Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can “confidence in what we hope for”
and an “assurance about what we do not see”
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[TRANSPONDER]

The idea that every investigation must follow the scientific method is not reasonable.

I didn't claim that every investigation must follow the scientific method.

In your previous response, you claimed confirmation bias was unavoidable and asked how I would mitigate for it. So, I provided you with a method for mitigating confirmation bias. You are welcome to reject that method and use the one you described for investigating the claim about the existence of an invisible creator god, but it doesn't mitigate for confirmation bias. Accordingly, a failure to mitigate for confirmation bias provides a justification to remain agnostic about your god claim.

Okay, thanks.
I thought you were setting these "rules" for me. It looked that way.
Now that I understand that I do not have to respond to them, since they were for you, and since this is not a science study, I have already asked you if you would like to see the evidence.
If you do, all your questions will be answered.

I'm sure we would love to see the evidence. Whether it is that the scientific method is invalid or morality proves God or whatever. But it really has to be a case made and explained here, not a link or two to some theist site which we are supposed to go and disprove.
[Replying to fredonly in post #311]

Yes. On my other forum, one poster, notoriously, pulled a dirty semantic trick by saying that even bad evidence was still 'evidence'.

'Evidence' is perhaps better called raw data, and we apply reason (scientific method) as a way of interpreting that data to extract facts (the best model that explains the data). Unfortunately, people do not usually do it that way; they rather get an idea in their head (especially if it has already been planted there) and then fiddle the argument to support their opinion.

And Theist thinking is especially bad at doing this, and also Projecting that false reasoning method onto science. Which should make the proble obvious 'Faithbased thinking is fine when we do it, but not when you do it', but nobody ever notices.

[bluegreenearth]

Okay, thanks.
I thought you were setting these "rules" for me. It looked that way.
Now that I understand that I do not have to respond to them, since they were for you, and since this is not a science study, I have already asked you if you would like to see the evidence.
If you do, all your questions will be answered.

What is the argument for your implied claim that the truth value of an unfalsifiable proposition can be reasonably and reliably established or inferred on the basis of evidence? If you do not understand the question, then please ask for a clarification rather than respond based on a misinterpretation. Thanks.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. The evidence (data) and the evaluation of it (deduction or even science) would be welcomed, in fact, it is why we are here.

Also the matter of epistemology and how we evaluate data to make the best and more probable explanation for what we "Observe" as theism so often says science has to do.

So often what we get with..let's say science denialist argument, we get appeal to Observation, and what this actually is, is what Religious apologetics also calls 'imperfect himan perception', Aka Observation. And what it looks like is how it really is, and any science that undermines that is dismissed as unreliable, human opinion and even deliberate falsification.

I well remember a poster on me Other forum (mind, he might just have been trying to wind me up) ending up arguing that scientists Really believe that dogs give birth to cats in evolution - theory, but they keep quiet about that as it doesn't work, and they pretend that evolution is gradual species change, because that does work.

Anyway, Observation has historically worked well for flat earth, as it looks like it, and it is easy to dismiss experiments done in nanometrical differences, and of course all photos from space are dismissed as fake. The funny thing is that science - denial is selective. I have rarely if ever, seen a YE Creationist argue for a flat earth. They deny evoloosion; they deny deep time geology, but they refuse to accept that the Bible depicts a flat circle of an earth with a sky dome over it (Ancient Egypt and Babylon cosmic model) and try to make circle of the earth translate as globe of the earth which it doesn't/

But why do they not argue for a flat earth along with a 6 day creation and a global flood? Because they will be laughed at. It seems that science denial stcps where they perceive it is going to get them laughed at.




This fellow venomfang seems now gone, after a long time debating on line, he went a bit crazy and tried to delete and block online material and got banned. But he provided what I call the venomfang fallacy (appeal to unknowns) as his argument for the Unknown as a gap for god got soundly debunked, but it is is still a primary apologetic for Religious Creationist apologists.

[John17_3]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #320]

Why so coy? If you have evidence for [whatever] that will "answer all questions," post it.

It will be interesting to see what you consider "evidence," since you seem to denigrate the scientific method.

For one thing, I do not want to discuss another topic in the thread.
I would prefer to start a thread on that.
The other thing is, I would prefer to know that someone is interested, although I do intend to post that evidence, eventually, but I have little time on my hands right now, so I could keep the interested ones in mind, when I do have time to commit to the thread.
I'll keep you in mind, and let you know when I do create that thread.

[John17_3]

Okay, thanks.
I thought you were setting these "rules" for me. It looked that way.
Now that I understand that I do not have to respond to them, since they were for you, and since this is not a science study, I have already asked you if you would like to see the evidence.
If you do, all your questions will be answered.

What is the argument for your implied claim that the truth value of an unfalsifiable proposition can be reasonably and reliably established or inferred on the basis of evidence? If you do not understand the question, then please ask for a clarification rather than respond based on a misinterpretation. Thanks.

I did not say the evidence cannot be tested.
Your post - the one I responded to, is here.
It contains a rigorous method, used in science.
Are you saying, it does not? Are you saying you want me to follow this method?

[bluegreenearth]

Okay, thanks.
I thought you were setting these "rules" for me. It looked that way.
Now that I understand that I do not have to respond to them, since they were for you, and since this is not a science study, I have already asked you if you would like to see the evidence.
If you do, all your questions will be answered.

What is the argument for your implied claim that the truth value of an unfalsifiable proposition can be reasonably and reliably established or inferred on the basis of evidence? If you do not understand the question, then please ask for a clarification rather than respond based on a misinterpretation. Thanks.

I did not say the evidence cannot be tested.
Your post - the one I responded to, is here.
It contains a rigorous method, used in science.
Are you saying, it does not? Are you saying you want me to follow this method?

You asked me if I would like to see the evidence for your unfalsifiable proposition that an invisible creator god exists. By offering evidence, you are implying that such evidence can provide a justification to believe your unfalsifiable proposition is not false according to your method. So, what is the argument for the implied claim that the truth value of an unfalsifiable proposition can be reasonably and reliably established on the basis of evidence according to your method?

[TRANSPONDER]

Okay, thanks.
I thought you were setting these "rules" for me. It looked that way.
Now that I understand that I do not have to respond to them, since they were for you, and since this is not a science study, I have already asked you if you would like to see the evidence.
If you do, all your questions will be answered.

What is the argument for your implied claim that the truth value of an unfalsifiable proposition can be reasonably and reliably established or inferred on the basis of evidence? If you do not understand the question, then please ask for a clarification rather than respond based on a misinterpretation. Thanks.

I did not say the evidence cannot be tested.
Your post - the one I responded to, is here.
It contains a rigorous method, used in science.
Are you saying, it does not? Are you saying you want me to follow this method?

You asked me if I would like to see the evidence for your unfalsifiable proposition that an invisible creator god exists. By offering evidence, you are implying that such evidence can provide a justification to believe your unfalsifiable proposition is not false according to your method. So, what is the argument for the implied claim that the truth value of an unfalsifiable proposition can be reasonably and reliably established on the basis of evidence according to your method?

Nice ringfencing . Before i check the link, I see (not to say smell) the familiar evasive tactics of questioning epistemology or rather strawmanning the argument by trying to put words into the other sides' mouth.

Howver, before, as I say, checking I would guess that what we will get istheist apologetics; illogic dressed up to look like logic, as in Kalam and Anselm, or non - science dressed up to look like science, like Creationism and fiddled ancient history, and it wasn't long ago I had a debate about the validity of the exodus which now looks increasingly like Not histoprical, and Mayan Ziggurats apparently built by pre -Babel humans, and god help us all in the next election.

Hah! I followed the link and it was this appalling illogic:
The idea that every investigation must follow the scientific method is not reasonable.
It is also a myth, to believe that science follows a rigid method.
Myth: The scientific method
Perhaps the most commonly held myth about the nature of science is that there is a universal scientific method, with a common series of steps that scientists follow. The steps usually include defining the problem, forming a hypothesis, making observations, testing the hypothesis, drawing conclusions and reporting results. In classrooms, students can be seen writing up the aim, hypothesis, method, results and conclusion.

I followed (not to say debunked) that with a post, but that doesn't stop it being wagged about as though it was doing anything other than trying to sideline science and the scientific method (which is to say broadly, reasonable deduction) in favor of (I would guess) faithbased claims of divine revelation ( pick your own god) or Inspired interpretation of text cherry- picked from the Holy Book. If not that, fiddling of science and logic to fit the faith.

Fallacy on fallacy upon fallacy.

[John17_3]

Okay, thanks.
I thought you were setting these "rules" for me. It looked that way.
Now that I understand that I do not have to respond to them, since they were for you, and since this is not a science study, I have already asked you if you would like to see the evidence.
If you do, all your questions will be answered.

What is the argument for your implied claim that the truth value of an unfalsifiable proposition can be reasonably and reliably established or inferred on the basis of evidence? If you do not understand the question, then please ask for a clarification rather than respond based on a misinterpretation. Thanks.

I did not say the evidence cannot be tested.
Your post - the one I responded to, is here.
It contains a rigorous method, used in science.
Are you saying, it does not? Are you saying you want me to follow this method?

You asked me if I would like to see the evidence for your unfalsifiable proposition that an invisible creator god exists.

Please quote where I said that.

By offering evidence, you are implying that such evidence can provide a justification to believe your unfalsifiable proposition is not false according to your method. So, what is the argument for the implied claim that the truth value of an unfalsifiable proposition can be reasonably and reliably established on the basis of evidence according to your method?

This would be a loaded question, since I have not said what you are claiming I said.

[bluegreenearth]

Okay, thanks.
I thought you were setting these "rules" for me. It looked that way.
Now that I understand that I do not have to respond to them, since they were for you, and since this is not a science study, I have already asked you if you would like to see the evidence.
If you do, all your questions will be answered.

What is the argument for your implied claim that the truth value of an unfalsifiable proposition can be reasonably and reliably established or inferred on the basis of evidence? If you do not understand the question, then please ask for a clarification rather than respond based on a misinterpretation. Thanks.

I did not say the evidence cannot be tested.
Your post - the one I responded to, is here.
It contains a rigorous method, used in science.
Are you saying, it does not? Are you saying you want me to follow this method?

You asked me if I would like to see the evidence for your unfalsifiable proposition that an invisible creator god exists.

Please quote where I said that.

By offering evidence, you are implying that such evidence can provide a justification to believe your unfalsifiable proposition is not false according to your method. So, what is the argument for the implied claim that the truth value of an unfalsifiable proposition can be reasonably and reliably established on the basis of evidence according to your method?

This would be a loaded question, since I have not said what you are claiming I said.

Fair point. So, what did you mean when you stated the following:

Now that I understand that I do not have to respond to them, since they were for you, and since this is not a science study, I have already asked you if you would like to see the evidence.
If you do, all your questions will be answered.

[Diogenes]

The idea that every investigation must follow the scientific method is not reasonable.

You are not just incorrect, you are perfectly, exactly 180° wrong.

'Reasonable' may be determined by the fact that reason and science worked together to produce the intellectual movement that emphasized the use of logic, empirical evidence, and rational thought to understand the world instead of 'faith.' 'Faith' is, by definition, not reasonable.

'Faith' is the acceptance of a belief not based upon empirical evidence, logic, and rational thought.
Instead, "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
This is the opposite of evidence, the opposite of rational thought based upon empirical evidence.