Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
YES! MOAR GODZ POWRZ FOR ME
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Your god is a reflection of you, mine a reflection of me.
Oh, okay. I didn't get the "right" bit. The way you are using it becomes tautological. I mistook you for making a substantive claim.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
Concerning God, substantive claims are hard to come by. You gotta have faith....bro.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Jim, you know we all have the utmost faith in you!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
substantive claims are hard to come by. You gotta have faith....bro.
Genuine faith is not incompatible with substantive claims that can be objectively true or false.
Both scientists and intelligent, educated theists make substantive claims that emerge from faith in what they take to be objective evidence. Genuine faith is not based upon an absence of evidence; it is a way of connecting evidences into a web of beliefs.
Thus, faith-based claims can be (in DMT's words) "right" or "wrong" (really, true or false).
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
I mistook you for making a substantive claim
i think Dingus stumbled accidentally almost on something substantive.
Your god is a reflection of you, mine a reflection of me.
God is certainly NOT a reflection us, we are a reflection of Him! Other than that mistake, God is omnipotent and He meets us each exactly where we are as individuals. Jus say " Hey God", and He'll say, "What?" to anyone, EVERYONE.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
It is based on exactly that.
You are conflating "faith" with "religious faith" in the most pejorative sense of the latter.
If you are married, for example, you presumably have faith in the fidelity of your partner. That faith is based upon certain evidences. But you don't "know" in the strong sense of "know". You simply believe, and you have some objective evidences to support your belief. Your faith is based upon evidence, not faith in the absence of evidence.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Yea, I have a slightly different angle of Faith.
More of a Verb sense. Believing and Trusting are ideals we hold within ourselves. In our minds and in our souls.
Faith is us taking Action on those trusts and beliefs.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Your faith is based upon evidence, not faith in the absence of evidence. But your faith in god is precisely in the absence of evidence. Which is the truest meaning of the word faith.
The scientific method doesn't allow for faith......ever.
You have an idea. You discover experimental proof that your idea is valid. Now you have a theory. Based upon the domain of other proven knowledge at the time.
whatever "faith" you may have had in your theory is irrelevant even if it has been proven.
Others test your theory and get consistent results. Then you and others can be certain (again based upon the field of knowledge at the time) that your theory is valid. Now it gets tested and verified by application time and time again. It enters the domain of proven knowledge. There is no faith involved.
Most famously, Newton's Laws of Gravitation were proven and valid for nearly 200 years. Even today they remain valid under non-relativistic conditions.
We know for certain that the earth is not flat and that the Euclidean laws of motion (adapted for relativity in the modern domain of knowledge) work just fine.
Only a nihilist can confuse fact/scientific "law" with faith.
But I think you know that so perhaps some of us misunderstood your meaning.
And unfortunately right now there are plenty of The Confused in positions of power in this country.
If you have evidence for the existence of god, I'd love to hear about it.
Not that this has any connection to Caitlyn Jenner.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Well I'll quibble again.
Faith is NOT action.
It may be an initiator or driver of action.
Whatever actions you take owing to your faith, I the faithless can take the same actions. And the verifiable, objective results will be the same.
Will I have the same emotions and feelings? Extremely unlikely.
I certainly will not derive the same comfort or confidence or whatever positive feelings you derive from your faith based actions. Your subjective experience will definitely be different.
Caitlyn, I have faith that if you are reading this blog you will be at least somewhat amused.
EDIT: Ricky, you are SO concise. Bugger all.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
It's a noun
A person, place, or thing? Well I'm no English major!
My understanding is wrought from my experience through the old English king James version bible.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Okay, now I'll be "concise" like Ricky:
But your faith in god is precisely in the absence of evidence.
Incorrect
Which is the truest meaning of the word faith.
Incorrect
The scientific method doesn't allow for faith......ever.
Wildly incorrect!
You have an idea. You discover experimental proof that your idea is valid.
The word "valid" is undefined in this context. And there IS no such thing as an "experimental proof".
Now you have a theory.
Nope. That's not what a theory is or how genuine scientific theories come to be.
Based upon the domain of other proven knowledge at the time.
Incorrect
whatever "faith" you may have had in your theory is irrelevant even if it has been proven.
Science can prove nothing.
There... I tried to emulate Ricky, and I KNOW that I succeeded. LOL
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
The scientific method doesn't allow for faith......ever.
You have an idea. You discover experimental proof that your idea is valid. Now you have a theory. Based upon the domain of other proven knowledge at the time.
"You have an idea." you Believe it could be true. With other concise input, you trust an experiment would work. Your next step in putting together the experiment, IS you walking/working in Faith.
Do you comprehend my meaning?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
^^^^ I know that I've gotten my money's worth!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
After the $ 200,000+ check that was written(I wonder what brave soul wrote that) for all the other body work he prolly can't afford to?
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
Nothing creative to say
|
|
Is 'evidences' as a plural noun the right use here?
evidences as a verb is the only way I've seen it used.
in any event, evidence is "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
in an epistemic sense we have beliefs in the fidelity of our spouse, but we don't have knowledge.
Can faith be defined as a bridging function for our subjective beliefs? Or is it just a turn of the language which we tend to adhere to?
I believe that 5.9 is harder than 5.8, but I don't have knowledge of that without trying a route rated 5.8 and 5.9. But as an idea I want to bridge the gap of understanding (intersubjectivity) to my climbing partner and relay the notion that this 5.8 is harder than that 5.9.
Can I be said to have faith? Or just relying on a linguistic phrase that has a history?
Hopefully I've muddy the waters on the philosophical discussion. what was the origin of this thread drift? I only read the last page. heh
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Can faith be defined as a bridging function for our subjective beliefs?
That's a nice way of summing up how I think about it.
Faith = Believing some proposition that I don't know for certain but about which I have a better cumulative-case for than against.
So called "blind faith" does not really exist among non-insane people, imo. Every rational person has a web of beliefs into which evidence is interpreted and integrated. Strands cannot be plucked out of that web willy-nilly and without having sometimes dramatic effects on the rest of the web. And because we all (even supposedly "objective" scientists) see through the filters of our paradigms, what counts as evidence and how that "evidence" is interpreted is itself interpreted through the lens of the paradigm.
Worse, most of the strands of our webs were formed unconsciously and on the basis of being told by people we trusted. We don't truly "know" most of the things we believe. We have faith in authorities, experts, and others that we "think" know better than we do.
In short, the exercise of faith is the human condition from which there is no escape.
All that said, I am quite dismayed by the lack of intellectual honesty among fellow Christians. Science is much more a self-correcting discipline than is religion as usually practiced, not because it is less faith-based but because its practitioners are systematically attempting to falsify theories. By contrast, most religionists are trying to be cozy and comfortable.
Back on topic now, what I've just said applies to religious judgmentalism about Jenner. Christians cannot point to passages of the Bible that actually address Jenner's case, and they cannot define their gender pronouns. But they just (comfortably) "know" that Jenner is doing evil. And evil must be condemned. So Jenner must be (publicly) condemned. Satisfied that they have properly defined and condemned a woeful evil in the world, Christians are done with the case (except maybe to "pray for him/her"). Comfort reigns, and narry a thought is given to the all-important question: "Well, if I'm so confident in this perspective, what is the basis of that confidence?"
|
|
splitter
Trad climber
SoCal Hodad, surfing the galactic plane
|
|
What Gene said.
That is all that need be said, partcularly by believers. Because, that is a reflection of Gods heart. Unconditional love. So check your heart for anything contrary to that brothers and sisters.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
|
|
"Back on topic now, what I've just said applies to religious judgmentalism about Jenner. Christians cannot point to passages of the Bible that actually address Jenner's case, and they cannot define their gender pronouns. But they just (comfortably) "know" that Jenner is doing evil. And evil must be condemned. So Jenner must be (publicly) condemned. Satisfied that they have properly defined and condemned a woeful evil in the world, Christians are done with the case (except maybe to "pray for him/her"). Comfort reigns, and narry a thought is given to the all-important question: "Well, if I'm so confident in this perspective, what is the basis of that confidence?""
You are wrong. G-d has a great deal to say about Bruce Jenner's condition in his word the complete Bible, the Tenahk, OT, and B'rit Hadasha, the NT ...
What does the Bible say about transsexualism / transgenderism? Is gender identity disorder / gender dysphoria the result of sin?
http://www.gotquestions.org/transsexualism-gender-identity-disorder.html
G-d made them male. And he made them female. Two separate and different sexes. Many verses throughout the Bible concerning that.
In the Torah, in the law of G-d ...
"In the Law, transvestism / transvestitism was specifically forbidden: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” (Deuteronomy 22:5)."
Let alone trying to change your sex, if you are man you are not to dress as a woman. If you are a woman you are not to dress as a man. G-d's pretty clear. There is no confusion with G-d.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!