Self Deceit and Faith.

by hillary_step 208 Replies latest jw friends

  • serotonin_wraith
    serotonin_wraith

    Void-

    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.

    Couldn't you observe how he is with you and decide based on that? You'd have good reason to think he did if he acted as if he did. If you had reason to think he didn't, or was lying, then you could still base your decision on reason.

    BA,

    Well you're right, a sparrow hasn't become something else. It's the latest 'model' of that species. It did change over time though to reach the point it's at now - same with every species we see today. We know this based on the fossil record.

    Here's part of the evolution of the horse:

    Evolution of the horse during the Cenozoic Era. Kentucky International Horse Park. Left to right: Pliohippus (10 mya), Merychippus (25 mya), Mesohippus (40 mya), Hyracotherium (55 mya).

    The horse we see today is the latest model, but it used to look very different. With millions of years for species to change, they can become so different that they are classed as different species.

  • Brother Apostate
    Brother Apostate

    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

    Yep, arguably is the key word, bro. Detective work is as much (or perhaps more) art, than it is science. Archaeology and evolution lean very heavily on such detective work. Time will eventually indisputably prove what is true and what is mistaken.

    BA

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Void Eater,

    and back to Hillary's questions...

    Thank you!

    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.

    Yes, but perhaps we should widen this concept a little. For example, one might state the case as you have regarding the entity of a "God". One might then go on to assign other characteristics to this "God". This God, loves me. This God created me. This God provides me with my wants. This God answers my prayers. This God looked after a book called the Bible to make sure it spoke truth to me. This God looks after the orbit of the sun so that it brings me life.

    You see, the concept of a God may not require self-deception, but all appendages applied to this concept do. They require that a person go further than a provable/unprovable concept, as BA clearly intones in his posts. It is this element of the issue that I wish to address.

    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.

    This is not sound reasoning in that it suggests that you are dealing with a concept that cannot be proved, whereas you can ask your father whether he appreciates you and he will answer in some way. We have no evidence that God has ever given, or been able to give a direct answer to any person asking such a question.

    The answer may be different if we had the same careful definition of "faith" as we do of "self-deception" included in the question.

    I trust that this aspect has now been answered.

    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.

    No, this is a question asked of those who believe in a different God than Siva, such as BA. It is religionists such as himself that would need to answer such questions.

    Thank you for your comments.

    HS

  • MadTiger
    MadTiger

    Who said mudskippers changed?

    Just because they combine the functions of some very distinct organisms doesn't conclusively mean anything, only that they are some very interesting creatures.

    Same with the archaeopteryx.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    You see, the concept of a God may not require self-deception

    So we agree finally!

    Or are you doublespeaking? I have seen your wordplay and semantics juggling before to get yourself ou of cramped spots.

    Burn

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    Yep, arguably is the key word, bro. Detective work is as much (or perhaps more) art, than it is science. Archaeology and evolution lean very heavily on such detective work. Time will eventually indisputably prove what is true and what is mistaken.

    Does that make you a skeptic? Lets throw a party! Woot!

    Question everything BA.

    Burn

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk
    You see, the concept of a God may not require self-deception

    So we agree finally!

    Or are you doublespeaking? I have seen your wordplay and semantics juggling before to get yourself ou of cramped spots.

    Burn

    Would you characterize yourself as having faith in God or faith in the concept of God?

  • Brother Apostate
    Brother Apostate

    sera,

    Here's part of the evolution of the horse

    Begging the question, unless you are referring to adaptation/micro-evolution, which I have already stated my acceptance of.

    What we observe are different fossils we categorize under the family equidae.

    You conclude the fossils so grouped support more than adaptation/micro-evolution, yet there is no proof of the horse "kind" becoming another "kind".

    BA

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    Couldn't you observe how he is with you and decide based on that?

    Sounds to me like you are putting faith in your own senses Sero. are you sure they are not deceiving you? How could you prove it?

    Burn

  • serotonin_wraith
    serotonin_wraith

    The archaeopteryx did change. It changed into a modern bird.

    Mudskippers are around today. They may change into land creatures, they may not. Evolution is blind so we don't know.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit