Balancing Faith and Science

quote:

---

I do, no evidence, no proof. God does not exist.

---

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.It is more accurate and rational to say that you don't know.

It is intuition that tells us that 2+2=4. Rational intuition. It is rational intuition that tells us that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. We don't have to go around and examine a whole bunch of As,Bs, and Cs to make sure. We just perceive that it must be so. You keep telling me I'm making a mistake but you don't tell me what the mistake is. Could you spell it out? Actually, I don't agree with Lewis' conclusion, but I do agree that logic is ungrounded. Or I think I do. Your criticism is vague. You tell me I'm engaging in this or that fallacy, and that I'm not being serious. That's all you've said.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-07-2005 07:24 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-07-2005 07:25 AM

So it's more rational to say that invisible beings exist?

So because we don't have a motive or a murder weapon we should convict Mr. Brown? Just because we don't have evidence does not mean he's not guilty.

Saying that "rational intuition" is the basis for these things is not very helpful. Doesn't 2 + 2 = 4 come from simple counting ? And if you want to argue that we don't have to determine the truth of these inductively I would like you to explain on what basis - according to your beliefs - we claim to know these things.The basis for logic must be our reason for thinking it to be valid. In other words it is not a genetic issue - i.e. based on how we gained the capacity (and if it were there is a lot more to the story than a single "fluke").And what possible reason can you have for saying that logic is "groundless" ? Are you just saying that you can't think of a ground ?And if you want more specific criticisms I suggest that you make more specific arguments. If you don't understand the terminology I have bene using to make my criticisms then say so - but up to now they have been quite specific enough givem the vagueness of the arguments they are applied to.

Random thoughts, I suppose?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

It doesn't exactly come from counting, but mathematics like that is simply a matter of definition. We have ourselves defined what all the included symbols mean and how they relate to eachother.The tricky bit comes when you try to make a system which you can argue relates to the real world. When it comes to linear things like simple counting, that's rather easy but it's still based mostly on the fact that it works; there is nothing in Reality that seems to *require* linearity but we know from experience that it works.I think this is what he means by intuition. Why do we know what linear math applies to, say, apples? Because our experiences so far leads us to consider this something that works and seems right.We still can't say why the world is exactly like it is, and such a question is rather odd in general.Then you come to the nice bits in math where you can describe worlds and such that don't directly correspond to our real world. 54-dimentional geometry comes to mind.

Invisible? What does that matter?I suppose energy is invisible.

I've got a maths background (BSc in Mathematics and Computer Science)I've thought a little more about "2 + 2 = 4"Now I do beleive that some basic counting ability is innate. But IMHO addition is learnt. In my day, at least, it was initially learnt by rote - but without that or some other training I would think that it would have to be learnt by experience. It certainly isn't obvious that it is naturally intuitive (i.e. innate knowledge) - I would say that it becomes intuitive because it is a basic example of something learnt at an early age and heavily used. And widely used as an example of a simple and undeniable truth.Which, of course, only confirms that the question of what is meant by "rational intuition" can't be sorted out by giving a few examples. I have no way to tell whether "2 + 2= 4" is a valid example or whether using it as an example was a mistake !

By 'intuition' I was thinking of that quality of our thought when we say of some deductive conclusion, "This has to be. No doubt about it. There's no way it cannot be"--whether we are talking about a proposition expressed in words or mathematically. No measuring or testing required.What has to be learned in mathematics is calculating ability--a skill in taking great care (which I never learned).

quote:

---

By 'intuition' I was thinking of that quality of our thought when we say of some deductive conclusion, "This has to be. No doubt about it. There's no way it cannot be"--whether we are talking about a proposition expressed in words or mathematically. No measuring or testing required.

---

So you are talking about informal evaluation of arguments ?
Formal evaluation for logical validity is certainly not something I would describe as "intuition".But why would a reasonable ability at evaluating arguments not be useful in evolutionary terms ? And why is the (limited) reliability of that faculty a problem for naturalism ?

Sounds similar to the Argument from Incredulity to me.Basically you're saying that if science cannot detect something then it cannot exist. Thats irrational to me.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 07-07-2005 12:59 PM

It is possible for them to complement each other, with niether one yielding, when they agree on something.For example, there's a passage in the bible that says that god made man from dirt. This could be a religious belief. If we scientifically investigate both dirt and man, we can conclude that they are made from the same kinds of atomic particles. Science could complement this religious belief with niether one yielding to the other.A little over-simplified example but I hope you get my point.

If atheists/evolutionists get to bitch when the christians mis-identify or misunderstand them, or when the christians think somehthing wrong about them, then I get to bitch when the opposite happens.These statements are just not true from the christians that I know from my community and others (I'm not sure about the baptists in the deep south though). The vast majority of christians are not how you described.

Sounds like you've contradicted yourself. Your beliefs have no real basis behind them either and are just as irrational as you say the belief in god is.