Young Earth Creationist

Getting back to the original subject, New Earth Creationism, science and faith, I thought of some other examples that might better illustrate my point concerning the need for faith along with reason:

1. New Earth Creationists challenge one of the basic tools science uses to determine the age of the earth: Radiometric (radioactive) dating. I think the assumptions behind radiometric dating are reasonable, but they are assumptions. I would describe the acceptance of those assumptions as an act of faith--as opposed to logic.

2. It is possible to defend the Ptolmeic view that the sun and planets revolve around the earth if we're willing to make the complex assumption of "epicycles", which is what people did while Copernicus was still regarded as heresy. It's really Occam's razor , the preference for simpler explanations, that decided this issue, but Occam's razor isn't provable by logic or evidence. What is it then?

3. Behaviorism was thought to be the ultimate in "scientific" psychology in the 1950s and 60s. Behaviorism, popularly known as "rat psychology", prided itself in studying "behavior" and treating the brain or mind as a "black box", i.e.,irrelevant. Some psychologists still think this way. I had a long discussion with one of them, who is a tenured professor of experimental psychology at a major university. The subject was human consciousness, which I regard as the most immediately accessible aspect of our existence. He maintains that consciousness doesn't exist--not that it's unimportant, irrelevant, something to exclude for purposes of experimentation, but that it literally doesn't exist. Okay. Maybe he's an android or some kind of zombie, who doesn't have this faculty. A zombie with a Ph.D. I can't rule that out. I suspect this is a case where he's been so conditioned (using behavioral terminology) to exclude consciousness from consideration that he denies its very existence. I'm absolutely confident that consciousness does exist, that I have it, and that other people including him and probably the rats have it, as well. But I can't prove it, particularly to somebody who is vigorously denying it, as he was. Once again I invoke the five letter F word.

4. Rene Decartes, who did believe in consciousness and made it the centerpeice of his philosophy (I think, therfore I am) did not believe animals have consciousness. He thought they were just automatons, without any inner life or feelings. When dogs yelped when being subjected to physical abuse, it was just like a squeak in the machinery, nothing to worry about. And people acted on that assumption, much to my horror. It reminds me of Adolf Eichmann's remark that Jews were "unimportant biological material". Beliefs have consequences, and what one believes is obviously extremely important. But I'm sure I couldn't prove to Decartes or to people who think like him that dogs have feelings and consciousness, and I couldn't prove to Eichmann that Jews are worth caring about. I might persuade them or at least others that this is true, but logic and evidence would only take me so far. I'd have to appeal to their intuition and willingness to take the risk of a different point of view.

5. Back to illusions. The Vedantic philosphers spoke of Maya, illusion (false perception) or more accurately delusion (false belief) , consisting of the notion that the images in our minds are the external world. Buddhism views self as an illusion and anatta (no self) as the reality. I think this is a useful perspective, just as I think it's useful to be aware that the keyboard is less solid and more interconnected than it might seem. But intuitively, I find the self analytically useful and psycho-biologically difficult to deny; like the keyboard, it has entitivity, and it's analytically useful to view it as distinct from its environment, even though a million mystics might disagree.

 

Perhaps we should discuss the idea of illusion on another thread? What say you?

Peace and love

 

It seems as though your definition of faith: to trust. My personal definition of faith is a little different: believe w/o reason. I don't equate trust w/ faith. Otherwise, anything we do will be based on faith- there would be nothing substantial.

Peace and love

 

I see faith as an educated bet. And I think everything we do is, to some extent, done on that basis, even reliance on reason and evidence. But of course there are different levels of faith. Blind faith, belief without reason, is something I view as a last resort, a "hail Mary pass", so to speak. Ordinarily, I try to make decisions on the best available evidence, try to base decisions on substantial evidence, probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion, and never to believe something that is contrary to reason and evidence.

 

I'm game, although I may have reached the capacity of my limited illusory gray matter on that subject.

 

I guess this is where our opinions do not agree. For me, faith is much less than an educated bet. It means (to me) as a belief in something w/o proof. As in, I have my views about mythology that are based on faith. I will never be able to prove w/ physical evidence that the Christian God, Hindu deities, or Greek gods and goddesses do not exist; I have faith that they do not exist. However, it is an educated bet that all of these are just as likely of occurring; in other words, there is just as much reason to believe in a Christian God as there is for the others. You may call this faith as well, but it is where we differ.

Peace and love

 

I think hippiechick is right about different definitions.

Also, there are a number of ideas on the scientific side that I do think require a bit of faith. Some of these ideas are great ideas, and may be true, but we really have not reason to believe either way. Just because something could be the answer doesn't mean it is. I think there is a difference in the amount of faith behind the statements "There is no such thing as conciousness" and "I exist." One of these is very counter-intuitive, and if this professor really thinks that we don't have conciousness, he should either back it up with his evidence (which I'd certainly be interested to hear) or stick the words "I think" before that statement.

 

So do I, but I think her idea of belief without "proof" begs the question what is "proof". I won't bore you with a repetition of my lecture on different levels of proof, but I basically follow standards that are short of scientific or courtroom proof but are acceptable in administrative decisions: reasonable suspicion, probable cause, & substantial evidence. I know there are some religious traditions that emphasize blind faith, but others that allow a place for reason.

I'm glad you used the word "counter-intuitive". I think intuition plays a big role in intelligent decision making. Atheist Sam Harris acknowledges this and discusses the discomfort that some of his fellow atheists and naturalists have with it. As I said, my idea of faith is basically intuitive risk-taking, consistent with logic and evidence.

 

I tend to be a "perennialist" myself, believing that all the world's great spiritual traditions, despite their obvious differences, express similar fundamental truths about the nature of reality; or like the proverbial blind men, experience different parts of the same elephant.

 

I would have to agree w/ you. Even if I don't believe in the Hindu deities, I still find Hinduism points to Truth, even if it has been obscured over thousands of years, as do most religions.

Peace and love