Z
Variable Constant
That statement is ridiculous anyway - Belief stems from ignorance. If something is 100% provable, it is a fact.
Facts exist all around us, all the time. Science deals with facts. Philosophy and religion deal with beliefs. Occasionally, a belief is proven irrefutably, and moved from philosophy (or religion) to fact - but most often, a belief is refuted irreversably and banned forever (well, at least for now) from Science.
Which is why I deny that science has anything to do with belief.
Facts exist all around us, all the time. Science deals with facts. Philosophy and religion deal with beliefs. Occasionally, a belief is proven irrefutably, and moved from philosophy (or religion) to fact - but most often, a belief is refuted irreversably and banned forever (well, at least for now) from Science.
Which is why I deny that science has anything to do with belief.
Z
Variable Constant
Once again, Iacchus twists what was said.
Of course, we need to put our beliefs to the test. But once belief becomes fact, we have no reason to bother with 'belief' any more.
Besides, skyscrapers and bridges are built on FACTS, not beliefs.
Of course, we need to put our beliefs to the test. But once belief becomes fact, we have no reason to bother with 'belief' any more.
Besides, skyscrapers and bridges are built on FACTS, not beliefs.
Z
Variable Constant
No, it's because people build things using faulty data, cutting costs and corners, or being unaware of some facts.
The more facts you know, the better your building is. Belief STILL has nothing to do with it.
The more facts you know, the better your building is. Belief STILL has nothing to do with it.
However, they believed the data was correct. Either that or, believed (out of delusion) it wouldn't pose a problem.zaayrdragon said:
And if somebody didn't come up with the original idea, and believed it would work, none of these structures would be standing.
Z
Variable Constant
Iacchus, you have a lot to learn about architecture too, I see.
Buildings just aren't thrown up anywhere - specific designs are created, with an eye to how much load-bearing must be done, structural integrity, etc. Such plans are data-heavy - not belief-heavy.
Yes, sometimes plans fail - usually because of faulty data. In fact, you're only illustrating my point even deeper - if the designer brings belief into it, the building may fall. After all, if you know there is a potential problem, but believe it won't matter - you've just weakened the certainty of your structure. If you have your facts wrong, but believe them to be right, you've weakened it again.
The problem, of course, stems from the confusion between a 'belief' and a 'known fact'. If you know something is true, it is not a belief; however, you can be wrong about it. This doesn't mean that you 'believed it to be true' but that you were wrong in what you knew.
Of course, 'know' means you have to have personally seen the fact demonstrated to your satisfaction, or analyzed the fact to determine its consistancy with the rest of your knowledge. 'Believe' means it seems consistant, but retains a shred of doubt, in that you may not personally experience this fact, or the fact doesn't completely jibe with your knowledge. For example, I can safely say I know that my computer can handle playing the Sims, but not Vice City. This is, of course, because I have done so, and because the operating requirements are well beneath my system stats for Sims, but lacking in graphical memory for Vice City. I can also say I believe my computer can handle playing The Sims 2, because the specs offered by the designer are exceeded by my system; but having never actually tried it, I cannot say that I know it will handle it.
Facts are far more important in the construction of things than belief. Science is far more important in Human life than religion. It's really, really simple.
Buildings just aren't thrown up anywhere - specific designs are created, with an eye to how much load-bearing must be done, structural integrity, etc. Such plans are data-heavy - not belief-heavy.
Yes, sometimes plans fail - usually because of faulty data. In fact, you're only illustrating my point even deeper - if the designer brings belief into it, the building may fall. After all, if you know there is a potential problem, but believe it won't matter - you've just weakened the certainty of your structure. If you have your facts wrong, but believe them to be right, you've weakened it again.
The problem, of course, stems from the confusion between a 'belief' and a 'known fact'. If you know something is true, it is not a belief; however, you can be wrong about it. This doesn't mean that you 'believed it to be true' but that you were wrong in what you knew.
Of course, 'know' means you have to have personally seen the fact demonstrated to your satisfaction, or analyzed the fact to determine its consistancy with the rest of your knowledge. 'Believe' means it seems consistant, but retains a shred of doubt, in that you may not personally experience this fact, or the fact doesn't completely jibe with your knowledge. For example, I can safely say I know that my computer can handle playing the Sims, but not Vice City. This is, of course, because I have done so, and because the operating requirements are well beneath my system stats for Sims, but lacking in graphical memory for Vice City. I can also say I believe my computer can handle playing The Sims 2, because the specs offered by the designer are exceeded by my system; but having never actually tried it, I cannot say that I know it will handle it.
Facts are far more important in the construction of things than belief. Science is far more important in Human life than religion. It's really, really simple.
Radrook said:One?
Excuse me but-------------
All scientists are evolutionists.
Joe is not an evolutionist.
Joe is not a scientist.
Very convenient but drivel nevertheless.
That's a dodge. Name one scientist that doesn't accept mathematical principles.
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
Belief, and even faith do have a place in science, but the meaning is different than religious use. Faith or belief are part of the means rather than the final destination.
I would cheerfully (and hopefully) agree that I have faith in myself, or have belief in what I am trying to accomplish. Those words do not describe a destination though. Combined with logic and reason they can be a source of inner strength.
(Note to self: Arguing over word semantics is probably not going to be productive.)
In religion, faith and belief are the destination. "Facts and evidence" to religion only serve to lend support to an already held belief or faith. "Walk by faith and not by sight" is not a scientific idea, but expresses beautifully the religious path.
There was a nice example of 'scientific faith' on the web, but the transcript seems to have been removed from the BBC site. This was a TV production done on the solving of Fermat's Theorem. I clipped part of a review below, because the language used to describe the event is almost mythical. If anyone can find the original interview with Professor Andrew Wiles, it is quite moving and worth a read.
There are many competing religious ideas, many contract each other. How do we go about establishing the truth of any of them using facts or evidence? We can't. The best we can do is accept some ideas at their aesthetic value - "some are pretty" and "some are not". This places religion into the realm of subjective taste and opinion.
I would cheerfully (and hopefully) agree that I have faith in myself, or have belief in what I am trying to accomplish. Those words do not describe a destination though. Combined with logic and reason they can be a source of inner strength.
(Note to self: Arguing over word semantics is probably not going to be productive.)
In religion, faith and belief are the destination. "Facts and evidence" to religion only serve to lend support to an already held belief or faith. "Walk by faith and not by sight" is not a scientific idea, but expresses beautifully the religious path.
There was a nice example of 'scientific faith' on the web, but the transcript seems to have been removed from the BBC site. This was a TV production done on the solving of Fermat's Theorem. I clipped part of a review below, because the language used to describe the event is almost mythical. If anyone can find the original interview with Professor Andrew Wiles, it is quite moving and worth a read.
There are many competing religious ideas, many contract each other. How do we go about establishing the truth of any of them using facts or evidence? We can't. The best we can do is accept some ideas at their aesthetic value - "some are pretty" and "some are not". This places religion into the realm of subjective taste and opinion.
Z
Variable Constant
NO, I don't believe for a fact that God exists. If God were proven to exist, I would know for a fact He exists. I believe Deity exists (as Deity is neither male nor female), but you cannot BELIEVE anything FOR A FACT.
A known fact is one that has been repeatedly verified, is reproducible at will, is commonly observable, and requires no leap of intuition or faith to accept. That diamonds are made of carbon atoms is a known fact. That diamonds can be used to tune chakras is a belief. (Probably false, depends on if you believe in chakras... )
Or is that not clear??
Try to establish a Universal theme and the relevance it has to those cultures which acknowledge it? Ever hear of Joseph Campbell and The Power of Myth?Kopji said:
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
Iacchus
I own Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". Seems a similar topic and very good read except I think he could get to the point faster. Maybe times have changed since the book was written. 'Hero' might be older and out of print(?)
Oddly enough I am also an admirer of Black Elk, you quoted from earlier. The misplaced trust in supernatural salvation circa late 1800's (the ghost dance, etc) was a very sad chapter in American Indian history. Darned if I know why every Sioux is not an atheist.
I own Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". Seems a similar topic and very good read except I think he could get to the point faster. Maybe times have changed since the book was written. 'Hero' might be older and out of print(?)
Oddly enough I am also an admirer of Black Elk, you quoted from earlier. The misplaced trust in supernatural salvation circa late 1800's (the ghost dance, etc) was a very sad chapter in American Indian history. Darned if I know why every Sioux is not an atheist.
Z
Variable Constant
Two main reasons:
1) Native Americans appear to be gullible (as part Apache, I have to agree). After all, how many times did they keep trusting that White Men would stick by their words?
2) 'Christian' churches went out of their way to convert anyone they could - especially 'godless savages'.
You know, you could extend that question to any group of people whose god has failed them.. yet, somehow, oppressed and defeated people often seem to stick by their religion even more, rather than taking their persecution as a sign that their god has failed them.
Faith - who can understand it?
European invasion of Native American land and the subsequent plagues, such as smallpox, which decimated native americans by the millions DID result eventually in their demoralization and the belief that they had been abandoned or had been turned against by their gods.
Z
Variable Constant
Yes, but instead of atheism, they largely turned to a new God.
Why?
Maybe because the White Man's god appeared to be backing a winning team. Sounds good, huh?
Why?
Maybe because the White Man's god appeared to be backing a winning team. Sounds good, huh?
Z
Variable Constant
You know, I'm curious about this incident. Why do you think the dog was trying to kill you? What breed was it? Must've been some truly terrifying creature if you were really afraid it would kill you.
OR maybe you're just not an animal-person. (As in, good with, not made partly of...)
Sounds to me like either a) you're a wimp who fears dogs, or b) way off the deep end. OK, honestly, or c) someone in your neighborhood had a really vicious, vindictive, evil Rottweiler-Great Dane hybrid trained to kill you.
Weird...