talkmagic.co.uk

Faith and empiricism are not mutually exclusive. To have faith does not mean to believe in things that are demonstrably false (although such may be the case).

Empiricism, basing things solely on observation and experiment (Shorter Oxford), is not antithetical to spiritual practice. I can't really speak about other religions, as I know very little about them, but when the Buddha was alive he taught his followers not to accept his teachings on the basis of authority, or convention, or logic, or inference but on direct experience alone.

If I say to you that such and such spiritual practice has a particular effect, there is only one way to find out and that is to carry out said practice and see if your experience matches my claims.

It seems to me that engaging in spiritual practices is engaging in an empirical process of experimentation and observation.

Just a quick word on wordiness.

It is a geniune point and I feel I should give a genuine reply. To quote some iconic rationalists I mentioned:


'Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler'
Albert Einstein

'Logic, it must be admitted, is technical in the same way as mathematics is, but logic, I maintain, is not part of philosophy. Philosophy proper deals with matters of interest to the general public, and loses much of its value if only a few proffesionals can understand what is being said'
Bertrand Russell




This is something particularly interesting in the philosophical issue of debate and ironically, something I have debated about with a friend who is a philosophy student. I believe very much that things should be made as simple as possible. But no simpler. Rather like those old sages. However, the question 'how simple is 'as simple as is needed'?' must be answered. Certainly- all great philosphical achievements can be explained in very simple terms and that is where there genius lies. On the contrary, most great 'rationalists' champion definition- which is the premise of all of mathematics and logic- truth by definition. Indeed, relativity is true... assuming you accept certain definitions and 'empirical' assumptions.

I believe there is room in philosophy for some elementary terms. I don't think I could construct any sensible argument otherwise and without being bothered to re-read anything I have written apoligise for the fact that I am prone to assuming the reader understands my terminology even when it is quite irrational to do so. And as a final blow to myself, I am inclined to agree with the argument made by Russell that philosophy is of no benefit to someone who doesn't study it, rather unlike the sciences. Philosophy (and I do not mean in the conventional studies of the subject of iconic 'philosophers' but instead 'philosophising') should not be the subject of jargon and complex terminology- indeed it should be the very enemy of it.

To sumarise- terminology for essays and discussions- yes to some degree. Terminology for a systematic discussion of philsophy- definatley never under any circumstances.

So, apologies for accidentally offending the rules of Orwell when I get too caught up in an argument to consider how I communicate it.

However, whislt I disagree with the actual sentiment of monseur Lewis' comment, from a philosophical perspective at least, I suppose I agree. I have never heard of anyone who understands philosophy. Philosophers are really only so because they should really have the sight to see that they do not know what they are on about- and therein lies the wisdom of philosophy. And the wisest things in philosophy have nothing to do with terminology.

'The only thing I know is that I know nothing'
Socrates

'Plato is dear to me; even dearer is truth'
Aristotle

'Aristotle is blatantly jealous of me'
Plato

'All philosophers prove is how foolish other philosophers were'
Anon

'Philosophers don't prove anything, so you're wrong'
Irony



Anyway... some concluding points:

'A man of science is a poor philosopher'
Albert Einstein
'One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes ... and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.'
Unfortunatley, Roosevelt.
'

I see that young Gurney is confusing me with a Frenchman and I consider this to be the end of civilisation as we know it. And if he is going to use foreign words to sound intellectual he should at least learn to spell them even if the offending word is a French one.

to show true command of the English language is to be able to use clarity and brevity to make your point...

and then inventiveness and any aeolistic qualities you possess to insult people with afterwards...

you bunch of parasitic, pantiwaisted lolligaggers...

Sophie wrote:I need to google lots of words I havnt a clue what they mean. The way I see things are-People who have a faith belive in the world being created by God.

Science however says Adam and Evie where not created by god, they never existed. Science tells us how the world was created...and it wasnt by some magical god.

Sophie, I'd counter that with an almost exactly opposite statement I believe it be far more accurate.

People who have a faith believe anything which can not be directly observed or measured and tested in the present.
Science tells us how the world is now and has nothing but assumption and faith-based conclusions on origins.

Anyone who believes in: Past lives, afterlife, creation, evolution and much more besides; has faith. None of these things can be tested and therefore all require faith if one is to believe in them.
(We *may* be able to prove evolution (as understood by the layman) is possible. It is utterly impossible to test, empirically, whether or not it DID happen - and fossils prove nothing other than the existence of fossils - but other than that caveat I think the above statement is solid.)

Ditto Adam and Eve - science does not say they didn't exist as science can not measure or test the existence or otherwise of historical/mythological characters/beings/creatures. It is limited to observable, measurable phenomena in the present - now, some scientists say they never existed, but that's an entirely different statement.

I'm not going to sully this post with my own views on any of the above issues (in fact, I'd have to say a solid "I don't know" to some or all of them) so please don't think I'm trying to promote one view or the other, just that the whole god vs science thing is a based on an fundamentally incorrect set of assumptions.

And with that oar well and truly stuck in - I'm off again.

mark lewis wrote:I see that young Gurney is confusing me with a Frenchman and I consider this to be the end of civilisation as we know it. And if he is going to use foreign words to sound intellectual he should at least learn to spell them even if the offending word is a French one.

Chere madamoiselle Louis,

Now that je have asserted my intellect by using french mots (Since, all intelligent people parler french as we know) I shall continuer. Sorry, I'll drop the franglais. Oop there I go again.

I'm sure I've spelt that stuff wrong as well. I struggle with spelling English. God help me with any other langwidge.

I'm saying 'paramount is communication not aesthetics' and my spelling is being marked

But yes, that was dodgy spelling. Kicking mice elf.

Oh herr Lewis thou doth make me laugheth.

I need sleep.

That is all.

Dearie me. The child is unwell.

you bunch of parasitic, pantiwaisted lolligaggers...

I'm putting that on my Christmas cards this year....

SamGurney wrote:Since, all intelligent people parler french as we know

Nah. They parler polare, ducky.

[quote="BigShot"]People who have a faith believe anything which can not be directly observed or measured and tested in the present.

"Faith I 1. Confidence, reliance, trust. In early use, only with reference to religious objects, b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority 1551. 2.Theol. a. Belief in the truths of religion as contained in Holy Scripture or in the teaching of the Church. b. Saving or justifying faith, as a conviction operative on the character and will; opp. to speculative faith. c.The spiritual apprehension of divine truths. Often ascribed to the exercise of a special faculty in man, or to supernatural illumination. ME" Shorter Oxford 1986 Vol 1 p 720

I would like to draw your attention to the last definition: the spiritual apprehension of divine truths. Nowhere in the definition of the word faith is the implication that one believes in things that cannot be observed, or don't exist. Surely having an apprehension of divine truths is an act of observation.

Ant rather than give my views on faith and science I will simply try to answer your questions. This is not an attack on you, but I do struggle to express myself correctly in writing so I apologies if it seems like it is.

A_n_t wrote: do you all approach things in the same way, or do you change the way you view things depending on the situation or subject matter.

We all change the way we view things based on the subject matter. The rational and irrational mind makes up the complete human thought process and we can't do without either.

A_n_t wrote:If you claim to be very logical and yet at the core of things somewhere along the line rely on faith, is this hypocritical?

It's only hypocritical if you claim to be completely rational.

Neither of these answers are to do with referring to experts on a subject matter, in the end we have to do this. It's impossible to know everything, so we defer to others, sometimes because they are experts and sometimes because they sound like experts.

Gary... "b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority 1551"
Are you sure nothing there backs up my much broader view of "faith"? I'd say that part fits quite well.

Speaking in the hardest, empirical terms one does not observe divine truth as one can not empirically establish that they are indeed divine and not imagined.
As I said previously, I'm not getting into this on a level of what I do or do not believe, especially as that isn't really the point of this thread. I'm simply trying to point out that all views (with a possible and extremely tentative exception for agnosticism) require some degree of faith no matter how much observation or measurement can take or has taken place.
Oh and for the record, that bit you quoted was offered more as a counterpoint than a complete summary of my views on the matter.

Just for fun:
Oxford (online)
Faith
* 1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something:this restores one's faith in politicians
* 2 strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof
* [count noun] a particular religion:the Christian faith
* [count noun] a strongly held belief:men with strong political faiths

Origin:
Middle English: from Old French feid, from Latin fides


World English Dictionary
faith
— n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

Word Origin & History
faith
mid-13c., "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid , from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis ; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from late 14c.


Really it means trust, belief and so on. It isn't an inherently religious term at all, not in common use nor in origin.

And so in summary:

Orville: I wish I could fly way up to the sky but I can’t,
Keith: You can,
Orville: I can’t!
Orville: I wish I could see what folks see in me but I can’t,
Keith: You can,
Orville: I can’t!
Keith: Look, Orville,
Orville: Yes?
Keith: Nothing that you can say
Will change how I feel today:
I know that we’ll never part;
Now hear what I’m saying, Orville?
Orville: Yes?
Keith: Who is your very best friend?
Orville: You are.
Keith: I’m gonna help you mend your broken heart.
Orville: Thank you.

I forget what it is called but this phenomena is explained by a number of scientists when people over complicate the language in order to make themselves sound smarter.

Hmmm… the short terms that explain this would be EGO, ARROGANCE, IGNORANCE and DESPERATION (perhaps). I have seen it a lot when someone is trying to stand on the same foundation I have when it comes to Illusion Technology… very few have the level of experience I have on that front. That’s not a boast, it’s just a fact of fate. My favorite tale being the kid that claimed to own the Thurston show one night at the Castle… the next day we met for lunch and I took him to the Kirkham warehouse and showed him all the props he was explaining to me the night before… (yes, I’m evil).

When it comes to all the linguistics I get lost; I’m a simple guy that lived in a very “basic” kind of culture most of his life; if we saw a pile of warm, oozie, smelly stuff we called it was it was, not some politically correct or analytical term the typical farmer/carney could care less about. It’s not a sign of “ignorance” but rather up-bringing and thus, perspective.

When it comes to “faith” or “belief” in things spiritual and thus, miraculous it’s very difficult to sway the perceptions of folk raised in such an environment no matter how many $1,000.00 words you throw into the mix. For them, such intellectual “debate” is little other than “the devil’s work”… anything that might challenge their views falls into that niche and there is no getting around it. Sadly, this includes the spiritual views and wisdom found in the other world religions INCLUDING those that are kindred to the one claimed by the “simpleton” (those of any and all the Abrahamic traditions). The real irony in such case is that the Koran has much more to say about Jesus, his ministry and mastery than the bible itself. Yet 99.9% of all professed Christians RUN from anything that smacks of Islam these days (at least in the U.S. where more and more “evangelists” use the pulpit to promote bigotry and disharmony vs. the “gospel”).

I do wish to point out that I created a separate topic so as to not Highjack this thread. While it got locked, people again missing the actual point behind it, my desire was to address Nick’s statement above more than all the other Bull. Unfortunately, a lot of the “stuff” has become inner-mingled for whatever reason… so much so that I don’t know how to clarify my position on things… like the whole religion, metaphysics and psychic element, which I actually feel a “calling” (for lack of a better term) towards, when it comes to helping both, the believer as well as the skeptic to move closer together in both, their understanding and RESPECT of one another. While most of us want to be seen as “open minded” on most levels, even biting our tongue in public when it comes to certain “issues”, the fact remains that some, just as ANTs comment above indicates, simply have to reach out and “prove” not that they are “smarter” but “above” anyone that believes certain things or in a certain way. This is a manifestation that certain skeptics share in common with the American flavor of “right wing” Christian it would seem, but then Randi himself chuckles about that truth.

Does anyone want to talk about the torn and restored newspaper?