Does Faith in the Divine = Stupidity?

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: StormRider
I'

Basically, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. There is a very powerful theorem in Logic Theory by Godel(?) that kind of says that no matter your system of beliefs (the things you accept as true -- axioms) you can always construct a sentence where you cannot prove or disprove the truth of the sentence. I took this to be a mathematical way of saying "math/logic/science can never explain everything".

I wouldn't use any of those statements to hold up a bridge or diagnose a patient.

Can I ask what level of math courses you have taken? Have you've taken more advance math courses (senior level or graduate level) in set theory, logic and abstract algebra for example?

I was an electrical engineering major so I've taken the basic stuff like Calculus, Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Complex Variables, Operational Mathematics (Laplace, Fourier Transforms), and Linear Algebra. But I liked math a lot so I also took Real Analysis, Fractals and Chaos Theory, Abstract Algebra, Point Set Topology, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, Numerical Analysis, Probability, Statistics, Introductory Combinatorics, Number Theory, Logic, Differential Geometry, and Discrete Math etc. I've also taken graduate level courses in Analysis, Differential Equations, and some others I've forgotten.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I sometimes see people who might have taken a Calculus course or two and think they understand all of mathematics and logic and proclaim that we shouldn't believe anything unless we can prove it and that everything can be explained by science and logic.

But if you just take some more deeper math courses you will encounter a mathematical proof that says there will always be mathematical statements that cannot be proved nor disproved.

Also, you would soon realize that we have something called axioms in math. From these axioms we prove other mathematical statements. But these axioms were never proven to be true -- we just assume them to be true because they are so self-evident. As I mentioned earlier, there is a mathematical statement that says "parallel lines cannot cross". Back in those days, people thought this statement could be proven true from other axioms. But it turned out it couldn't be proven true or false. So, one branch of mathematics assumed it to be true (Euclidean Geometry) and another branch (Non-Euclidean Geometry) assumed it to be false. And both mathematical systems have proven to be very useful in engineering and science (designing bridges etc).

But I digress. Math (and Science which uses math as it's foundation) has something called axioms which are statements we assume to be true. This is basically the same thing as having faith that they are true.

So, people who claim to only believe in science, math, and logic aren't much different from religious people in the sense that the very basic thing we believe in (Axioms or the existence of God) cannot be proven and are assumed to be true in our belief system.

Read the rest of the thread; we already went over this. Did you take all your other non-required courses post-bac?(just curious)

P.S. Math Major(Senior)

Yes, I took the non-required math courses post-bac during my graduate schools days (getting a MS in EE) where I lingered too long taking more math and computer science courses.

After getting my MSEE I tried getting a PHD in applied math but failed and I finally got a job during the last days of the dot com boom. I must admit I was having trouble in the graduate level math courses. I pretty much got easy A's in the undergrad math courses but I struggled in the grad level math courses. I'm hoping that part of the reason was because I was kind of sad during that time (I felt I was being held back in life by having to help out in my parent's restaurant and something else happened which made me really sad in life). But who knows? Maybe I just wasn't smart enough to be at the PHD level....

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: StormRider
I'

Basically, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. There is a very powerful theorem in Logic Theory by Godel(?) that kind of says that no matter your system of beliefs (the things you accept as true -- axioms) you can always construct a sentence where you cannot prove or disprove the truth of the sentence. I took this to be a mathematical way of saying "math/logic/science can never explain everything".

I wouldn't use any of those statements to hold up a bridge or diagnose a patient.

Can I ask what level of math courses you have taken? Have you've taken more advance math courses (senior level or graduate level) in set theory, logic and abstract algebra for example?

I was an electrical engineering major so I've taken the basic stuff like Calculus, Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Complex Variables, Operational Mathematics (Laplace, Fourier Transforms), and Linear Algebra. But I liked math a lot so I also took Real Analysis, Fractals and Chaos Theory, Abstract Algebra, Point Set Topology, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, Numerical Analysis, Probability, Statistics, Introductory Combinatorics, Number Theory, Logic, Differential Geometry, and Discrete Math etc. I've also taken graduate level courses in Analysis, Differential Equations, and some others I've forgotten.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I sometimes see people who might have taken a Calculus course or two and think they understand all of mathematics and logic and proclaim that we shouldn't believe anything unless we can prove it and that everything can be explained by science and logic.

But if you just take some more deeper math courses you will encounter a mathematical proof that says there will always be mathematical statements that cannot be proved nor disproved.

Also, you would soon realize that we have something called axioms in math. From these axioms we prove other mathematical statements. But these axioms were never proven to be true -- we just assume them to be true because they are so self-evident. As I mentioned earlier, there is a mathematical statement that says "parallel lines cannot cross". Back in those days, people thought this statement could be proven true from other axioms. But it turned out it couldn't be proven true or false. So, one branch of mathematics assumed it to be true (Euclidean Geometry) and another branch (Non-Euclidean Geometry) assumed it to be false. And both mathematical systems have proven to be very useful in engineering and science (designing bridges etc).

But I digress. Math (and Science which uses math as it's foundation) has something called axioms which are statements we assume to be true. This is basically the same thing as having faith that they are true.

So, people who claim to only believe in science, math, and logic aren't much different from religious people in the sense that the very basic thing we believe in (Axioms or the existence of God) cannot be proven and are assumed to be true in our belief system.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: StormRider
I'

Basically, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. There is a very powerful theorem in Logic Theory by Godel(?) that kind of says that no matter your system of beliefs (the things you accept as true -- axioms) you can always construct a sentence where you cannot prove or disprove the truth of the sentence. I took this to be a mathematical way of saying "math/logic/science can never explain everything".

I wouldn't use any of those statements to hold up a bridge or diagnose a patient.

Can I ask what level of math courses you have taken? Have you've taken more advance math courses (senior level or graduate level) in set theory, logic and abstract algebra for example?

I was an electrical engineering major so I've taken the basic stuff like Calculus, Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Complex Variables, Operational Mathematics (Laplace, Fourier Transforms), and Linear Algebra. But I liked math a lot so I also took Real Analysis, Fractals and Chaos Theory, Abstract Algebra, Point Set Topology, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, Numerical Analysis, Probability, Statistics, Introductory Combinatorics, Number Theory, Logic, Differential Geometry, and Discrete Math etc. I've also taken graduate level courses in Analysis, Differential Equations, and some others I've forgotten.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I sometimes see people who might have taken a Calculus course or two and think they understand all of mathematics and logic and proclaim that we shouldn't believe anything unless we can prove it and that everything can be explained by science and logic.

But if you just take some more deeper math courses you will encounter a mathematical proof that says there will always be mathematical statements that cannot be proved nor disproved.

Also, you would soon realize that we have something called axioms in math. From these axioms we prove other mathematical statements. But these axioms were never proven to be true -- we just assume them to be true because they are so self-evident. As I mentioned earlier, there is a mathematical statement that says "parallel lines cannot cross". Back in those days, people thought this statement could be proven true from other axioms. But it turned out it couldn't be proven true or false. So, one branch of mathematics assumed it to be true (Euclidean Geometry) and another branch (Non-Euclidean Geometry) assumed it to be false. And both mathematical systems have proven to be very useful in engineering and science (designing bridges etc).

But I digress. Math (and Science which uses math as it's foundation) has something called axioms which are statements we assume to be true. This is basically the same thing as having faith that they are true.

So, people who claim to only believe in science, math, and logic aren't much different from religious people in the sense that the very basic thing we believe in (Axioms or the existence of God) cannot be proven and are assumed to be true in our belief system.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

How are those things even comparable? Mathematics can be replicated and broken down experimentally. You can take someone with no math background whatsoever and build up their understanding of it from the ground up. Emphasis on "from the ground up".

Religion works completely in reverse. You first assume the most complex thing imaginable (God), and all of a sudden everything's supposed to make sense.

All assumptions are not created equal.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There have been whole books written on the definition of faith. You can't even begin to talk about it until you define it.

A "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" sums it up quite nicely, no?

Except you defined it as something that was self-evident in your last post. So what are you Solipsist or something? We're gonna open that can of worms now?

No, I was basically saying that that axioms and postulates, regarded as self-evident, are ultimately faith-based (we assume them to be true without 'proof'... I see that as faith). Self-evident and faith-based are not one in the same or interchangable. Sorry for the confusion if that was what you read it as.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
The definition of faith changes depending on who uses it. It's not something you can just throw away with a one sentence definition.

I think it is fairly straightforward and most people would agree that 'faith' generically means a belief in something that does not have clearcut 'proof' (proof these days often but not always comes in the empirical form). In my opinion people only pervert it when they want to hold it to different standards for different context (religion vs otherwise). *shrug*

I just read what you wrote. But what I'm saying is even though it seems like there is a clearcut general definition of faith, when you crack it open there are many layers to it. When I say that the sun will rise tomorrow is that faith? Sure, it's risen every day before this one, but I can't be absolutely sure, can I? When I say a rock is hard, is that faith? Faith in my senses? When I say that I exist, is that faith? Faith in myself? Is every observation faith-based?

And what is proof? Isn't the definition of proof based on faith? Faith in cause and effect?

You want to dismiss faith as belief in something without proof. But what is belief? Is believing in a scientific sense the same as religious belief? Do the religious scientifically believe in God? Do scientists religiously believe that a water molecule is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen? Do scientists even believe at all? Or do they know? Do the religious know there is a God? What's the definition of know?

As you can see, it's a damn slippery slope unless you're careful about terminology. When you start calling the basic assumptions of our perception of reality (like mathematic axioms) faith-based you suddenly find yourself on a slippery slope.

What do you mean by the pronoun "I" at the start of your post? Saul Kripke has an interesting lecture on the first person.

Now I am obviously being facetious but I hope you get the point. We could go into a regress on language and definitions of everything.

Are there different sub-types of faith? Absolutely. I think the place where it becomes convoluted is when people attempt to assign 'degrees of faith' and make judgments on whether one or more is justified than the other. I still think the generic heading of faith as "belief in that which cannot be proven" is good enough in the common sense interpretation.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Estrella

The weird thing is that you are attempting to use reason as a possible means to disprove reason. A contradiction, I sense, young Padewan.

I'm using reason to show that reason doesn't extend infinitely, and that whatever exists beyond can be neither proven nor disproven using pure logic. I am further point out that reason can only exist on a core of non-reason.

Oh, but no. You have simply raised only another paradox, the who is god's mommy paradox. And just like circular definitions, one cannot have circular proofs to prove or disprove anything.
If god made anything, he made reason.

Jagec is not attempting to disprove reason. He is attempting to show the limits of human knowledge and 'proof' that some are so self-assured is concrete.

There is no circularity in what he did. Any mathematician worth their salt will acknowledge there are mathematical truths that cannot be proven. There is certainly no circularity in what Gödel did. That is why he famously authored proofs, not paradoxes.

Yes, they are called axioms. Yes, there are limits to human knowledge- why academia exists.

I am reading some stuff on Godel's work since I know not of what you speak. I was only speaking of Jagec's argument, unless his argument is Godel's.

If I go down in a burst of flames looking like an idiot I will not mind, at least I am learning.

You will quickly learn, then, that axioms and postulates cannot be 'proven'. They are 'self-evident' (read: faith-based).

This is wrong. Axioms are declared to be true as foundations of a mathematical system. They are not believed to be true "on faith." They are set forth as requisite truths for proper operation within the system.

Propositions about the objective existence of certain entities aren't even in the same category as mathematical axioms. Your analogy is simple preposterous.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Estrella

The weird thing is that you are attempting to use reason as a possible means to disprove reason. A contradiction, I sense, young Padewan.

I'm using reason to show that reason doesn't extend infinitely, and that whatever exists beyond can be neither proven nor disproven using pure logic. I am further point out that reason can only exist on a core of non-reason.

Oh, but no. You have simply raised only another paradox, the who is god's mommy paradox. And just like circular definitions, one cannot have circular proofs to prove or disprove anything.
If god made anything, he made reason.

Jagec is not attempting to disprove reason. He is attempting to show the limits of human knowledge and 'proof' that some are so self-assured is concrete.

There is no circularity in what he did. Any mathematician worth their salt will acknowledge there are mathematical truths that cannot be proven. There is certainly no circularity in what Gödel did. That is why he famously authored proofs, not paradoxes.

Yes, they are called axioms. Yes, there are limits to human knowledge- why academia exists.

I am reading some stuff on Godel's work since I know not of what you speak. I was only speaking of Jagec's argument, unless his argument is Godel's.

If I go down in a burst of flames looking like an idiot I will not mind, at least I am learning.

You will quickly learn, then, that axioms and postulates cannot be 'proven'. They are 'self-evident' (read: faith-based).

This is wrong. Axioms are declared to be true as foundations of a mathematical system. They are not believed to be true "on faith." They are set forth as requisite truths for proper operation within the system.

Propositions about the objective existence of certain entities aren't even in the same category as mathematical axioms. Your analogy is simple preposterous.

I believe you are wrong. Axioms are mathematical statements that cannot be proved or disproved. Like you said, you can accept a set of such mathematical statements as being true to be the foundation of a mathematical system. In another mathematical system, you can not accept them as axioms. Both mathematical systems are valid (like Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometry)

The statement that "God exists" is a statement that cannot be proven true and cannot be proven false. Some people will accept this statement as being true and it forms their foundation for their belief system. Some will accept it as false and not have it in their belief system. Both both belief systems are valid and equivalent. If you can't prove or disprove the statement that "God exists", how can it be otherwise?

The analogy makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: StormRider
I'

Basically, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. There is a very powerful theorem in Logic Theory by Godel(?) that kind of says that no matter your system of beliefs (the things you accept as true -- axioms) you can always construct a sentence where you cannot prove or disprove the truth of the sentence. I took this to be a mathematical way of saying "math/logic/science can never explain everything".

I wouldn't use any of those statements to hold up a bridge or diagnose a patient.

Can I ask what level of math courses you have taken? Have you've taken more advance math courses (senior level or graduate level) in set theory, logic and abstract algebra for example?

I was an electrical engineering major so I've taken the basic stuff like Calculus, Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Complex Variables, Operational Mathematics (Laplace, Fourier Transforms), and Linear Algebra. But I liked math a lot so I also took Real Analysis, Fractals and Chaos Theory, Abstract Algebra, Point Set Topology, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, Numerical Analysis, Probability, Statistics, Introductory Combinatorics, Number Theory, Logic, Differential Geometry, and Discrete Math etc. I've also taken graduate level courses in Analysis, Differential Equations, and some others I've forgotten.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I sometimes see people who might have taken a Calculus course or two and think they understand all of mathematics and logic and proclaim that we shouldn't believe anything unless we can prove it and that everything can be explained by science and logic.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not exactly state what you claim. It applies to arithmetic systems in particular, which are not the same as personal worldviews.

But if you just take some more deeper math courses you will encounter a mathematical proof that says there will always be mathematical statements that cannot be proved nor disproved.

Also, you would soon realize that we have something called axioms in math. From these axioms we prove other mathematical statements. But these axioms were never proven to be true -- we just assume them to be true because they are so self-evident.

It is not that they are "self-evident," but rather that they derive directly from the semantics of language. They are basically definitions, then, not "self-evident truths" as you seem to portray them.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a mathematical statement that says "parallel lines cannot cross". Back in those days, people thought this statement could be proven true from other axioms. But it turned out it couldn't be proven true or false. So, one branch of mathematics assumed it to be true (Euclidean Geometry) and another branch (Non-Euclidean Geometry) assumed it to be false. And both mathematical systems have proven to be very useful in engineering and science (designing bridges etc).

But I digress. Math (and Science which uses math as it's foundation) has something called axioms which are statements we assume to be true. This is basically the same thing as having faith that they are true.

Science does not use math as its foundation. Empiricism is the foundation of science, i.e. reliable induction about the real world. Math, on the other hand, does not deal with reality, but instead only models idealizations.

So, people who claim to only believe in science, math, and logic aren't much different from religious people in the sense that the very basic thing we believe in (Axioms or the existence of God) cannot be proven and are assumed to be true in our belief system.

It is absolutely ludicrous to liken the postulation of mathematical axioms to the faith based belief in an un-evidenced, allegedly objective entity.



[/quote]

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: StormRider

This is wrong. Axioms are declared to be true as foundations of a mathematical system. They are not believed to be true "on faith." They are set forth as requisite truths for proper operation within the system.

Propositions about the objective existence of certain entities aren't even in the same category as mathematical axioms. Your analogy is simple preposterous.

I believe you are wrong.

Believe what you like; you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There have been whole books written on the definition of faith. You can't even begin to talk about it until you define it.

A "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" sums it up quite nicely, no?

Except you defined it as something that was self-evident in your last post. So what are you Solipsist or something? We're gonna open that can of worms now?

No, I was basically saying that that axioms and postulates, regarded as self-evident, are ultimately faith-based (we assume them to be true without 'proof'... I see that as faith). Self-evident and faith-based are not one in the same or interchangable. Sorry for the confusion if that was what you read it as.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
The definition of faith changes depending on who uses it. It's not something you can just throw away with a one sentence definition.

I think it is fairly straightforward and most people would agree that 'faith' generically means a belief in something that does not have clearcut 'proof' (proof these days often but not always comes in the empirical form). In my opinion people only pervert it when they want to hold it to different standards for different context (religion vs otherwise). *shrug*

I just read what you wrote. But what I'm saying is even though it seems like there is a clearcut general definition of faith, when you crack it open there are many layers to it. When I say that the sun will rise tomorrow is that faith? Sure, it's risen every day before this one, but I can't be absolutely sure, can I? When I say a rock is hard, is that faith? Faith in my senses? When I say that I exist, is that faith? Faith in myself? Is every observation faith-based?

And what is proof? Isn't the definition of proof based on faith? Faith in cause and effect?

You want to dismiss faith as belief in something without proof. But what is belief? Is believing in a scientific sense the same as religious belief? Do the religious scientifically believe in God? Do scientists religiously believe that a water molecule is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen? Do scientists even believe at all? Or do they know? Do the religious know there is a God? What's the definition of know?

As you can see, it's a damn slippery slope unless you're careful about terminology. When you start calling the basic assumptions of our perception of reality (like mathematic axioms) faith-based you suddenly find yourself on a slippery slope.

What do you mean by the pronoun "I" at the start of your post? Saul Kripke has an interesting lecture on the first person.

Now I am obviously being facetious but I hope you get the point. We could go into a regress on language and definitions of everything.

Are there different sub-types of faith? Absolutely. I think the place where it becomes convoluted is when people attempt to assign 'degrees of faith' and make judgments on whether one or more is justified than the other. I still think the generic heading of faith as "belief in that which cannot be proven" is good enough in the common sense interpretation.

Look, if you want the discussion to go somewhere beyond semantics you have to draw the line at what faith is and what it isn't, something you seem unwilling to do. This leaves the door open to call ANYTHING faith and put it on equal footing with religious faith.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: StormRider
I'

Basically, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. There is a very powerful theorem in Logic Theory by Godel(?) that kind of says that no matter your system of beliefs (the things you accept as true -- axioms) you can always construct a sentence where you cannot prove or disprove the truth of the sentence. I took this to be a mathematical way of saying "math/logic/science can never explain everything".

I wouldn't use any of those statements to hold up a bridge or diagnose a patient.

Can I ask what level of math courses you have taken? Have you've taken more advance math courses (senior level or graduate level) in set theory, logic and abstract algebra for example?

I was an electrical engineering major so I've taken the basic stuff like Calculus, Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Complex Variables, Operational Mathematics (Laplace, Fourier Transforms), and Linear Algebra. But I liked math a lot so I also took Real Analysis, Fractals and Chaos Theory, Abstract Algebra, Point Set Topology, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, Numerical Analysis, Probability, Statistics, Introductory Combinatorics, Number Theory, Logic, Differential Geometry, and Discrete Math etc. I've also taken graduate level courses in Analysis, Differential Equations, and some others I've forgotten.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I sometimes see people who might have taken a Calculus course or two and think they understand all of mathematics and logic and proclaim that we shouldn't believe anything unless we can prove it and that everything can be explained by science and logic.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not exactly state what you claim. It applies to arithmetic systems in particular, which are not the same as personal worldviews.

But if you just take some more deeper math courses you will encounter a mathematical proof that says there will always be mathematical statements that cannot be proved nor disproved.

Also, you would soon realize that we have something called axioms in math. From these axioms we prove other mathematical statements. But these axioms were never proven to be true -- we just assume them to be true because they are so self-evident.

It is not that they are "self-evident," but rather that they derive directly from the semantics of language. They are basically definitions, then, not "self-evident truths" as you seem to portray them.

[/quote]

Here is Wiki's definition of an axiom:

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else they logically follow from (otherwise they would be classified as theorems).

Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be universally true (e.g., (A ? B) ? A), while non-logical axioms (e.g, a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in that sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.

Outside logic and mathematics, the term "axiom" is used loosely for any established principle of some field.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Flyback
What do you mean by the pronoun "I" at the start of your post? Saul Kripke has an interesting lecture on the first person.

Now I am obviously being facetious but I hope you get the point. We could go into a regress on language and definitions of everything.

Are there different sub-types of faith? Absolutely. I think the place where it becomes convoluted is when people attempt to assign 'degrees of faith' and make judgments on whether one or more is justified than the other. I still think the generic heading of faith as "belief in that which cannot be proven" is good enough in the common sense interpretation.

Look, if you want the discussion to go somewhere beyond semantics you have to draw the line at what faith is and what it isn't, something you seem unwilling to do.

How can I be any more clear or willing? In my view faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". I think you are somehow imposing or suggesting that my view leaves everything open to faith. That is my position. You subsequently may interpret that as a problem or have all along in this discussion. I don't.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
This leaves the door open to call ANYTHING faith and put it on equal footing with religious faith.

I think the problem is that people try and discredit religious faith because of the context (religion) when it is nothing particularly extraordinary just that the word 'faith' often gets mentioned when discussing religion where it would be otherwise mislabeled in other disciplines.

You mentioned solipsism earlier on, so let me put it this way: my faith that solipsism is not true is similar to my faith in axioms of math & logic is similar to my faith in religion. While they are different types of faith, they all fall under the same generic category of being firm beliefs for which I have no proof.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Flyback
What do you mean by the pronoun "I" at the start of your post? Saul Kripke has an interesting lecture on the first person.

Now I am obviously being facetious but I hope you get the point. We could go into a regress on language and definitions of everything.

Are there different sub-types of faith? Absolutely. I think the place where it becomes convoluted is when people attempt to assign 'degrees of faith' and make judgments on whether one or more is justified than the other. I still think the generic heading of faith as "belief in that which cannot be proven" is good enough in the common sense interpretation.

Look, if you want the discussion to go somewhere beyond semantics you have to draw the line at what faith is and what it isn't, something you seem unwilling to do.

How can I be any more clear or willing? In my view faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". I think you are somehow imposing or suggesting that my view leaves everything open to faith. That is my position. You subsequently may interpret that as a problem or have all along in this discussion. I don't.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
This leaves the door open to call ANYTHING faith and put it on equal footing with religious faith.

I think the problem is that people try and discredit religious faith because of the context (religion) when it is nothing particularly extraordinary just that the word 'faith' often gets mentioned when discussing religion where it would be otherwise mislabeled in other disciplines.

You mentioned solipsism earlier on, so let me put it this way: my faith that solipsism is not true is similar to my faith in axioms of math and logic is similar to my faith in religion. While they are different types of faith, they all fall under the same generic category of being firm beliefs for which I have no proof.

This is where we differ. First of all solipsism can't be untrue by definition, much like religion. But that aside, even under your broad definition of faith, not all faith is created equal. Axioms of math and logic are in no way comparable to religious faith. That's like saying "faith" in Xenu is exactly the same as "faith" that 1+1=2. Except that is almost literally what you ARE saying.

Bringing causal relationships into doubt is a completely different affair than bringing the divinity of Jesus into doubt. Your definition of faith is so broad it's meaningless.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Science does not use math as its foundation. Empiricism is the foundation of science, i.e. reliable induction about the real world. Math, on the other hand, does not deal with reality, but instead only models idealizations.

And what does empiricism rely on? Observation. And what does that rely on? Technology and apparatus in labs to carry out experiments, and the collection & interpretation of the collected datas. Are you suggesting that these don't rely on math in a foundational way? If they do, then I would argue it is just one middle step more than what you suggest...

If you want to discuss empirical results you must acknowledge the vehicle which let you arrive at those results and the interpretations therein. I do not know how you can separate it ex post facto.

 

[MillionaireNextDoor]

While it's true that there is no proof that there is a God, realize that there is also no proof that there is no God. In fact, God is outside of the realm of science, as are many things.

"I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." -Richard Dawkins

You can't live life through science alone; there's much more to life and the universe, and science is only one part of it.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
But that aside, even under your broad definition of faith, not all faith is created equal.

Says you.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Axioms of math and logic are in no way comparable to religious faith.

Your personal opinion. I sense you are making a very obvious value judgment here because I was hinting at the fact that they both fit the generic definition I gave and that is all I was stressing, while you seem to suggest something more all along (ie one type of faith is 'more justified' than another). I could be wrong but that is the drift I got.

We disagree in a big way. Neither of us will advance any ground. I'm going to call it a night and thank you

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: StormRider
I'

Basically, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. There is a very powerful theorem in Logic Theory by Godel(?) that kind of says that no matter your system of beliefs (the things you accept as true -- axioms) you can always construct a sentence where you cannot prove or disprove the truth of the sentence. I took this to be a mathematical way of saying "math/logic/science can never explain everything".

I wouldn't use any of those statements to hold up a bridge or diagnose a patient.

Can I ask what level of math courses you have taken? Have you've taken more advance math courses (senior level or graduate level) in set theory, logic and abstract algebra for example?

I was an electrical engineering major so I've taken the basic stuff like Calculus, Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Complex Variables, Operational Mathematics (Laplace, Fourier Transforms), and Linear Algebra. But I liked math a lot so I also took Real Analysis, Fractals and Chaos Theory, Abstract Algebra, Point Set Topology, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, Numerical Analysis, Probability, Statistics, Introductory Combinatorics, Number Theory, Logic, Differential Geometry, and Discrete Math etc. I've also taken graduate level courses in Analysis, Differential Equations, and some others I've forgotten.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I sometimes see people who might have taken a Calculus course or two and think they understand all of mathematics and logic and proclaim that we shouldn't believe anything unless we can prove it and that everything can be explained by science and logic.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not exactly state what you claim. It applies to arithmetic systems in particular, which are not the same as personal worldviews.

[/quote]

Well, I wasn't trying to formally state Godel's Incompleteness Theorems but rather extrapolating some possible implications of it to the idea claimed by many (who happens to think that people who believe in the existence of a God are stupid) that science and logic can answer every question we can come up with. In my opinion, one implication of Godel's Theorem is that there will be statements that cannot be proved in any particular belief system.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: StormRider
I'

Basically, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. There is a very powerful theorem in Logic Theory by Godel(?) that kind of says that no matter your system of beliefs (the things you accept as true -- axioms) you can always construct a sentence where you cannot prove or disprove the truth of the sentence. I took this to be a mathematical way of saying "math/logic/science can never explain everything".

I wouldn't use any of those statements to hold up a bridge or diagnose a patient.

Can I ask what level of math courses you have taken? Have you've taken more advance math courses (senior level or graduate level) in set theory, logic and abstract algebra for example?

I was an electrical engineering major so I've taken the basic stuff like Calculus, Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Complex Variables, Operational Mathematics (Laplace, Fourier Transforms), and Linear Algebra. But I liked math a lot so I also took Real Analysis, Fractals and Chaos Theory, Abstract Algebra, Point Set Topology, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, Numerical Analysis, Probability, Statistics, Introductory Combinatorics, Number Theory, Logic, Differential Geometry, and Discrete Math etc. I've also taken graduate level courses in Analysis, Differential Equations, and some others I've forgotten.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I sometimes see people who might have taken a Calculus course or two and think they understand all of mathematics and logic and proclaim that we shouldn't believe anything unless we can prove it and that everything can be explained by science and logic.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not exactly state what you claim. It applies to arithmetic systems in particular, which are not the same as personal worldviews.

But if you just take some more deeper math courses you will encounter a mathematical proof that says there will always be mathematical statements that cannot be proved nor disproved.

Also, you would soon realize that we have something called axioms in math. From these axioms we prove other mathematical statements. But these axioms were never proven to be true -- we just assume them to be true because they are so self-evident.

It is not that they are "self-evident," but rather that they derive directly from the semantics of language. They are basically definitions, then, not "self-evident truths" as you seem to portray them.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a mathematical statement that says "parallel lines cannot cross". Back in those days, people thought this statement could be proven true from other axioms. But it turned out it couldn't be proven true or false. So, one branch of mathematics assumed it to be true (Euclidean Geometry) and another branch (Non-Euclidean Geometry) assumed it to be false. And both mathematical systems have proven to be very useful in engineering and science (designing bridges etc).

But I digress. Math (and Science which uses math as it's foundation) has something called axioms which are statements we assume to be true. This is basically the same thing as having faith that they are true.

Science does not use math as its foundation. Empiricism is the foundation of science, i.e. reliable induction about the real world. Math, on the other hand, does not deal with reality, but instead only models idealizations.

[/quote]

I have always felt that math is one of the foundations of science. Basic logic is used in the thought process of deduction. Math is used in the formulation of hypothesis and theories. Empiricism forms the basis of the "scientific method" which says that these hypothesis and theories must then be tested against observations in the real world and be reproducible before they are accepted.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Science does not use math as its foundation. Empiricism is the foundation of science, i.e. reliable induction about the real world. Math, on the other hand, does not deal with reality, but instead only models idealizations.

And what does empiricism rely on? Observation.

Mathematics are not empirical, that is the point.

And what does that rely on? Technology and apparatus in labs to carry out experiments, and the collection & interpretation of the collected datas. Are you suggesting that these don't rely on math in a foundational way?

I've said precisely what I meant: mathematics are not the foundation of science as was claimed.

If they do, then I would argue it is just one middle step more than what you suggest...

If you want to discuss empirical results you must acknowledge the vehicle which let you arrive at those results and the interpretations therein. I do not know how you can separate it ex post facto.

It's easy when you understand the epistemological limitations of mathematics.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: StormRider


Here is Wiki's definition of an axiom:

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else they logically follow from (otherwise they would be classified as theorems).

Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be universally true (e.g., (A ? B) ? A), while non-logical axioms (e.g, a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in that sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.

Outside logic and mathematics, the term "axiom" is used loosely for any established principle of some field.

None of this refutes the distinction that you ignored between a mathematical axiom, and something postulated about external reality.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
But that aside, even under your broad definition of faith, not all faith is created equal.

Says you.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Axioms of math and logic are in no way comparable to religious faith.

Your personal opinion. I sense you are making a very obvious value judgment here because I was hinting at the fact that they both fit the generic definition I gave and that is all I was stressing, while you seem to suggest something more all along (ie one type of faith is 'more justified' than another). I could be wrong but that is the drift I got.

We disagree in a big way. Neither of us will advance any ground. I'm going to call it a night and thank you

Well no shit. Anyway, even I'm tired of reading my own posts. I'd wish a you a good night, but hell with the sun rising tomorrow being precisely as likely as a T-Rex rampaging through downtown NY, I have my doubts that morning will come at all.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: StormRider

I have always felt that math is one of the foundations of science. Basic logic is used in the thought process of deduction. Math is used in the formulation of hypothesis and theories. Empiricism forms the basis of the "scientific method" which says that these hypothesis and theories must then be tested against observations in the real world and be reproducible before they are accepted.

Mathematics is simply a language used to express idealizations. Sometimes these idealizations approximate things that happen in reality.

Science is about describing accurately what happens in reality, and if anything can be considered its "foundation" it must be observation. Mathematics are sometimes used to express what is observed, but it is merely a vehicle for expression, not the basis for scientific theorization.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's no Atheism without Theism. Maybe some misguided people have made Atheism into just another religion, but Atheism is not a belief system. If no one had invented God, no one would have invented Atheism.

Theism isn't God though. God is the object through which theists base their system of belief. Atheism is the denial of God (theism logically follows) and could very well exist in the absence of theism. Neither could exist in the absence of God.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Putting Atheism and Theism on equal footing is ridiculous. If we're strictly talking about Atheism vs. Theism here, the non-belief (NOT the belief in no God, you can't prove a negative) in any concept of God even close to that held by a Theist is vastly more likely than say... the Catholic trinity.

When referring to an absence of belief rather than belief in absence (relative to God), I think it's better to use the term "nontheism." Atheism has several different "flavors," but the one most commonly associated with the term is "strong" atheism, or the belief that God is dead which is faith. (Theism appears to be an antonym to theism, while nontheism appears to be a lack of theism; although both encompass the same ideas.)

Nontheism is the default view of everyone who has never been exposed to God (implicit atheism) and is synonymous with "weak" atheism (the absense of belief in God). (Explicit atheism is moot, since it includes both strong and weak atheists. It is identical to the regular term "atheism" as we use it in discussion since we exclude implicit atheists when referring to people who have adapted a point of view.) Since atheism has more recently adopted several new meanings, I think it's best to use a term which is less ambiguous and contains atheism's alternative meanings.

Flowchart: Text

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's no Atheism without Theism. Maybe some misguided people have made Atheism into just another religion, but Atheism is not a belief system. If no one had invented God, no one would have invented Atheism.

Theism isn't God though. God is the object through which theists base their system of belief. Atheism is the denial of God (theism logically follows) and could very well exist in the absence of theism. Neither could exist in the absence of God.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Putting Atheism and Theism on equal footing is ridiculous. If we're strictly talking about Atheism vs. Theism here, the non-belief (NOT the belief in no God, you can't prove a negative) in any concept of God even close to that held by a Theist is vastly more likely than say... the Catholic trinity.

When referring to an absence of belief rather than belief in absence (relative to God), I think it's better to use the term "nontheism." Atheism has several different "flavors," but the one most commonly associated with the term is "strong" atheism, or the belief that God is dead which is faith. (Theism appears to be an antonym to theism, while nontheism appears to be a lack of theism; although both encompass the same ideas.)

Nontheism is the default view of everyone who has never been exposed to God (implicit atheism) and is synonymous with "weak" atheism (the absense of belief in God). (Explicit atheism is moot, since it includes both strong and weak atheists. It is identical to the regular term "atheism" as we use it in discussion since we exclude implicit atheists when referring to people who have adapted a point of view.) Since atheism has more recently adopted several new meanings, I think it's best to use a term which is less ambiguous and contains atheism's alternative meanings.

Flowchart: Text

My personal definition of Atheism and the one all "flavors" of Atheism share is the simple denial that there is any good reason believe in God (or theism since you seem think they can exist independently of each other). That seems to be the simplest and broadest definition. I guess you would call it "weak" Atheism.

I know the most common interpretation of the term is "strong" Atheism. This seems to me an erroneous assumption, but I suppose the distinction should be made.

My particular brand of Atheism isn't strong as defined as a positive denial of God. Technically God could send me an IM at any second. But, it certainly isn't weak, as you can probably tell from my other posts. It's just the position that the leap from the default point of non-theism to theism is a lot farther than the leap from non-theism to atheism. It's also the position that Atheism shouldn't even be an -ism. No one's arguing semantics over the non-belief in spirit animals.

As for Atheism being able to exist without theism, that sort of assumes that God can exist without anyone believing in him, which is a theistic point of view. Wow, that thought almost put my brain into an infinite loop. Thank god I'm not on acid.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's no Atheism without Theism. Maybe some misguided people have made Atheism into just another religion, but Atheism is not a belief system. If no one had invented God, no one would have invented Atheism.

Theism isn't God though. God is the object through which theists base their system of belief. Atheism is the denial of God (theism logically follows) and could very well exist in the absence of theism. Neither could exist in the absence of God.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Putting Atheism and Theism on equal footing is ridiculous. If we're strictly talking about Atheism vs. Theism here, the non-belief (NOT the belief in no God, you can't prove a negative) in any concept of God even close to that held by a Theist is vastly more likely than say... the Catholic trinity.

When referring to an absence of belief rather than belief in absence (relative to God), I think it's better to use the term "nontheism." Atheism has several different "flavors," but the one most commonly associated with the term is "strong" atheism, or the belief that God is dead which is faith. (Theism appears to be an antonym to theism, while nontheism appears to be a lack of theism; although both encompass the same ideas.)

Nontheism is the default view of everyone who has never been exposed to God (implicit atheism) and is synonymous with "weak" atheism (the absense of belief in God). (Explicit atheism is moot, since it includes both strong and weak atheists. It is identical to the regular term "atheism" as we use it in discussion since we exclude implicit atheists when referring to people who have adapted a point of view.) Since atheism has more recently adopted several new meanings, I think it's best to use a term which is less ambiguous and contains atheism's alternative meanings.

Flowchart: Text

My personal definition of Atheism and the one all "flavors" of Atheism share is the simple denial that there is any good reason believe in God (or theism since you seem think they can exist independently of each other). That seems to be the simplest and broadest definition. I guess you would call it "weak" Atheism.

I know the most common interpretation of the term is "strong" Atheism. This seems to me an erroneous assumption, but I suppose the distinction should be made.

My particular brand of Atheism isn't strong as defined as a positive denial of God. Technically God could send me an IM at any second. But, it certainly isn't weak, as you can probably tell from my other posts. It's just the position that the leap from the default point of non-theism to theism is a lot farther than the leap from non-theism to atheism. It's also the position that Atheism shouldn't even be an -ism. No one's arguing semantics over the non-belief in spirit animals.

As for Atheism being able to exist without theism, that sort of assumes that God can exist without anyone believing in him, which is a theistic point of view. Wow, that thought almost put my brain into an infinite loop. Thank god I'm not on acid.

I love how people talk about atheism as if it was a default passive trait. It simply cannot be.

There is a choice set before you. You either
a) Choose to believe in something
b) Choose to disbelieve in something
c) Are undecided / unsure leaning in either direction.
How Strong or Weak your beliefs are is irrelevent.

You have actively chose a,b,or c depending on how you view the issue.

'I believe in nothing" does not exist, its a fallacy choice. (Excluding the undecideds / unsures) Lack of Belief and Belief of the Lack are one and the same.


Logically it would seem that theism of some sort would be the default (not atheism) since atheism didnt come about until about (while its known existance can be traced to 5BCE in greece) the 17th century "the age of enlightenment". While all kinds of theisms were present for thousands of years prior.

 

[moshquerade]

no.

/thread