Fair play;

[Stargazer]

Faith will wait for proof, if there is no faith, there is no waiting.

And wait it will, since faith does not require evidence or reason of any kind - that's why it's faith.

[Freethinker]

Faith will wait for proof, if there is no faith, there is no waiting.

That's me. Moving thru the express line. No religious garbage holding me back. No need to waste THIS life waiting for answers in some invent next one. No shifting of personal responsiblity to some claim of some future reward punishment controller. I accept full personal responsibility here and now, "no waiting".

 

While others are more than willing to waste time waiting.

 

And waiting.

 

and waiting

 

and waiting

[Freethinker]

And waiting.

 

and waiting

 

and waiting

[infamous]

That's me. Moving thru the express line. No religious garbage holding me back. No need to waste THIS life waiting for answers in some invent next one. No shifting of personal responsiblity to some claim of some future reward punishment controller. I accept full personal responsibility here and now, "no waiting".

 

While others are more than willing to waste time waiting.

 

And waiting.

 

and waiting

 

and waiting

This phrase can also be quoted as; Faith will search for proof, if there is no faith, there will be no search. This should describe atheism perfectly.

[pgrmdave]

I think atheism is the other way around - without proof, there will be no faith.

[infamous]

I think atheism is the other way around - without proof, there will be no faith.

Ah, but if there is no faith that proof will be found, there will be no search. Atheists always demand proof from others, but ask them to prove that there is no God. Agnostics are a lot more honest about the question. Websters defines an agnostic as someone that believes that there is no way to prove or disprove the question of a God. How unfair for an atheist to demand proof when they have no proof for their own views.

[Aquagem]

Agnostics are a lot more honest about the question. Websters defines an agnostic as someone that believes that there is no way to prove or disprove the question of a God. How unfair for an atheist to demand proof when they have no proof for their own views.

As a hard-core agnostic, I have felt all along that atheism is like a religion in reverse - "I have faith that there is no God." I have some faith that there is no reason to think any human conception of a god or goddess or hermaprhogod is anything like the truth. We invent big Guys and Gals and put them on a pedestal -- they make us feel good about ourselves and that we're the Chosen ones, but that alone, as you point out, ends the search for truth. Why go on, when you think you've gotten to where you wanted to go? At that point, it's time to kick back and rest.

 

To me, a root difference between the scientific life and the religious life is that the scientist searches for "?" and the religionist asserts "!"

[john_jrambo2000]

What about people who believe that there are answers that can be found, but haven't been yet? As opposed to the agnostic who has given up the search as futile.

[infamous]

As a hard-core agnostic, I have felt all along that atheism is like a religion in reverse - "I have faith that there is no God." I have some faith that there is no reason to think any human conception of a god or goddess or hermaprhogod is anything like the truth. We invent big Guys and Gals and put them on a pedestal -- they make us feel good about ourselves and that we're the Chosen ones, but that alone, as you point out, ends the search for truth. Why go on, when you think you've gotten to where you wanted to go? At that point, it's time to kick back and rest.

 

To me, a root difference between the scientific life and the religious life is that the scientist searches for "?" and the religionist asserts "!"

Thanks for the clarity of mind to understand my point. Let's never demand more of others than we demand of ourselves. Thanks again, Aquagem. Have a wonderful day.

[Tormod]

There is a fundamental misconception on behalf of some of the posters here. It needs some clearing up, because I see a lot of fistfights going on in a lot of the forums lately and there are some basic issues which keep coming back again and again.

 

This will be a long post, so bear with me.

 

First of all, for the record, I have no problems with members discussing the FAQ. That is fine. The FAQ is an important tool to outline the rules for any site like ours, and sometimes it is necessary to discuss how we should interpret things. Suggestions for changes and additions are always welcome and will be discussed by the moderators and admins.

 

The part that was quoted by PG does not in fact have anything to do with faith, nor with truth. It is a quote which is often attributed to Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

 

That statement is important. It does not say, like some here seem to interpret it, that all claims need proof.

 

So, when does it apply?

 

If anyone uses a statement like "I just know it is so", then that is an extraordinary claim. How does this person know that it is so? Such a statement warrants an explanation. One cannot expect the others in this community to understand how the poster knows. Where does the understanding come from? What basis is the conclusion based upon?

 

Because we are here to discuss science, and all things related, everyone who posts here must accept that we use the scientific model as the basis for most discussions. We do not, and this I hope is pretty obvious, require scientific proof for someone posting a piece of music, a joke, a book recommendation, or sharing some of their life history. These are issues which we can discuss without requiring proof.

 

But what is proof, and why is it necessary? The first part of that question has been discussed many times. Let's try to simplify.

 

Proof comes in several forms:

 

1) By quoting a reliable source such as a dictionary, regarded website, known author, or otherwise telling is where the basic idea comes from

 

2) By referring to a scientific paper which presents results from a study

 

3) By referring to well-known theories or interpretation of theories and axioms

 

For example, we don't need proof that 1+1=2. But when someone wants to discuss it, we need to know why it is being discussed, and what the poster(s) use as a foundation to interpret "1+1=2" in a new way. We need to see their math, their sources, and how they apply the data they have to their work. This may sound tedious, but it is vital for this site to work.

 

Note that proof is not the same as truth. "Truth" exists in religion and philosophy. Science is not a quest for ultimate truth, but for understanding.

 

This is why this is a forum for everyone. Hypography is not a site for people who claim to know the One Truth, nor is it a site for those who deny anyone the right to question the validity of any claim.

 

The search for truth in nature will be biased by each person's opinion and life history. Religious people will tend to lean on their religious teachings and texts for evidence for their claims. That is problematic because religion is not based on the scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which I am sure we all agree upon. It is a basic fact.

 

People who do not have a religion do have other biases. They do believe in different things, even though some of them will claim that they have no beliefs. But it is important to distinguish between "faith" and "belief". I can believe that our universe is finite or infinite. But that belief does not constitute a "faith". If I want to find out whether the universe is finite or not, I need to look at the scientific literature and find out what the different theories are, how they are interpreted, how the findings are applied in papers, and so on. Doing science can be tedious and boring, but it is also richly rewarding as an intellectual exercise. It will often, or I would even say always, turn out that any inquiry into the mysteries of the universe tends to open more question than it answers. Such is the nature of science, that the more we understand, the more we realize that we don't know.

 

The demand for proof has to major objectives. One, it shows that the person who makes a claim knows, or has some reason to know, about the topic at hand. The ideas posted are not mere tautologies. On the other hand, it provides the other members with a way to learn more about the claims that are put forth. That is another important objective of science: to give people a chance to learn something for themselves by looking at the same things that others do.

 

In organized religion, this is problematic. Organized religion, as opposed to science, is based on a functional hierarchy and rote learning. People are asked to accept certain statements as absolute truths. For example, they must accept that there is a god, and that this god created the universe.

 

When they hit upon fallacies in their religion, they may choose to study these fallacies. If they study them and find it problematic to believe in them, yet still keep their faith in their god, then the organized religion works. Their hierarchy of truth is established: it does not matter that certain things in their teachings or literature is wrong, because the basic truth holds. There is a god, and that god has decided that some truths need not be understandable for human beings. This is often expressed when people say "There are some things we are not meant to understand".

 

Sometimes religious people can be very inquiring and question the basic facts of their religion. They can have major problems with it, yet they remain religious. In their heart, or in their stubbornness (not meant to offend!) they feel confident that there must be a god. They deny themselves the right to say that "I do not believe in this". Or they accept that they must live in a state of never knowing. This has nothing to do with science.

 

The problematic issue here is that when people with strong faith start to mix their acceptance of the fundamental truths of their religion with evidence found in science, they run into problems. They can either choose to separate the two completely, as we often see here at Hypography, so that they can participate in a scientific discussion on all levels, yet at the end of the day they remain religious. This is fine. But often religious members will start to question the scientific evidence presented, because it does not fit with their religious truths, and this is when things get difficult. That is when the requirement for proof becomes a very important requirement.

 

In such cases we use proof and evidence like I outlined above. We point to scientific sources and explain why this or that is a natural conclusion because X and Y and Z. Then someone will question our conclusions because they interpret Y differently. If they cannot explain why, and choose to say "because my religion says so", then they rule themselves out of any scientific discussion. It is perhaps the best way to start a flame war or rididule themselves. It is not reasonable to expect members of this community to accept that their quest for learning should be tainted by anyone's failure to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method.

 

Now, the important thing here is that every member of Hypography is welcome to have any faith they want. We have not denied membership to anyone because of their faith. We have never kicked anyone out because of their faith. Among the admins and mods there are people from different (often opposing) sides of the religious and philosophical blocks. This is healthy for our community, and it shoud remain that way.

 

So, when can we participate in a scientific discussion? All the time. All our topics are open to everyone who wants in, as long as our FAQ is honored. Knowledge of a scientific field is not a requirement to post here. But an explaination for how an idea has formed, what it is based upon, and an acceptance that all ideas are open for questioning and testing, is an absolute requirement.

 

I would also like to point out that this is a forum for understanding and learning. It is perfectly fine to ask for help to find proof. Feel free to post questions. But accept that someone will eventually ask you back, "why do you ask this question?".

 

I probably have not solved the problems of "what is proof" in this post, but I hope I have made the following clear:

 

A) An idea must be backed up with evidence. It is best to provide this yourself, but at least provide it if it is requested.

:hihi: If you do not have proof, explain it so that we can help you find it, or help you prove you wrong.

C) There are no ultimate truths in science.

D) It is okay to make mistakes, as long as they are corrected.

E) Your proof will be questioned.

[john_jrambo2000]

Does the definition of science as a search for understanding as opposed to religion being a search for truth have a source to which I could refer? I do get in a lot of religious debates, as well as other kinds of debates, and would enjoy being able to reference it.

[Tormod]

Does the definition of science as a search for understanding as opposed to religion being a search for truth have a source to which I could refer?

First of all, let me point out that science is often seen as a search for truth. But this "truth" will always be open for questioning, and there will always be aspects of any such "truth" that we cannot answer. In religion, "truth" is absolute and must not be challenged.

 

Here are a couple of sources, I am sure others can supply more.

 

An essay on religion - the antithesis to science

http://www.str.com.br/English/Atheos/antithesis.htm

 

Science and human values - Truth in science (excerpt)

http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/scitruth.html

[Tormod]

Here is an interesting one, by the way.

 

Science and faith in the search for truth

John Paul II to teachers and university students in Cologne Cathedral, Saturday, November 15, 1980.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci80111.html

 

It should be evident from this speech that there is a deep chasm between scientific and religious truth.

[Tormod]

Questions like "Ask an atheist to prove there is no god" are meaningless.

 

Which god? What kind of proof? For which audience? It is fruitless to make up a proof against anything which is based on faith and faith alone. Why should an atheist care?

 

When you do not believe in something, it does not mean you believe in the opposite of it. I am an atheist. I do not believe in any god. It is not an extraordinary claim which needs to be backed up by evidence. I have no need to prove that there is no god, because I do not "believe" there isn't one. It is not an issue to me.

 

At the same time, it is not an extraordinary claim to say there is a god. It is not an extraordinary claim to state that god created the universe, and that all the observations we make only make this clearer. It is a claim which has been made billions of times before, for thousands of years. Nothing new there.

 

But this has nothing to do with science. Science is not a quest to find god, even though some may find it to be a useful tool in their search. Religion and certain directions of philosophy ARE quests to find god. Science is a quest to understand nature and our place in it, by using the scientific method.

 

So when (for example) evolution is dismissed as junk science because it should be obvious that life is the product of a god and that human beings are that god's prime creation, the question of proof becomes imperative. Evolution can be proved scientifically, even though none of the proofs will constitute a final Truth. But it cannot be falsified by religion using science, only by calling on fundamental, religious Truth.

[geko]

Questions like "Ask an atheist to prove there is no god" are meaningless.

 

I myself also wanted to add that this statement shifts the burden of proof. It's not up to the atheist to prove there is no god, it's up to the thesist to prove to the atheist that there is one. The reason for this is that there is no reason (evidence etc.,) to believe/accept that there is one is the first place.

 

It's the same with all theories that try and work their way into the public domain. Evolution, heliocentricism etc., had the burden of proof on them when they were first proposed. They needed to prove and show reason for acceptance (evidence etc.,) before they were taken on board. The burden of proof has shifted because this evidence has been shown, scrutinized and stood the test of time, which itself equals even more scrutiny.

[Tormod]

Well put, Geko.

[Turtle]

But it brings up another (most like to also go unanswered) question. Why do believers want to come to a fact/ science based site...

 

They come because in their everyday lives, science rules/guides; one doesn't consult god when judging how to throw the next dart at the pub. One accepts the scientific principles because it's what works. Nothing more natural than trying a tool that works on a variety of projects. Guess we drift back to the ignorance thing here from another thread; you can't pull an exhaust manifold with a hand plane. :hihi: