tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post1316907820735946482..comments2024-03-06T04:31:53.093+11:00Comments on Just in CASE: Reason, Faith, and RevolutionTrevor Cairneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10743409298855125040noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-15157260234353671582010-05-11T16:42:20.640+10:002010-05-11T16:42:20.640+10:00Tim,
In response to the question just before my c...Tim,<br /><br />In response to the question just before my comment in which you state "The difference between faith and reason is the difference between choosing to believe something is true, and believing something because it's true". I don't agree. Once again, you trivialize matters of faith and sell 'reason' short. Faith can't simply be "choosing to believe something is true" without any evidence, but it can be deciding that something is true without certainty. We can have "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1) but it is also associated with evidence. <br /><br />The second half of your statement is what you accuse Christians of doing - you're simply making a truth claim. Reason you say is "believing something because it's true". Mmm, a bit like me saying I believe in God because it's true. Would you let me away with this? No! Surely, you've now forgotten about evidence! <br /><br />TrevorTrevor Cairneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10743409298855125040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-31933943309193236292010-05-11T16:19:59.782+10:002010-05-11T16:19:59.782+10:00Hi Tim,
Good to see some agreement below, but I s...Hi Tim,<br /><br />Good to see some agreement below, but I suspect that we’re still poles apart. Here is my response to many of your responses:<br /><br />1. I gave you a definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1, I don’t think your definition matches mine. Faith is required when evidence is not sufficient to lead to certainty (mind you it doesn't have to 'follow' evidence). Dawkins himself exercises faith in Science on a daily basis. We all have faith in many things Tim. <br /><br />2. Science does contradict itself! Believe me, I understand scientific method, I have used it for 40 years as a researcher and have taught it as part of research design courses. My point is a simple one, atheists like Dawkins (who accuses Christians of blind faith) have blind faith in science without the evidence, or with lack of certainty in the evidence. <br /><br />3. You suggest that I am “confusing assumptions with outcomes” when suggesting that science contradicts itself (which it can – indeed the aim of science is to seek to contradict or make more complex the previous work of others). You then go on to say, “That two scientific studies produce two different conclusions does not call into question the scientific method, or its assumptions, at all.” I’m not questioning scientific method Tim, just your application and faith in it and your unwillingness to recognise that faith is something, which atheists and scientists rely on every day just like Christians. The difference is that I have faith that God was indeed the creator (by whatever method) of all things and that he sent his Son to redeem us. I base this on evidence and faith. <br /><br />4. You accuse me of many ‘mistakes’ (including some things that I didn’t even say – it was Eagleton who argued that “we are dependent on faith in truths that we cannot personally assess and verify” - I was reporting his views as a Marxist and agnostic), but my favourite is that you correct me on matters of faith and truth. You say, “No, we do not personally assess and verify the vast majority of already acquired scientific facts and theories. But just because we don’t, it doesn’t mean that we can’t. That is the key difference between scientific truth and religious truth. Anyone, if they want to, can verify a scientific truth for themselves. No one can independently verify that an angel dictated the Koran to Muhammad in a cave.” <br /><br />In response, let me ask when will you get around to independently verifying how gravity works? The structure of an atomic particles, or how an atomic particle accelerator works? I suspect that you will continue to maintain your faith in the science that has attempted to explain it. Second, I don’t need to “independently verify” who Jesus was and what he did. I believe that the evidence of the Bible and God’s continuing revelation through his Spirit are sufficient for me. <br /><br />5. Your last coffee example simply demonstrates how you continue to miss the point that science and faith can live together. If I want to know “whether or not coffee increases the risk of cancer” I look to science just like you (without the blind faith because I know that there are many scientific answers to the question). I come as most Christians do with a critical mind wanting to work things out, seeking meaning and truth. But where would you go to if you wanted to know what is the purpose of your existence? Science won’t help you much here. That’s where faith and religious understanding is more useful. Yes, you are entitled to say science suggests to me that there is no point to life beyond what we can observe, but I don’t agree. And remember, I reached that conclusion after a life of atheism, after knowing about science, scientific method etc. I concluded based on evidence that Christ was who he said he is and I placed my faith in him. Faith and science can co-exist, that’s why so many wonderful scientists have faith in God and why the founders of science were virtually all Deists.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment.<br /><br />TrevorTrevor Cairneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10743409298855125040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-4430782270910936502010-05-11T14:33:09.696+10:002010-05-11T14:33:09.696+10:00Trevor,
The difference between faith and reason i...Trevor,<br /><br />The difference between faith and reason is the difference between <i>choosing</i> to believe something is true, and believing something <i>because</i> it's true.<br /><br />You have chosen to believe that Jesus was who he said he was. You cannot say "Jesus is the son of god", you can only say "I believe that Jesus is the son of god". A subtle but very important difference.<br /><br />TimTimaahynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-11677058943413360572010-05-11T11:49:09.578+10:002010-05-11T11:49:09.578+10:00Trevor,
You said that faith "is the assuranc...Trevor,<br /><br />You said that faith "is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". This sounds very much like "believing something to be true without conclusive evidence", and in fact, that is exactly what your dictionary will tell you faith is. <br /><br />Faith is <i>by definition</i> believing something to be true without sufficient evidence. If you have sufficient evidence, you don't need faith to believe it. If you are assured of something, you have no need to hope for it.<br /><br />"For most people reason means the application of logical principles to available evidence."<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />"It’s a tool for understanding or making sense of our world."<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />"The conclusions we reach will only be as good as the assumptions that drive our thinking."<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />"That’s why science often contradicts itself (e.g. medical research)."<br /><br />No, no, no, no.<br /><br />You are confusing assumptions with outcomes. That two scientific studies produce two different conclusions does not call into question the scientific method, or its assumptions, at all.<br /><br />Suppose one study showed that coffee increased your risk of cancer, and the other showed that it reduced it. Assuming the two studies were conducted according to the scientific method, it is perfectly reasonable that they might reach different conclusions. As you said, most results (for medical research in particular) are given with a specified level of probability. With a p-value of 5%, you expect one in 20 studies to reach a different conclusion to the others, purely due to randomness.<br /><br />The issue is: how will we ultimately determine whether or not coffee increases the risk of cancer? Through faith? Do we just trust the authors of the 19 papers that said it reduces the risk of cancer? If so, why don't we trust the author of the one paper that said it <i>increases</i> the risk of cancer? Or, do we acknowledge that (a) the authors are simply drawing a valid conclusion from their respective data, (b) the results are not conclusive yet because we obviously don't fully understand the factors at play, and (c) with further research and better experimental design we can one day determine beyond doubt whether coffee increases the risk of cancer...?<br /><br />"Science is rarely absolutely certain, except to a certain level of probability (there is always some doubt, except if you’re Richard Dawkins!)."<br /><br />Again, you are confusing the method (and its assumptions) with the outcomes of individual studies. Dawkins will freely admit that the scientific method can yield different results (which simply means that <i>particular</i> hypothesis has not yet been proved!), while still believing with absolute certainty that the scientific method is the best way to understand how the universe works.<br /><br />That quote from Francis Collins is interesting. If faith rests upon reason but with the added component of revelation, Eagleton can’t label the “faith” that scientists have in the knowledge that they “do not know firsthand” as “faith” at all. Where is the divine revelation in assuming the validity of previously discovered scientific truths?<br /><br />The other mistake you have made is in assuming that “we are dependent on faith in truths that we cannot personally assess and verify”. This is absolutely not true. No, we do not personally assess and verify the vast majority of already acquired scientific facts and theories. But just because we <i>don’t</i>, it doesn’t mean that we <i>can’t</i>. That is the key difference between scientific truth and religious truth. Anyone, if they want to, can verify a scientific truth for themselves. No one can independently verify that an angel dictated the Koran to Muhammad in a cave.<br /><br />TimTimaahynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-63646454900877932982010-05-06T22:17:58.450+10:002010-05-06T22:17:58.450+10:00Hi Tim,
One way to answer your question on faith ...Hi Tim,<br /><br />One way to answer your question on faith is simply to quite the writer to the Hebrews who spoke of “faith” this way: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).<br /><br />In relation to “reason” I should first ask what type of reason do you mean? But....<br /><br />For most people reason means the application of logical principles to available evidence. It’s a tool for understanding or making sense of our world. The conclusions we reach will only be as good as the assumptions that drive our thinking. That’s why science often contradicts itself (e.g. medical research). Science is rarely absolutely certain, except to a certain level of probability (there is always some doubt, except if you’re Richard Dawkins!). <br /><br />As Frances Collins says: “Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation.”<br /><br />Nice to hear from you.<br /><br />TrevorTrevor Cairneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10743409298855125040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-64802731433855124092010-05-05T21:55:14.222+10:002010-05-05T21:55:14.222+10:00Trevor,
Before I comment properly, I wonder if yo...Trevor,<br /><br />Before I comment properly, I wonder if you would mind defining "faith" and "reason" for me...?<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />TimTimaahynoreply@blogger.com