Why is it so difficult to say "I don't know"

Let me add this for my scientifically based atheist friends who have just as much faith in their knowledge as my god fearing creationist friends have in their God.

Examples of paradigm shifts in science:

Some of the "classical cases" of Kuhnian paradigm shifts in science are:

The transition from a Ptolemaic cosmology to a Copernican one.

The acceptance of the theory of biogenesis, that all life comes from life, as opposed to the theory of spontaneous generation, which began in the 17th century and was not complete until the 19th century with Pasteur.

The shift in geometric outlook from particular structures to transformation group theory with Felix Klein's Erlangen Program.

The transition between the Maxwellian Electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.

The transition between the worldview of Newtonian physics and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.

The development of Quantum mechanics, which redefined Classical mechanics.

The acceptance of Plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes.

The acceptance of Lavoisier's theory of chemical reactions and combustion in place of phlogiston theory, known as the Chemical Revolution.

The acceptance of Lamarck's theory of evolution to replace creationism.

The acceptance of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection replaced Lamarckism as the mechanism for evolution.

The acceptance of Mendelian inheritance, as opposed to pangenesis in the early 20th century

The movement, known as the Cognitive revolution, away from Behaviourist approaches to psychological study and the acceptance of cognition as central to studying human behaviour.

The "Keynesian revolution" is typically viewed as a major shift in macroeconomics.[1] Later, the acceptance of the monetarism which had been denied by John Maynard Keynes marked a second shift, a shift which was initially extremely divisive.

wiki

So a little humility and a little less certainty of "knowledge" should always be considered, even when faced with what at any given time might seem like absolute certainty. And yes I am aware that evolution is listed in these examples, but there's no reason that it cannot shift again. Especially as these shifts are increasing exponentially:

Major paradigm shifts in the history of the world, as seen by fifteen different lists of key events. There is a clear trend of smooth acceleration through biological evolution and then technological evolution.

wiki





[edit on 10/7/2008 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by dave420I bet it makes it easier for you to believe in ID because 'those darned unaccepting scientists simply don't want to know', but it's not the truth.

I don't believe in ID simply because of what you said - I believe in ID because, to me, anyway, it makes sense. I believe that evolution is simply part of the natural cycle of the universe (Isn't that against the teachings of most religions?), that wherever life develops, it will follow a pre-programmed course, ultimately ending in some form of what can be regarded as an intelligent species. When people ask if we're the only life in the universe, I don't believe we are, because of the reasons I just stated. If used in conjunction with the "Panspermia" theory, I believe the truth is somewhere in-between.

Also, regarding the "Panspermia" theory, it just seems impossible that the universe could create life out of nothing (Life apparently arose out of a pile of #, billions of years ago if you believe current scientific theory), and that something must have leant a helping hand. My only problem is the huge backlash in the scientific community if you put the element of "God" into anything, when scientists are not supposed to have a belief about anything unless it is backed up by evidence and, right now anyway, there is no proof that "God" exists, but there is also no proof that "God" doesn't exist, so what's the point of arguing about it?

Originally posted by dave420If you, or indeed anyone, can provide evidence to suggest ID is real, science would be ID's biggest cheerleader. As it is, though, not a single shred of evidence has been found, and so ID is still an unverified hypothesis, devoid of supporting evidence.

Don't blame science for your unfounded beliefs. It's not the fault of science that you accept things as truth without any evidence at all.

But again, ID or "God" hasn't been proven to not exist, so why are you passing judgement on things which can't be proven either way? It's a free society, and you can believe that the Earth is flat in the modern world if you feel like it. If people like you just shut up, and just accepted that we're all going to disagree on things until it is literally proven one way or another, then it would be a more peaceful world.

Originally posted by ErsatzOn what grounds do you assert that something must allow the Universe to exist?

It seems that in your view to be open minded includes believing in Intelligent Design?

No, to have a open-mind, you must be open to all theories and ideas until one is proven over the other. I am extremely open to everything, but I also have my own views and opinions while various studies, experiments and projects are done to prove, or otherwise, disprove something.

That is contrary to others who seem to inhabit this place, and who call themselves "open-minded".

Originally posted by ErsatzIf we were intelligently designed we would be more intelligently designed, birds have a much better eyesight, dogs a better sense of smell, women would not need to cross their legs everytime they sneeze etc.. etc..

That's assuming that evolution has ground to a halt, and nothing is evolving anymore. I don't believe that is the case, and we are far from where evolution will eventually take us. To believe in evolution, it also means believing that life is constantly evolving through various means, and adapting in various ways. What is it evolving towards? Don't know. Maybe it's an ongoing process until the end of the universe, or maybe it will stop one day when life has evolved to a certain point, or when life has no need to adapt to its environment anymore. Who knows..

Originally posted by ErsatzIs your cause of all things a single event causal action or chain of descending or ascending events with multiple agents acting independently?

Does not itself have a cause?
By what supposition can a Causal agent be necessary if that agent is independent of cause?

Again, you're assuming that we know everything there is to know about, when I think humans don't know jack-# right now. They've learnt how to power a light-bulb and think they are Masters of the Universe, lol.

Originally posted by ErsatzDoesn't this beg the question?
Are you really open minded?

I believe I am, yes. Most theories and ideas I believe in are against the teachings of organised religion, but at the same time, I believe the truth is somewhere in-between.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Let me add this for my scientifically based atheist friends who have just as much faith in their knowledge as my god fearing creationist friends have in their God.

Again, I feel like you are misunderstanding most atheists, myself included.
I'm sure you wouldn't say you have 'faith' that Santa Claus doesn't exist, right? You simply have no reason to believe the extraordinary claims of Santa Claus living in an uninhabitable place doing scientifically impossible things.
Likewise, most atheists simply have no reason to believe the extraordinary claims in the Bible.
It's not that I have faith that God doesn't exist, because faith is not required.
I simply have a lack of belief in God.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
So a little humility and a little less certainty of "knowledge" should always be considered, even when faced with what at any given time might seem like absolute certainty.

It's not so much about the knowledge, but about the lack of knowledge.
I have no information which would suggest that God exists aside from a Bible which was written thousands of years ago. This simply isn't enough for me and others. Aside from that, there are clear cut contradictions in the only source which we DO have (the Bible) which makes it inperfect. Even more reason why I should put as much stock in the Bible as I should that the moon is made of cheese.

It's possible that the moon is made of cheese just as it's possible that God exists, but that possibility is so small that it's not even worth discussing in my opinion.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I'm sure you wouldn't say you have 'faith' that Santa Claus doesn't exist, right?

yes, i have faith that he doesn't exist and so do you. Because neither of us can prove nor disprove his existence.

You simply have no reason to believe the extraordinary claims of Santa Claus living in an uninhabitable place doing scientifically impossible things.

North pole is habitable. Everything that he does is scientifically and theoretically possible within the hypothetical situation which is SANTA CLAUSE.

It's not that I have faith that God doesn't exist, because faith is not required.
I simply have a lack of belief in God.

if you do not know something, you trust that your assertion on whatever that something may be, is true. If you have any form of trust; It is faith; if that faith is placed on something unknowable, you have faith in whatever that may be. If you assert that G*d does not exist, you trust that your assertion is correct. You "trust"/"have faith" that G*d does not exist. They are freaking synonyms. :shk:

It's not so much about the knowledge, but about the lack of knowledge.
I have no information which would suggest that God exists aside from a Bible which was written thousands of years ago. This simply isn't enough for me and others. Aside from that, there are clear cut contradictions in the only source which we DO have (the Bible) which makes it inperfect. Even more reason why I should put as much stock in the Bible as I should that the moon is made of cheese.

someone has had very little exposure to the abundance of theistic ideologies that are out there.

[edit on 10/9/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I'm sure you wouldn't say you have 'faith' that Santa Claus doesn't exist, right?

yes, i have faith that he doesn't exist and so do you. Because neither of us can prove nor disprove his existence.

YOU may have faith that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but don't presume to tell me what I do and do not have faith in.

Faith:
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

My beliefs DO rest on logical bases, therefor faith is NOT required.

Now you COULD say (and seem to be implying) that because I don't have evidence that Santa Claus DOESN'T exist, that I must have FAITH that he doesn't exist.
But I DO have evidence, mathematical evidence, that what Santa Claus claims to do is mathematically impossible given the physics I DO know.

In other words, it is not 'blind faith' or faith without a logical reason.
Rather it is a belief BASED on logic.

Originally posted by JPhish
North pole is habitable.

Oh really?

But conquering North Pole only confirmed that it was utterly uninhabitable and all but inaccessible.

www.nytimes.com.../Reference/Times%20Topics/People/A/Andersen,%20Hans%20Christian

The North Pole is uninhabitable, as there is nothing there but miles of frozen ocean and no land.

bigkatmanning.com...

Originally posted by JPhish
Everything that he does is scientifically and theoretically possible within the hypothetical situation which is SANTA CLAUSE.

BUT everything he does is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE given the FACTS that we have CONCERNING our universe and the data we have accumulated over thousands of years.

FAITH would be to DENY that data.
A logical belief or lack of belief would be to base that belief ON that data.

Originally posted by JPhish
if you do not know something, you trust that your assertion on whatever that something may be, is true. If you have any form of trust; It is faith; if that faith is placed on something unknowable, you have faith in whatever that may be. If you assert that G*d does not exist, you trust that your assertion is correct. You "trust"/"have faith" that G*d does not exist. They are freaking synonyms. :shk:

The word faith can be used in many different ways.
My statement was referring to this definition of faith:
Faith:
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

My belief DOES rest on logical proof and material evidence.
My logical proof comes in many forms and I've stated it on other threads. It is not proof but logical proof. It may be wrong, but I accept it as logical evidence against the existence of God. The material evidence is that there is none. This may not be evidence to you, but it is enough evidence to me to determine that God most likely does not exist.
As you see, my belief is not based on this definition of faith, but rather on logical conclusions.
A court ruling would rule against something that has no material evidence and has logical bases for NOT being true. This would not be a decision based on faith but on logic.

Originally posted by JPhish

It's not so much about the knowledge, but about the lack of knowledge.
I have no information which would suggest that God exists aside from a Bible which was written thousands of years ago. This simply isn't enough for me and others. Aside from that, there are clear cut contradictions in the only source which we DO have (the Bible) which makes it inperfect. Even more reason why I should put as much stock in the Bible as I should that the moon is made of cheese.

someone has had very little exposure to the abundance of theistic ideologies that are out there. That someone should probably do their homework before coming to class . . .

I am talking about the Belief in God with a capital G.
This belief in God generally has one source, the Bible.
Is it not YOU who on another thread knew so little about the Bible that I had to point out scriptures to you to make my point because you did not believe those scriptures where in the Bible?
So who then are you to talk about doing homework?

Originally posted by TruthParadox
YOU may have faith that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but don't presume to tell me what I do and do not have faith in.

If you believe that Santa Claus does not exist you are going on faith.

Faith:
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

There is no amount of evidence that could disprove his existence.
He is purportedly a supernatural being capable of manipulating space time, lowering the volume and mass of his body as well as other objects; and he also has mental abilities that include a godly memory/the ability to peer into the past, and the ability to know someone’s demeanor based on thought alone. Not to mention he is assisted by magical elves and flying reindeer.

My beliefs DO rest on logical bases, therefor faith is NOT required.

Claiming to have any knowledge concerning the existence or non existence of such a supernatural entity is preposterous.

Now you COULD say (and seem to be implying) that because I don't have evidence that Santa Claus DOESN'T exist, that I must have FAITH that he doesn't exist.

that’s what I was and still am saying.

But I DO have evidence, mathematical evidence, that what Santa Claus claims to do is mathematically impossible given the physics I DO know.

I wasn’t aware that supernatural beings are bound by our limited apprehension of terrestrial physics.

In other words, it is not 'blind faith' or faith without a logical reason.
Rather it is a belief BASED on logic.

So it is a belief that you are not certain of but you’re relying on your inescapably flawed logic. . . . I see . . . how is that not faith???

But conquering North Pole only confirmed that it was utterly uninhabitable and all but inaccessible.

The North Pole is uninhabitable, as there is nothing there but miles of frozen ocean and no land.

Maybe that’s why they haven’t found Santas’ magical home.

BUT everything he does is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE given the FACTS that we have CONCERNING our universe and the data we have accumulated over thousands of years.

what facts are these? Please enlighten me.

FAITH would be to DENY that data.

faith is what leads one to believe that their logic is not flawed. Everything as a result requires faith.

A logical belief or lack of belief would be to base that belief ON that data.

there is no such thing as a conscious person with lack of belief.

The word faith can be used in many different ways.
My statement was referring to this definition of faith:
Faith:
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Wasn’t the exact definition I was using; But lets use this definition for the word.

My belief DOES rest on logical proof and material evidence.

Well if you believe this to be true, then to digress once again . . . i believe you must have faith that the material evidence is valid unless you yourself obtained this evidence. To digress further, even if you yourself obtained this evidence, you must now have faith that your perceptual and logical functions of your mind are close to being objective or are. That last one is a STRETCH. You place faith on something because at some point it is illogical for an individual to say they know anything other than that they exist.

My logical proof comes in many forms and I've stated it on other threads. It is not proof but logical proof. It may be wrong, but I accept it as logical evidence against the existence of God.

Fair enough. But you might want to make it clear that you are voicing your beliefs and not facts.

The material evidence is that there is none. This may not be evidence to you, but it is enough evidence to me to determine that God most likely does not exist.

Lack of evidence is not evidence. But if you want to BELIEVE that, that is fine.

As you see, my belief is not based on this definition of faith, but rather on logical conclusions.

incorrect, as I have already stated above that you must have faith in something.

A court ruling would rule against something that has no material evidence and has logical bases for NOT being true.

Court rulings you have faith in the court system?

This would not be a decision based on faith but on logic.

You must have faith that you are being logical before hand.

I am talking about the Belief in God with a capital G.

Belief in the Judeo-Christian G*d? Thanks for the clarification.

This belief in God generally has one source, the Bible.

Well 13.5 million Jews and 1.4 billion Muslims would disagree.

Is it not YOU who on another thread knew so little about the Bible that I had to point out scriptures to you to make my point because you did not believe those scriptures where in the Bible?

I know many of the purported elements of the bible. My questioning of your claims had very little to do with my beliefs or presumptive knowledge.

So who then are you to talk about doing homework?

I’m referring to broadening your scope of knowledge instead of being fixated on one thing. I’m not insinuating that you do not know your craft. Suggesting, rather, that there are many other viewpoints one should explore.

Based on your defintion of faith, we must have faith for literally everything, as we can not prove that anything is even here.
For all we know, we're dreaming, so we must have faith with everything.

Originally posted by JPhish

Faith:
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

There is no amount of evidence that could disprove his existence.

But see you don't understand that a person chooses to accept something as evidence.
I accept the mathematicle impossibility of Santa Claus visiting billions of houses in one night, and I (not you) accept this as evidence.
So I have evidence, and faith is not required.

Originally posted by JPhish
Claiming to have any knowledge concerning the existence or non existence of such a supernatural entity is preposterous.

I never did.
But what I DO know tells me that Santa Claus does not exist.
It's evidence to me.
When you see the ground in front of your face, you have evidence sufficient to YOU that you will not fall off a cliff. But for all you *know*, it could just be a hologram and you may still fall off a cliff.
In this example, you do have faith/trust that you are correct, however, concerning the definition of faith I layed out, you probably do not, as you would accept the ground as sufficient evidence.

Originally posted by JPhish

BUT everything he does is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE given the FACTS that we have CONCERNING our universe and the data we have accumulated over thousands of years.

what facts are these? Please enlighten me.

Nope.
I am not going to list the falacies in the myth of Santa Claus.
You do not accept these falacies as evidence against Santa Claus.
I do.

Originally posted by JPhish
faith is what leads one to believe that their logic is not flawed. Everything as a result requires faith.

So you are using a different defintion then I am.
The definition I'm using is only valid of a belief without logical proof or material evidence.
You're using a much broader use of the word.
I think this is where the misunderstanding arises.


Also, I'm not necesarrily saying your wrong.
Because from YOU'RE point of view, I am using faith because you do not accept my arguments as evidence.
But I DO accept it as evidence and am not using faith.

Originally posted by JPhish

This belief in God generally has one source, the Bible.

Well 13.5 million Jews and 1.4 billion Muslims would disagree.

But look at the origins.
The torah.
Which is a part of the Bible.
I believe that's the first writtings of God.
I could be wrong though.
Also, I said 'generally', as in most of the world uses the Bible, and it is their belief which I argue against.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Based on your defintion of faith, we must have faith for literally everything, as we can not prove that anything is even here.
For all we know, we're dreaming, so we must have faith with everything.

Exactly, so it might be best not to use my definition.

But see you don't understand that a person chooses to accept something as evidence.
I accept the mathematicle impossibility of Santa Claus visiting billions of houses in one night, and I (not you) accept this as evidence.
So I have evidence, and faith is not required.

At some point, you use faith. Even by your definition. Because any logical person knows that it is illogical to claim that your waking life is not a dream; because you have absolutely no proof that it is or isn’t. The Omphalos concept is interesting in this regard as well. Perhaps you were born yesterday and all your memories are but fabrications. “Dark City” is an excellent movie that illustrates this . . .

I never did.
But what
I DO know tells me that Santa Claus does not exist.
It's evidence to me.

Of course, but don’t assume that another person accepts the same truths as you.

When you see the ground in front of your face, you have evidence sufficient to YOU that you will not fall off a cliff. But for all you *know*, it could just be a hologram and you may still fall off a cliff.
In this example, you do have faith/trust that you are correct, however, concerning the definition of faith I layed out, you probably do not, as you would accept the ground as sufficient evidence.

Evidence is not knowledge. The fact remains. You do not know the ground is there. You can taste it, touch it, see it, etc. but in whole, you can never be 100% sure. Therefore, you must have faith. Even if you uncertainty is only .0000000000001%.

Nope.
I am not going to list the falacies in the myth of Santa Claus.
You do not accept these falacies as evidence against Santa Claus.
I do.

I accept them. But I would never claim that they are truths; which you have.

Originally posted by JPhish
faith is what leads one to believe that their logic is not flawed. Everything as a result requires faith.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
So you are using a different defintion then I am.
The definition I'm using is only valid of a belief without logical proof or material evidence.
You're using a much broader use of the word.
I think this is where the misunderstanding arises.

Actually, the quote of me that you used is using your definition. Because only an illogical person would claim that their logic is not flawed. To claim that it wasn’t would be illogical and hence, require faith.

Also, I'm not necesarrily saying your wrong.
Because from YOU'RE point of view, I am using faith because you do not accept my arguments as evidence.
But I DO accept it as evidence and am not using faith.

That’s fine, lets not use the “faith”=trust definition. I like your definition better.
Faith is trust or confidence in the illogical.
Can we use these terms?

But look at the origins.
The torah.
Which is a part of the Bible.
I believe that's the first writtings of God.
I could be wrong though.
Also, I said 'generally', as in most of the world uses the Bible, and it is their belief which I argue against.

Duly noted

I do not believe in the existence of Santa Claus because of the lack of evidence. No faith is involved or even permitted.

All the evidence of my life regarding said Claus indicates he is a fictional construct. The impracticality and improbability of a fat old man in a red suit, climbing down my non-existent chimney to give me free toys, and to perform this action for every child on Earth in one night is a major sticking point, as is the fact I caught my parents wrapping the same presents on Christmas eve that I received on Christmas morning.

This would logically lead me to believe there is no such thing as Santa Claus. This deduction requires no faith at all, and if, one day, I catch the jolly fat man in my place doling out presents, I'm happy to reevaluate my view on the subject.

If one is to postulate something without proof, the burden of proof is on that person, not the person they are trying to convince.

Originally posted by JPhish
At some point, you use faith. Even by your definition. Because any logical person knows that it is illogical to claim that your waking life is not a dream; because you have absolutely no proof that it is or isn’t.

I have faith for everything in using the broader definition of faith as you are using.
I'm merely saying that the definition I used, and the one pertaining to the subject (as it is used in regards to religion) is NOT valid if you have a bases for which you consider evidence.
Evidence is not proof, but it is reason to believe.
It's not 'blind faith'.

Originally posted by JPhish
Of course, but don’t assume that another person accepts the same truths as you.

I'm not.
I'm just saying that from my perspective, and I believe many atheists as well, faith is not involved in the belief that God does not exist.

Originally posted by JPhish
Evidence is not knowledge. The fact remains. You do not know the ground is there. You can taste it, touch it, see it, etc. but in whole, you can never be 100% sure. Therefore, you must have faith. Even if you uncertainty is only .0000000000001%.

But that's NOT the definition of faith I was using.
The definition of faith I'm using is not valid if one has logical/material evidence.
Even though you're correct that we can never be 100% sure of that evidence, if one considers something evidence then they are not using this definition of faith.

Originally posted by JPhish
Actually, the quote of me that you used is using your definition. Because only an illogical person would claim that their logic is not flawed. To claim that it wasn’t would be illogical and hence, require faith.

But again, the definition I'm talking about is not valid given a logical bases.
It would not have that in the definition if it were true about everything.

The whole reason I said what I said about faith is because a lot of people say "it takes faith to be an atheist to".
In this statement, they are refering to the definition of faith as used in Christianity.
This is not true, because I DO have a logical bases for what I believe and I accept it as evidence, so again, faith (in that sense) is not needed.
The difference is that I have a belief in the ordinary while others have a belief in the extraordinary.
So faith is something completely different on these two playing fields.

I really don't want to argue about this anymore.
I think you can understand the point I was trying to make.

reply to post by TruthParadox


It does take faith to be an atheist. not faith that God does not exist, but faith that everything in existance came about from nothing and just happened to work so precisely.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

my scientifically based atheist friends who have just as much faith in their knowledge as my god fearing creationist friends have in their God.

Knowing you as I do, O Noble Canine, I cannot accept that you believe the above to be in any way true. And since you are a friend of mine, it would grieve me to think you were foolish enough to believe it.

Still, it pains me less than the only alternative possibility, which is that you are deliberately fibbing in order to score a debating point.

I've been referring to The Trouble with Physics a lot these days. Good; I shall do so again. One of the points Smolin makes in it is that, as part of the price of entry to a career in science, one has to give up 'the childish desire to be right all the time'.

Do you know why that is?

It is because a scientific career consists mainly of being wrong. The great scientists - the Einsteins, the Darwins, the Nobel prizewinners - have all been wrong overwhelmingly more often than they have been right. In this, they are just like any other scientist - sitting there day after day, busy in the lab, or hunched over an A2 notepad cudgelling their brains and getting it wrong, wrong and wrong again - time after time after time.

Every so often the insights and numbers add up and they think they've got it right. They may even convince their fellows of it for a while. Then someone comes along with a set of embarrassing experimental results or a fresh, pertinent insight, and poof goes their theory. Then - if they're scientists - they've got to bite the bullet, admit their ideas were wrong (yet again) and set off once more in search of the elusive truth.

Once in a very long time a scientist will find out something that actually is true, and human knowledge will take a small step forward. That's the scientist's payday; it's what he lives for. But such moments are few and far between, and are usually greeted with great scepticism by the scientist's colleagues.

You might think of the scientific community as a group of people constantly engaged proving one another wrong. That is how science moves forward.

So any 'scientifically based atheist' who has 'faith' in his knowledge is neither scientific nor an atheist. Which is the point we scientific materialists have been making in this thread all along. I'm sorry, my friend, but science is a better way precisely because no faith is involved. Scientists are people who say 'I don't know' four dozen times a day; the difference is that they don't stop there. They go on to find out. And that, I must say, is the difference between people who take a scientific, rational approach to life and those whose idea of 'keeping an open mind' is to revel in their ignorance and make it out to be some kind of higher moral principle.

It isn't, you know.

reply to post by Astyanax


He shoots. He scores.

That's one hell of a post. Eloquent, accurate, and insightful. Brilliantly done.