I have stated more than once that Faith requires belief without evidence. To be clearer, this doesn't mean that evidence for their conclusion being true doesn't exist, it just means that it plays no part in their belief that it is true. Even if you were not sure that that was the context in which I am discussing the word you could deduce it from that fact that I spent two entire posts talking about how believing in things without evidence is not a reliable path to discerning the truth about reality. It may very well be that one arrives at a true conclusion through faith, but given the method it is extremely unlikely that they will, and they are in no more of a position to defend their faithful views than someone who believes in a fantasy. Choosing to believe that something is true without having any evidential basis on which to assert such a claim, is delusional. Is there something about this which you do not understand? Can I take it that we are in agreement on this? Can you provide an example of faith not requiring someone to believe in something with disregard to if their belief is supported by evidence or not?Mod74 wrote:You're either missing or avoiding the point I've made several times that "faith" isn't just a belief in things that can't be proved.
I suppose your assurance as to my aptitude comes from the fact that I never said that's what faith was, nor did I talk about faith as a substitute word for religion. I am pointing out that faith requires people to believe things to be true without any evidence, and that this is delusional. The fact that every religion or 'faith' (as you put it) in existence requires people to do this means that one necessarily has to engage in at least some delusional beliefs in order to follow them. The fact that one doesn't buy into all the un-evidenced beliefs a religion offers wholesale does not make the ones they do buy into any less delusional. They are just cherry picking their delusions.Mod74 wrote:I'm sure you're not stupid enough to think that faith or religion isn't simply accepting wholesale every element of that faith.
I am ridiculing the faithful bits, hence singling them out for ridicule and ignoring the parts that do not include faith because they have no bearing on the faithful bits still being delusional. Are you unsure of how keeping a discussion on point works? You've already tried to shift the goalposts once by changing a discussion about faith into a discussion about the benefits that religion provides. You're not going to do it again are you? Either faith is delusional or it is not.Mod74 wrote:You want to ridicule the fantastical or cherry pick certain passages but you're ignoring everything that's a perfectly sensible rational way to live your life.
I'm not sure how you know which social rules I do and do not accept, but I explained with extreme lucidity that I endeavour to base my acceptance of truth claims on reason and evidence and if someone can point out where I have failed to do this I will change my mind about those claims being true because I am not bound by faithful dogma to still accept them as true. Can you point out where I have failed to base my truth claims on reason and evidence? If you can I want to know.Mod74 wrote:I don't understand why you're willing to accept societal rules handed down from millenia but religious ones are delusional. If you're religious or not you're still placing faith in a set of life rules/lessons someone else created.
Considering I have defined how I am using the word faith over and over again for you before this post, and again in this post, I am at a loss as to how you think the only thing that qualifies as belief without evidence is the belief in a 'beardy guy on a cloud creating a universe'. I have also not only talked about the unprovable, I seem to remember writing a two part magic-dice analogy talking about how faith can come to conclusions which are provable, but that the fact that their conclusions may be provable using reason and evidence has no bearing on the fact that the process the faithful person used to arrive at a conclusion is still as delusional as is their reason for accepting their conclusions as true.Mod74 wrote:If the only thing you know about faith is it's a belief in a beardy guy on a cloud creating a universe then I could understand why you would think that was delusional. I'm sure you understand faith is a lot more than that so I don't know why you'd ignore everything else other than the fact only talking about unprovable (note, not untrue) elements supports your viewpoint.
Believing in something without evidence is indistinguishable from believing in something which is made up and not part of reality, which is delusional. If you find a flaw with my rationality then I will change my mind, but I have no reason to take it on faith that you might have a magical way to prove me wrong that for some reason you are not sharing. All the evidence I see points to man who want me to open my mind to his way of thinking, abandon a rational understanding of my own ideas and then promptly close it again. Maybe you should open your mind instead?Mod74 wrote:I'm sure you must have talked in the past about the benefits, but right now saying faith=delusion makes you come across as just as closed minded as they monsters you're fighting.
I think both statements are equally wrong. Being born 'bad' requires exactly the same argument of moral 'preprogramming' as Ali's, and I would use the same argument against it. The whole meaning of 'bad' and 'good' is a matter of social convention in the first place.Mod74 wrote:Strikes me humans are born bad and society/religion/law forces them to be good.
Not born good and religion forces them to be evil (which is one of the most bizarre statements from an academic I've ever read)
I was talking about moral decision-making ability (i.e. some concept that an action is good or bad), not claiming that animals have no thought processes at all. But, even if they had such moral abilities, without any way of communicating it to us or some technology that can measure intentions it would be impossible for us to tell. A scientific approach would presumably mean not jumping to such conclusions, I'd imagine. In fact it would be an act of faith to attribute morality to animals based on current knowledge.djchump wrote:Seems incorrect to attribute only humans with inner conscious life and decision-making ability, and deny that animals are able to do the same - in fact, not just incorrect, but dangerous even:
I don't think I've understood what you mean with respect to moral decision-making TBH. ÂJonB wrote:I was talking about moral decision-making ability (i.e. some concept that an action is good or bad), not claiming that animals have no thought processes at all.djchump wrote:Seems incorrect to attribute only humans with inner conscious life and decision-making ability, and deny that animals are able to do the same - in fact, not just incorrect, but dangerous even:
Well, that way lies solipsism - Schopenhauer argues that we only understand other minds, that other people have their own internal consciousness and life, through extrapolation from our own. If they have mind, arising from brains as nearly complex as human, then what's to say they don't have internal consciousness and some level of abstract concepts/thought?JonB wrote:But, even if they had such moral abilities, without any way of communicating it to us or some technology that can measure intentions it would be impossible for us to tell.
Well, a scientific approach first requires curiosity and not jumping to conclusions, sure - but there is evidence of altruism and empathy in animals so it's not completely pie in the sky.JonB wrote:A scientific approach would presumably mean not jumping to such conclusions, I'd imagine.Â
Doesn't seem that way to me - if animals can show altruism and empathy (with evidence, so that's not on faith), why could they not hold concepts that something is "good" or "bad"?JonB wrote:In fact it would be an act of faith to attribute morality to animals.
Some_Guy wrote:Choosing to believe that something is true without having any evidential basis on which to assert such a claim, is delusional. Is there something about this which you do not understand? Can I take it that we are in agreement on this?
revelthedog wrote:Really? I think you will find that every living thing on the planet is here to breed, make copies of itself, pass on genetic information. Other base actions are generally learned. They are bred for certain physical attributes that allow them to carry out certain actions. they may even be breed for aggressiveness or passiveness. But being born with these abilities you stated above? I can't say I agree with you.
Ali wrote:revelthedog wrote:Really? I think you will find that every living thing on the planet is here to breed, make copies of itself, pass on genetic information. Other base actions are generally learned. They are bred for certain physical attributes that allow them to carry out certain actions. they may even be breed for aggressiveness or passiveness. But being born with these abilities you stated above? I can't say I agree with you.
Fight or flight? You don't learn that. If you had to, you would fail to do either and end up as something's lunch.
Mod74 wrote:I'll pick this one as I think it illustrates your and my point best. If believing in something that can't be proved true or untrue is delusional then not believing it is exactly equally delusional.
Mod74 wrote:You've deluded yourself that there isn't a God waiting for you when you die (or whatever variant the religion chooses) just as much as the people who think there is have.
Mod74 wrote:The only logical outcome is that the question is unanswerable, to fall one side or the other is an equally large leap of faith. No side will ever produce an answer (though someone logical would have to accept that the "yes there is a God" camp might one day)
Mod74 wrote:You're being delusional by believing in something that doesn't exist, i.e. proof that there isn't a God.
Mod74 wrote:So, now we're done with the proof question, we're left with the day to day actions of followers which I think are of greater on the whole benefit to them personally and society generally. Certainly I'd rather grant people the freedom to get on with life and believe whatever the hell they want then mount an offensive attack based on nothing more than a guess.
revelthedog wrote:Proof. Woof...
Ali wrote:revelthedog wrote:Proof. Woof...
My eyes? I'm a vet BTW ; )
What's to say that they do?djchump wrote:Well, that way lies solipsism - Schopenhauer argues that we only understand other minds, that other people have their own internal consciousness and life, through extrapolation from our own. If they have mind, arising from brains as nearly complex as human, then what's to say they don't have internal consciousness and some level of abstract concepts/thought?
There's no evidence that animals can show altruism or empathy, only that they can exhibit behaviour that seems to approximate to what we would call altruism or empathy. These are human concepts being applied to animal behaviour with no way of knowing its motivation. That doesn't have to mean such things are eternally unattainable.Doesn't seem that way to me - if animals can show altruism and empathy (with evidence, so that's not on faith), why could they not hold concepts that something is "good" or "bad"?
Humans are born with a variety of potentials, including some form of social instinct but also some very self-interested ones. Also, particular forms of social are aligned with being good and there's no agreement even within cultures as to what those forms are. Some might say a concept of 'free love' with no regard for family is as social as things get, while others would say that's the very way to destroy society. You either say that one of these is privileged in our birth state, or both of them are inherent potentials, but either way that means we are born both social and anti-social.Brooks wrote:Broadly, humans are born Social. So far as we align being social with being good, humans am gud.
Ali wrote:I'll get the blue juice. Just sit still, this won't hurt a bit......
revelthedog wrote:At a base genetic level we are preprogrammed to breed.Â
Nothing more.
Good and Evil are completely subjective, depending on the society you are in.Â
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!