it is necessary to feel the universe is benign to not be hopeless and depressed.

It's not that it's necessary, it's that being hopeless and depressed is the exact same as feeling the universe is not benign.

I think maybe, as I suggested in my last post, what is happening is a confusion between the words "feel" and "think" or "believe." I'm talking about a feeling only, not an idea. Which means that in this context, the word "universe" doesn't mean the idea of the universe as in physics or philosophy, it just means "the world I live in" or "the stuff happening around me."