I could just answer directly, but that won't be all that fun.
I will start with indisputable science/technology history that we all know, then let people think about it and let it marinate in your cognitive juices.
If someone told you 80 years ago that you could cook food with invisible electromagnetic radiation similar to radio waves, where a suitable container for the food would not even get too hot, but the food could get very hot, you would not believe them. How could you believe that? Nothing supported believing that using the currently available scientific knowledge. How can one thing get hot and not the other it is resting on? What kind of magic/magick is that?
But that microwave oven (magnetron) works pretty good, huh?
Self Deceit and Faith.
by hillary_step 208 Replies latest jw friends
-
MadTiger
-
Brother Apostate
Would you change your mind if I were to present indisputable facts, or would your faith keep you ignorant?
The indisputable facts can be interpreted many ways. In other words, you see the fossil record (which record exists as indisputable fact) as supporting the theory of evolution, whereas creationists see the fossil record supporting creation. I'm not talking adaptation/micro-evolution, which is an indisputable fact. Design is another issue. Statistical probability is another.
BA
-
-
Brother Apostate
The same can be said for gravity.
When is the last time you took a swan dive off the top of a building?
Not all theories have the same veracity.
Detectives have theories that have put many innocents behind bars. Using your "logic", the detective's theory is on par with the theory of gravity.
BA
-
serotonin_wraith
BA,
You believe in evolution.
adaptation/micro-evolution, which is an indisputable fact
Evolution is tiny changes, one after the other. Micro-evolution again and again.
Like this:
Congratulations!
-
MadTiger
Searching for the truth is never an exercise in self-deception. We continually revise our thoughts on the nature of the universe as we gain information.
Holding/espousing a view in the face of irrefutable evidence (e.g. Flat Earth) is definitely self-deceptive. -
R.Crusoe
It is one thing to look at the natural world and feel a greater force at work, but an altogether different one to decide humans have known the exact source of this great force for millenia and divine intention has coded it for our unravelling, which code itself warns to avoid all other codes on your chancing upon this one!.
-
VoidEater
..and back to Hillary's questions...
1) In what way is faith not self-deception?
As much as I resist giving some credit to BA, he does make the point I would - faith can only be assigned to the "misconception" category when that which is believed can be proven or disproven. God being unnecessary in this case does not make him/her/it not exist. Until then it may be valid, and it may be a misconception. Schroedinger deals with this in his famous "cat in the box" thought experiments - until you open the box, the cat is in an unkown state, equally alive and dead. In this case, we cannot currently open the box.
I have faith that my father appreciates me. I cannot in this moment prove it nor disprove it. It may well be true or a misconception. But it being possibly a misconception does not make it definitely so, and my faith may be well placed.
The answer may be different if we had the same careful definition of "faith" as we do of "self-deception" included in the question.
2) Is a person who has faith in a God that you do not believe in, say for example Siva, practicing a form of self-deception?
Perhaps I can't asnwer this because I do not disbelieve in Siva. Siva, to me, equally exists or does not exist. I do not have faith that Siva does or does not exist. I do not have evidence that Siva exists or does not exist.
-
Brother Apostate
BA,
You believe in evolution.
adaptation/micro-evolution, which is an indisputable fact
Evolution is tiny changes, one after the other. Micro-evolution again and again.
Like this:
Congratulations!
Partly correct. I do not find convincing evidence for one kind becoming another kind. Sparrows beaks, coloration, etc may adapt to their environment over time, but there is no convincing evidence that the sparrow ever became anything but a sparrow, as just one example.
BA
-
BurnTheShips
Partly correct. I do not find convincing evidence for one kind becoming another kind. Sparrows beaks, coloration, etc may adapt to their environment over time, but there is no convincing evidence that the sparrow ever became anything but a sparrow, as just one example.
I'm afraid I can't agree with you there BA. Several species are arguably transitional. Archeopteryx and mudskippers come to mind. Now, if I am proven wrong, so be it! Also, I am not denying that a Creator NEVER intervened, he may have, but that the way evolution is describes generally maps well to what we find out there. I do believe however that we humans are more than a product of the process, we are a special case.
Respectfully,
Burn
