Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well going by that wiki article, to me it seems I'm on the right track. A meme is an idea that can evolve, expand, and cease to exist etc.
I can see how religion can be seen as a meme, it's an idea, it fits with other likeminded people, so expands. Other religions come along, they fit better or are forced to fit, and the old religion gets forgotten, the death of a meme, and in it's place is the new one, which propergates and mutates as it goes.
Isn't that what happens with religion? A religion "fits" with someone, so they adopt it, and propergate it to their children etc, over time, due to the affect of other memes, for instance homosexuality and divorce being considered acceptable, it changes.

Not really. People's ideas about religion may shift one way and back again over time, but Christianity is underpinned by a written body of teaching that has not changed.

Faith in a human being is based on your actual experience of them, what you know there reaction to similar situations have been, not what you've been told their reaction would be.
For instance, if I were invovled in an accident, left with a broken leg and a complete stranger, if he said he was going to get help, I'd have hope he would, but I wouldn't have faith that he would.

I agree with your definition of faith in a person (human being). However you are misunderstanding the concept of a Christian's faith in God. The focus of Christian faith is not in whether God exists, it is in God himself, his character, and his reaction to situations - much the same as you stated above with relation to human beings. It certainly begins with a step of faith over the issue of whether he even exists but once that is established in the life of a believer, he can move on to other issues that grow out of that without constantly revisiting that first question. A Christian no more starts each day reminding himself that there is such a thing as God any more than you remind yourself that your chair won't collapse when you sit down for breakfast.

Yes, of course it is.

So you say, but how?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Do you only have faith in the deity you worship Russ, or do you have faith in other things?

I have faith in some things but not as powerfully as I have faith in Almighty God.

[danielf]

Chris: could you clarify why you thought it odd that TBR used the word faith?

Originally Posted by MarkD

I seem to remember that word originally used was the Hebrew yom that has a number of meanings one being a period of time of no specific duration. The other bit that amuses me is people that say God made the world in seven days. What the Genesis has is that the world was made in six days, after all it has that he rested on the seventh so that cannot count.

The transliteration is yowm, and it can be used to mean a period of time as well as a specific, 24-hour day. However in the context of Gen.1 it is used repeatedly in conjunction with the words for evening and morning. There is no doubt that the author's intent was to signal literal periods of 24-hour days.

Check out the nitty gritty here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-b...&version=KJV#5

[MarkD]

Originally Posted by danielf

Which is why I said 'both are beliefs' The amount of 'faith' (acceptance of a premise in the absence of objective observations) involved is rather different though...

Edit: Surely, I'm stating the bleedingly obvious here?

However it could be argued that much of the general public's attitude to science is little different to faith as you would use for religion. Whether pro or anti. The simplified versions of science that are taught in schools or passed on through the media are often portrayed as being more solid than they really are. To be accepted or not without evidence and precious little understanding.

It would be much harder to cover if they had to explain fully the limitations of particular theories, the gaps in knowledge and understanding, and the significant differences of ideas as to what is true together with the evidence. You do occasionally get that in the media but not that often and not that well. However if it were done in school together with the teaching of the philosophy of science and the scientific method then I think we would all be better off. You might even get more children interested in science.

Originally Posted by danielf

Chris: could you clarify why you thought it odd that TBR used the word faith?

Simply because Blue's previous contributions to this discussion suggested that he (and others) hold faith in pretty low regard. I thought it would be interesting to challenge it and see what people understand faith to be and what its place is.

And it seems to have developed into a very interesting discussion.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Not really. People's ideas about religion may shift one way and back again over time, but Christianity is underpinned by a written body of teaching that has not changed.

Then how come there are so many sects?
How can Russ justify his statements that catholics are not christians if they use the same written body of teaching that has not changed?
When you say changed, at what point do you consider it unchanged?
The council of nicea?
After all, the written body of teaching was changed dramatically at that point, with many parts of the written body of teaching being discarded.

Originally Posted by Chris T

I agree with your definition of faith in a person (human being). However you are misunderstanding the concept of a Christian's faith in God. The focus of Christian faith is not in whether God exists, it is in God himself, his character, and his reaction to situations - much the same as you stated above with relation to human beings. It certainly begins with a step of faith over the issue of whether he even exists but once that is established in the life of a believer, he can move on to other issues that grow out of that without constantly revisiting that first question. A Christian no more starts each day reminding himself that there is such a thing as God any more than you remind yourself that your chair won't collapse when you sit down for breakfast.

Hence the "to all intents and purposes imaginary"
You base your faith on your deity not on how you know it to react, but how you have been told by others it will react, so you faith is based not on what you know of the deity, but on what you know of those who have informed you, many of whom you have not met and cannot meet, as they lived approx 1,950 years ago.

Originally Posted by Chris T

So you say, but how?

How is it not?
Using the empirically measured and observed and documented data that shows my chair will not fall over if I sit on it properly, I have faith that when I sit down, it won't fall over.

---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ B

I have faith in some things but not as powerfully as I have faith in Almighty God.

Is there any reason why the way you have faith in other things, such as a friend, would be any different to the way someone else would have faith in a friend?

If he catches it in time, that question is also to Chris T

[danielf]

Originally Posted by MarkD

However it could be argued that much of the general public's attitude to science is little different to faith as you would use for religion. Whether pro or anti. The simplified versions of science that are taught in schools or passed on through the media are often portrayed as being more solid than they really are. To be accepted or not without evidence and precious little understanding.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't fully agree. One of the premises of 'good science' is that it should be replicable. And, in principle, people can. (Now where did I leave that particle accelerator).

It would be much harder to cover if they had to explain fully the limitations of particular theories, the gaps in knowledge and understanding, and the significant differences of ideas as to what is true together with the evidence. You do occasionally get that in the media but not that often and not that well. However if it were done in school together with the teaching of the philosophy of science and the scientific method then I think we would all be better off. You might even get more children interested in science.

Again, I kind of agree, but there simply is not enough time in the curriculum. Further education seems more suited to this.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by MarkD

However it could be argued that much of the general public's attitude to science is little different to faith as you would use for religion. Whether pro or anti. The simplified versions of science that are taught in schools or passed on through the media are often portrayed as being more solid than they really are. To be accepted or not without evidence and precious little understanding.

It would be much harder to cover if they had to explain fully the limitations of particular theories, the gaps in knowledge and understanding, and the significant differences of ideas as to what is true together with the evidence. You do occasionally get that in the media but not that often and not that well. However if it were done in school together with the teaching of the philosophy of science and the scientific method then I think we would all be better off. You might even get more children interested in science.

The difference however between Joe Public's faith in science and faith in religion, is that someone who does understand the science has done the work to show how their theories are satisfied with observation for instance, while with religion, it's based on hearsay and no direct unquestionable evidence.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Is there any reason why the way you have faith in other things, such as a friend, would be any different to the way someone else would have faith in a friend?

Very difficult to say as I don't know how much faith that hypothetical person has or how it's measured.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Very difficult to say as I don't know how much faith that hypothetical person has or how it's measured.

Not talking about the amount of faith Russ, talking about why you have faith in someone, not the specifics.
For instance, do you have faith in someone because you've seen what they've done before, you know their opinions and values?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Not talking about the amount of faith Russ, talking about why you have faith in someone, not the specifics.
For instance, do you have faith in someone because you've seen what they've done before, you know their opinions and values?

There are a few reasons I suppose, ranging from past experiences to reputation to faith by association.

[popper]

Originally Posted by Chris T

From 'The Fallacy of Memetics':

Read the full essay at http://tinyurl.com/3bb25a. It starts about halfway down the page, which is published by the Hypermedia Research Centre at the University of Westminster.

Whilst the essay does no favours to my own faith position, it does point out the bizarre situation arch-memeticist Richard Dawkind finds himself in, spending a lifetime propounding atheism over faith, before coming up with a theory which is, in fact, a statement of faith.

I query the use of the word 'faith' in Blue's post because I am curious where he, and others, draw the line. When is faith appropriate, and when is it not? Is it appropriate for Dawkins to push a theory that is, when you get down to it, 'merely' a statement of faith?

iv not yet read the essay or for that matter looked up the relationships of HyperMedia Research so cant really comment to much there,but i do have a problem with this part at least
"Although social science may not appear as positivist as biology, at least many people working in this field have recognised the fundamental specificity of the human species.

Unlike other animals, we not only possess consciousness, but also are capable of acting collectively to change our own circumstances. "

perhaps im misunderstanding the context, but it seems they are trying to imply that humans are the only animals that can and do this, thats wrong...., and can be seen by anyone that cares to look at the other inhabitants of this world, not least..., the very apes we are said to come/evolved from, and show all the hopes/weaknesses and actions we possess, and many other creatures living here too.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

There are a few reasons I suppose, ranging from past experiences to reputation to faith by association.

Do you think other people have similar reasons for having faith in people they know, or do you think everyone has different reasons, ie not relying on past experiences or reputation?

Or to put it more simply, are you the only person to use past experiences of someone to have or not have faith in them?

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Whats the question.in a nutshell please...