Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Have you ever read Dawkins?

Options
1…5681011

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Mena
    Registered Users Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Did you read my post? I am not talking about faith in God, nor was I attempting to justify it. You stated that there was almost nothing that you placed faith in. I was attempting to show otherwise.

    I did read it. Perhaps not being a native English speaker gave rise to me interpreting it a little differently.

    Let me try again if you will.

    1. Banks. I do expect the banks to safeguard it, but I don't have much faith that they actually do, hence I check my bank statements... erm... religiously... :P
    2. No, personally I don't expect politicians to deliver on their promises. When they do, I'm shocked.
    3. I never expect people to "stop at red". I've been hit doing 60Mph when someone failed to stop, so I err on the side of caution, always.
    4. I would accept that you are an Irish Caucasian male because a) I don't see why you would bother to lie and b) it's not like I would care either way.

    I take your point though, that in life there are things that some "take on faith" as it's put.


  • Options
    #213
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Mena wrote: »
    I take your point though, that in life there are things that some "take on faith" as it's put.

    Not you though?


  • Options
    #214
    Mena
    Registered Users Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Not you though?

    I'm sure you could think up something I probably do that I'm missing, but in general, I try not to, not when it's important anyway.


  • Options
    #215
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Mena wrote: »
    I'm sure you could think up something I probably do that I'm missing, but in general, I try not to, not when it's important anyway.

    Fair enough. I'll spare you examples.

    I don't believe that it is possible to analyse and test everything to such an extent as to rule out faith. You do. We probably aren't going to agree on this.


  • Options
    #216
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    I think it's a little more than a question of semantics Fanny C.
    You see, faith has all too much of a religious significance. Using that analogy of having faith in the bank etc and then transferring that argument to religious belief systems is a cheap shot.

    Faith in the context it's being discussed here is of the "strong belief" kind of faith. Let's say faith with a capital "F", you know to have a faith etc.

    So although you might trust politicians etc. you need to have a reason to trust, proof if you will. Faith as I see it in this context is of the religious un-questioning type.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    mountainyman wrote: »
    Aah but how do you have a non conscious manipulation?

    Well, for example a chemical reaction in your body can manipulate how you think, feel, act. The chemical doesn't have a consciousness it doesn't decide whether it will affect your body or not, yet it affects your own consciousness.

    Consider that over a pint this evening, while you are poisoning your soul with alcohol.


  • Options
    #218
    Mal-Adjusted
    Registered Users Posts: 3,584 ✭✭✭Mal-Adjusted


    Personally, i dont have any faith in politicians:D he he he


  • Options
    #219
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Studiorat -no its not.

    Its not that earth shattering evangelical stuff you read about. Most people dont analyse or think about it as atheists do.

    Im just too busy getting on with life to normally question it.


  • Options
    #220
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Mal-Adjusted wrote: »
    Personally, i dont have any faith in politicians:D he he he

    OR Jade Goody:D


  • Options
    #221
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    studiorat wrote: »
    Well, for example a chemical reaction in your body can manipulate how you think, feel, act. The chemical doesn't have a consciousness it doesn't decide whether it will affect your body or not, yet it affects your own consciousness.

    Consider that over a pint this evening, while you are poisoning your soul with alcohol.
    Your getting spiritual - JDs or Jim Beam?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    The problem is that you are on the Christianity forum. Therefore you may expect us to use a definition of 'faith' that is biblical rather than one that is most commonly used in other contexts.

    Well I may be on the Christian forum but I don't recall anyone so far saying that they are using the term "faith" in a different context, in the biblical context, that is seemingly completely different to how everyone else uses the term in the general context.

    In fact the other times we have discussed this issue it didn't seem to be in the Biblical context at all, it was the general "what does faith mean", applied to Christians and atheists alike and discussed at length with Christians on the atheist forum . If I remember correctly the charge most commonly discussed was that belief in evolution or science requires as much "faith" as belief in God. If "faith" was being used in purely a biblical context then such a statement is meaningless since a biblical concept doesn't apply to evolution or science.

    I can't help feel you are introducing a straw man here PDN.

    But anyway, perhaps you could define "faith" purely in a Biblical context and how it differs to "faith" in a none Biblical context, and possibly explain how the heck on is supposed to tell when each context is being used.


  • Options
    #223
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    CDfm wrote: »
    Your getting spiritual - JDs or Jim Beam?

    John Powers and a drop of water, old school Dub.


  • Options
    #224
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    CDfm wrote: »
    Im just too busy getting on with life to normally question it.

    Go on outa that, you're here aren't you? And you did half read the God Deluge.


  • Options
    #225
    Mal-Adjusted
    Registered Users Posts: 3,584 ✭✭✭Mal-Adjusted


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well I may be on the Christian forum but I don't recall anyone so far saying that they are using the term "faith" in a different context, in the biblical context, that is seemingly completely different to how everyone else uses the term in the general context.

    In fact the other times we have discussed this issue it didn't seem to be in the Biblical context at all, it was the general "what does faith mean", applied to Christians and atheists alike and discussed at length with Christians on the atheist forum . If I remember correctly the charge most commonly discussed was that belief in evolution or science requires as much "faith" as belief in God. If "faith" was being used in purely a biblical context then such a statement is meaningless since a biblical concept doesn't apply to evolution or science.

    I can't help feel you are introducing a straw man here PDN.

    But anyway, perhaps you could define "faith" purely in a Biblical context and how it differs to "faith" in a none Biblical context, and possibly explain how the heck on is supposed to tell when each context is being used.

    I always thougt that faith(biblical faith) was something that couldn't be tested, therefore wouldn't be aplicable to something like Evolution or whatnot. there is no faith involved here, just examination of the evidence and drawn conclusions. at least that's what i always gathered


  • Options
    #226
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    studiorat wrote: »
    I think it's a little more than a question of semantics Fanny C.
    You see, faith has all too much of a religious significance. Using that analogy of having faith in the bank etc and then transferring that argument to religious belief systems is a cheap shot.

    Please don't accuse me of cheap shots when you misrepresent my point. For the 3rd time, I state that I was not talking about religion. I was discussing Mena's statement that he/ she had had faith in almost nothing.


  • Options
    #227
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well I may be on the Christian forum but I don't recall anyone so far saying that they are using the term "faith" in a different context, in the biblical context, that is seemingly completely different to how everyone else uses the term in the general context.

    Faith is believing and accepting thats the way it is.

    I can imagine being that dissatisfied to question everything like atheists do.

    Thats one thing I never understand about Dawkins Theories -if belief is such a genetic/powerful force that we are all predisposed to believe. Then why are there atheists.

    I accept that some people just dont get it - its not such a big deal.


  • Options
    #228
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    studiorat wrote: »
    Go on outa that, you're here aren't you? And you did half read the God Deluge.
    I used to think an Atheist a grown up with the mind of an adolesent.

    Now I dont know - It could be something in their genes.

    I didnt really half read it -I was looking for the pictures:mad:


  • Options
    #229
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Please don't accuse me of cheap shots when you misrepresent my point. For the 3rd time, I state that I was not talking about religion. I was discussing Mena's statement that he/ she had had faith in almost nothing.

    Sorry, I should have phrased that differently.

    Since the first definition in the dictionary regarding Faith has a religious context, I suggested that another word would have been more suitable, especially in a religious discussion forum.

    I know you stated it was in a different context but it's a bit too easy to say that a person has or has not faith in certain non-religious contexts and then use that argument in a religious context. (if you have faith in this why not that). After all the word does seem to have a certain fluidity about it today.


  • Options
    #230
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    It looks as if we are at an impasse, then. While your examples certainly are faith based statements, I would take a much broader view of the term faith. For instance, I have faith in the character of my friends or family. I believe that they will come through for me if I'm in need, but that's not to rule out the possibility that they may not.

    Well yes, that is kind of my point.

    You trust that your friends will help you out, even though you may not have any evidence that they are going to, or even know what circumstances you may find yourself in that you need help.

    Ultimately faith is trusting one's own internal assessment of something as being reliable. You trust your assessment that your friends will help you. You have faith in them. Losing faith in your friends would be questioning that assessment, starting to believe that it doesn't hold in reality.

    Faith is not required when you have direct evidence for something. When you are trapped under a bus and your friend is helping to free you you don't need to trust your internal judgment that your friend will help you, he is helping you right now.

    Equally when you get trapped under the bus and your friend runs away screaming, you instantly lose all faith in him because the evidence in front of you is that he won't help you when you need it.

    That is why people say faith is belief without evidence. One could argue that you base your original judgment that he will help you on evidence (he is a kind person, he helped you out before, he is a fire fighter), but ultimately it is still a question of trusting your judgment as to how your friend will behave in the future. That is having faith in him.

    Traditionally faith is more often that not associated with positive things. You don't have faith your friend will sleep with your wife. You instead would say you have no faith that he won't sleep with your wife.

    That is important because it ties back to the concept of internal judgments. We tend to make judgments about things in the context of what can help or benefit us. If we believe something bad will happen to us we make that in the context of something good not happening. You don't have faith the plane will crash. You have no faith the plane will make the journey safely.

    All this ties back to religion. To me, what I understand by faith and how I use the word, is the internal judgment that the deity you believe in is real. This is an internal judgment, and internal assessment. It is not based on direct evidence. God isn't standing in front of you. It is perfectly possible to believe, as many do, that God doesn't exist.

    You have faith he does because you trust that your internal assessment that he is real is accurate.

    Now someone like PDN may argue that that is not what his belief is based on. He has plenty of good solid evidence that God is real. To him God is as real as your friend pulling you from under the bus.

    To me though, if that is true, then that is not "faith". If it is then the word faith becomes almost redundent.


  • Options
    #231
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Please don't accuse me of cheap shots when you misrepresent my point. For the 3rd time, I state that I was not talking about religion. I was discussing Mena's statement that he/ she had had faith in almost nothing.
    I have seen - some of the posts and agree -that at a level Mena does believe that her beliefs are somehow more right and like it or not places faith in the "we" to descibe her own beliefs.

    Key outspoken staunch atheists in the past like Malcolm Muggeride the writer and journalist retreated from this position.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    mountainyman wrote: »
    What's that supposed to mean? Stephen Gould didn't believe in genes?

    I thought you said you read the selfish gene.
    :confused:


  • Options
    #233
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    marco_polo wrote: »
    I thought you said you read the selfish gene.
    :confused:
    Its as a sole building block for a complex life form he finds overly reductive or am I confusing him with another dude


  • Options
    #234
    Mena
    Registered Users Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    CDfm wrote: »
    I have seen - some of the posts and agree -that at a level Mena does believe that her beliefs are somehow more right

    Well don't we all think our "beliefs" are right?
    CDfm wrote: »
    and like it or not places faith in the "we" to descibe her own beliefs.

    Not sure I understand this part. Care to elaborate?


  • Options
    #235
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    studiorat wrote: »
    Sorry, I should have phrased that differently.

    No probs.
    studiorat wrote: »
    Since the first definition in the dictionary regarding Faith has a religious context, I suggested that another word would have been more suitable, especially in a religious discussion forum.

    I know you stated it was in a different context but it's a bit too easy to say that a person has or has not faith in certain non-religious contexts and then use that argument in a religious context. (if you have faith in this why not that). After all the word does seem to have a certain fluidity about it today.

    I don't deny that it has a religious context. However, I was looking at definitions in dictionary.com and thefreedictionary.com and the first entry for faith in each of these sites does not relate to religious faith.

    1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. (www.dictionary.com)

    1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. (www.thefreedictionary.com)

    As I have repeatedly explained - I was not discussing the word faith in a context other than a religious meaning, it doesn't matter if the word is 'fluid' or not.

    So, in an agreement with those quotes and in a secular context, I do have faith in friends, family, stranger (sometimes), banks (waning) or that a company will fulfil its promises to me.


  • Options
    #236
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Mena wrote: »
    Well don't we all think our "beliefs" are right?



    Not sure I understand this part. Care to elaborate?

    I didnt phrase it correctly - and i dont know how to say it without sounding off- i know some believers whose belief is partly is based on belonging to a group and get their beliefs from the belonging. Others play along at it -sunday christians. Others sincerly believe.

    I dont for any minite deny the power of the group - but my point was the use of the word we with prominance made me think of that.


  • Options
    #237
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    CDfm wrote: »
    Its as a sole building block for a complex life form he finds overly reductive or am I confusing him with another dude

    Gould you mean?

    The point I was making to mountainyman is that in the Dawkins view the genes is the unit of evolution, and genes create organisms as a means of surviving and reproducing. Others believe that the the phenotype is the main unit of evolution and genes are more like a passive blueprint for features of the phenotype, which would be the more traditional view.

    That is what is meant by gene centric.


  • Options
    #238
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Gould you mean?

    The point I was making to mountainyman is that in the Dawkins view the genes is the unit of evolution, and genes create organisms as a means of surviving and reproducing. Others believe that the the phenotype is the main unit of evolution and genes are more like a passive blueprint for features of the phenotype, which would be the more traditional view.

    That is what is meant by gene centric.
    Right so Ted


  • Options
    #239
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    CDfm wrote: »
    Right so Ted

    lol


  • Options
    #240
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    CDfm wrote: »
    Faith is believing and accepting thats the way it is.

    I can imagine being that dissatisfied to question everything like atheists do.

    Thats one thing I never understand about Dawkins Theories -if belief is such a genetic/powerful force that we are all predisposed to believe. Then why are there atheists.

    Because selective pressures are not constants.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    mountainyman wrote: »
    Atheism is a diversion from the real struggle. The struggle for socialism.

    More on topic I accept that DAWKINS has demonstrated (though someone else came up with it) how life could begin through a process of iterative complexity. What is life after all but flawed replication.

    However -- how does this prove or disprove the existence of God? surely one can postulate a perfect God who sets the Universe in motion and then lets it alone to play out according to her laws.

    We can postulate that until we figure out what set the laws of nature in motion. Then God migrates to the nearest convenient Gap in scientific knowledge.


Advertisement