Kay17:


I agree with you on the italicized statement. but the bolded analogy goes nowhere, because no one is omniscient; we have to live with our ignorance. Moreover the reasonable man is not making assertion rather expressing his doubts. In effect he relies on his knowledge not his ignorance

True, he relies on his knowledge. I don't really understand your understanding of a skeptic.

Do you call one who refuses to look at the facts presented by his unbelievers as a Skeptic? Does this your skeptic relies on his ignorance even when shown facts?

Reyginus:
True, he relies on his knowledge. I don't really understand your understanding of a skeptic.

Do you call one who refuses to look at the facts presented by his unbelievers as a Skeptic? Does this your skeptic relies on his ignorance even when shown facts?

No.

davien:
so if the man were to offer a calculation based on the billions of galaxies,planets and moons and then deduces that life as we know it were mathematical plausible to exist elsewhere...won't his view be justified?

Now you got it mixed up.

The irrationality for both cases is in the fact that none of them can prove their case, thence the skteptic's view is backed up by pure, undiluted faith.

striktlymi:


Now you got it mixed up.

The irrationality for both cases is in the fact that none of them can prove their case, thence the skteptic's view is backed up by pure, undiluted faith.

The skeptic has no view whatsoever,just a rejection of one... faith requires beliefs and beliefs with no evidence...
A skeptic can reject claims based on insufficient or lack of evidence....
If one has a view of aliens existing....if that view is based on solid demonstrate-able facts and can be addressed as plausible....then this view has been justified for alien life...
If he were to go the extra mile and mention qualities of a particular set of alien life....then he would have to present how he knew such specific things and if they are validate-able....
moreso nobody cares if one is skeptical of aliens,because it does not prompt your belief...aliens do not begin or cease to exist upon anyone's view...
If one makes the positive claim that aliens do not exist,then he would need to prove it...
Let me ask you a question.....is it faith if I hold a view that a creature like godzilla may have once existed and thus may be really an extinct dinosaur.

davien:
The skeptic has no view whatsoever,just a rejection of one... faith requires beliefs and beliefs with no evidence...
A skeptic can reject claims based on insufficient or lack of evidence....
If one has a view of aliens existing....if that view is based on solid demonstrate-able facts and can be addressed as plausible....then this view has been justified for alien life...
If he were to go the extra mile and mention qualities of a particular set of alien life....then he would have to present how he knew such specific things and if they are validate-able....
moreso nobody cares if one is skeptical of aliens,because it does not prompt your belief...aliens do not begin or cease to exist upon anyone's view...
If one makes the positive claim that aliens do not exist,then he would need to prove it...
Let me ask you a question.....is it faith if I hold a view that a creature like godzilla may have once existed and thus may be really an extinct dinosaur.

To your question first...

Your use of "may" underpins the fact that you are unsure a creature like godzilla ever existed. This in turn demonstrates your inability to prove that theory for the now. If without solid evidence you hold strongly that view without the "may" then your view is based on faith.

Now, I will respond to the rest of your post with a question of my own: does God exist?

Op, wen next ur writg ur post, be careful not to lump christianity together with islam.
Or any other religion, theyre diametrically opposed. Do this and it shall b well presented.

Healthy scepticism = plain old doubt.

Faith is a gift of God. It is not just believg immaterial things. But usg d lesser definition of it being a belief in the immaterially unverifiable, one can still justify it.
Faith is necessary wen d subject is a novice in a particular field. Before knowg the how,he has to accept as true wat his teachers tell him. In some fields it may take decades before the subject is intellectually prepared to question and know the "how".
In cases where one is incapable of employg his physcal senses, he has to rely on and trust anoda's judgement. E.g if d subject is blind or deaf,disabled etc.
The physcal senses are not infallible, therefore they cant b d ultimate guides.
The eyes can b decieved thru optical illusions.
Etc
if there is somethg outside the range of d physcal senses,then,
there's no way one can verify them with d five senses. One has to rely on d words of another who has knowledge of the immaterial world.

striktlymi:


To your question first...

Your use of "may" underpins the fact that you are unsure a creature like godzilla ever existed. This in turn demonstrates your inability to prove that theory for the now. If without solid evidence you hold strongly that view without the "may" then your view is based on faith.

Now, I will respond to the rest of your post with a question of my own: does God exist?

What is a "god"?

Kay17:


No.

If no, why do you seem to suggest that cannot be possible in faith even when we have overwhelming evidence that says the opposite?

asalimpo:
Op, wen next ur writg ur post, be careful not to lump christianity together with islam.
Or any other religion, theyre diametrically opposed. Do this and it shall b well presented.

Healthy scepticism = plain old doubt.

when does skepticism become unhealthy?

Faith is a gift of God.

First define what you call "god" and how I can detect it accurately.... and why such a thing can offer beliefs without evidence(if it is conscious and intelligent that is )...

It is not just believg immaterial things.

okay,can you give examples?

But usg d lesser definition of it being a belief in the immaterially unverifiable, one can still justify it.

asalimpo,I keep telling you to stop contradicting yourself...
if you have a belief in the "immaterially unverify-able",how do you justify it?
Perhaps you don't know that to justify something is to;

" to prove or show to be just, right,
or reasonable"

http://i.word.com/idictionary/justify

So by the definition how do we justify(prove or show to be right)what you have already termed as "immaterially unverify-able"?

Faith is necessary wen d subject is a novice in a particular field.

I'm pretty sure faith didn't land any intellectual field credibility....any field that is pragmatic does not rely on faith...you are free to give examples of fields where faith is the methodology...

Before knowg the how,he has to accept as true wat his teachers tell him.

If "he" has to accept what his teachers tell him,what room is there for questions? for example,how do you know 2+2=4? if its because you accepted it as true just because a "teacher" said it then sorry.. you had an indoctrination not an education...

In some fields it may take decades before the subject is intellectually prepared to question and know the "how".

And in the absense of answers and with untestable hypothesis... we admit ignorance and search for answers..

In cases where one is incapable of employg his physcal senses, he has to rely on and trust anoda's judgement. E.g if d subject is blind or deaf,disabled etc.

Correct....tools are employed and devised that try to error-check our senses....even still those tools are still open to skepticism and improvement....and when we've assessed the subject with our tools,senses( not viable for all phenomena),and cross-confirm that phenomena to various trials to determine the accuracy of it...it is then labelled a theory or law(if it passes) or considered true or real(in the case of your example)...and dismiss or consider not applicable if they fail...
philosophy I think is a field where notions whether pragmatic(working) or not are applied with passion...

The physcal senses are not infallible, therefore they cant b d ultimate guides.

correct again...

The eyes can b decieved thru optical illusions.
Etc

correct...

if there is somethg outside the range of d physcal senses,then,
there's no way one can verify them with d five senses.

correct...

One has to rely on d words of another who has knowledge of the immaterial world.

WRONG! ...because,you brought in a conclusion that even though you can't detect everything therefore someone else can... where did that deduction come from?...and if you can't detect an "immaterial world" what senses or what way did you get knowledge of it in the first place?

davien:
What is a "god"?

What is a "god"? I said God not god! Don't ask what is "God" cause you know very well to whom I refer. A simple answer to the question would suffice. After all, I did answer your questions directly without pretending not to know what you are talking about.

striktlymi:


What is a "god"? I said God not god! Don't ask what is "God" cause you know very well to whom I refer. A simple answer to the question would suffice. After all, I did answer your questions directly without pretending not to know what you are talking about.

changing the "g" in "god" to capital tells me nothing of what you are referring to... the word "god" is a vague term...because people address it differently and have different definitions..I have to know what a "god" is before I can make any statement about it...

Reyginus:
If no, why do you seem to suggest that cannot be possible in faith even when we have overwhelming evidence that says the opposite?

but wouldn't that contradict Paul's statement on faith?!

Paul the Christian theorist saw faith as "an assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." He goes further that "for in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?" and "so we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

Kay17:


but wouldn't that contradict Paul's statement on faith?!

No. That is more like a sermon on trusting on God. The same way a child trusts and hopes on his father of a particular gift he promised, because, by all standards, he has not broken any of the rules that qualifies him for the gift.

In skepticism, the child, due to ignorance of the reason his dad didn't get him his gift last time, he begins to doubt if his father will get him anyone today. The main his dad didn't get anything for him it is to test him and see how he handles himself when the expected does not show up. A precocious child may ask questions and come to understand his reasons.

The same thing happens when a Christain doubts. It will only be unhealthy when the Christain knows or have been told the reason for the delay but still doubts.

Reyginus:
No. That is more like a sermon on trusting on God. The same way a child trusts and hopes on his father of a particular gift he promised, because, by all standards, he has not broken any of the rules that qualifies him for the gift.

In skepticism, the child, due to ignorance of the reason his dad didn't get him his gift last time, he begins to doubt if his father will get him anyone today. The main his dad didn't get anything for him it is to test him and see how he handles himself when the expected does not show up. A precocious child may ask questions and come to understand his reasons.

The same thing happens when a Christian doubts. It will only be unhealthy when the Christain knows or have been told the reason for the delay but still doubts.

I don't seem to understand you, because you mentioned the use of evidence in faith, I don't see how evidence is used with faith. And your analogy goes too for my comfort beyond neutrality. My main contention with you is the place of evidence in faith.

Kay17:


I don't seem to understand you, because you mentioned the use of evidence in faith, I don't see how evidence is used with faith. And your analogy goes too for my comfort beyond neutrality. My main contention with you is the place of evidence in faith.

Of course it is, friend. Faith is NOT the irrational confidence in a thing but a rational confidence in anything thing.

If my reason for believing that a supernatural entity will do a thing is because the supernatural has done a thousand times, I don't see any reason why faith should not go with evidence.

Reyginus:
Of course it is, friend. Faith is NOT the irrational confidence in a thing but a rational confidence in anything thing.

If my reason for believing that a supernatural entity will do a thing is because the supernatural has done a thousand times, I don't see any reason why faith should not go with evidence.

I'm more confused. Which part of my OP do you disagree with regarding the definition of Faith?

Kay17:


I'm more confused. Which part of my OP do you disagree with regarding the definition of Faith?

Lol. I don't think I agree with your impossibility of healthy skepticism in faith. What I gave you is the proper definition of healthy skepticism. I am sorry you are expecting irrational Skepticism.

@Kay17

Faith does not seek to negate reality. On the contrary faith simply put says all that you see is not all there is.

Reyginus:
Lol. I don't think I agree with your impossibility of healthy skepticism in faith. What I gave you is the proper definition of healthy skepticism. I am sorry you are expecting irrational Skepticism.

I was the one trying to define 'healthy skepticism', and you didn't define it. Could restate your definition of 'healthy skepticism"?!

LordReed:
@Kay17

Faith does not seek to negate reality. On the contrary faith simply put says all that you see is not all there is.

Namely that there is a metaphysical reality.

Kay17:


Namely that there is a metaphysical reality.

Yes.

LordReed:


Yes.

So my question and OP tries to find the convergence between faith and healthy skepticism, because our senses and gadgets cannot detect the metaphysical, we have no confirmation mechanism to back up faith. Yet faith does assert sometimes that the metaphysical reality conflicts with our own reality, right?

Kay17:


So my question and OP tries to find the convergence between faith and healthy skepticism, because our senses and gadgets cannot detect the metaphysical, we have no confirmation mechanism to back up faith. Yet faith does assert sometimes that the metaphysical reality conflicts with our own reality, right?

More of a superimposition than a conflict, similar to aerodynamics superimposing on gravity.

I believe someday we may create the tools to detect this metaphysical realm that however doesn't mean we cannot experience the effects.

LordReed:

More of a superimposition than a conflict, similar to aerodynamics superimposing on gravity.
I believe someday we may create the tools to detect this metaphysical realm that however doesn't mean we cannot experience the effects.

yes, it could be possible to experience such a reality but our senses are not suited to that kind of reality and theoretical doubtful in that sense.

Kay17:


yes, it could be possible to experience such a reality but our senses are not suited to that kind of reality and theoretical doubtful in that sense.

That's why I said the effects.

LordReed:

That's why I said the effects.

This thread is for you to express your mind on what the place of healthy skepticism on faith.

But as a necessary aside, an effect does not 'lead' to the cause, otherwise you would be implying that the effect is the 'cause' of the cause.

Kay17:


This thread is for you to express your mind on what the place of healthy skepticism on faith.

But as a necessary aside, an effect does not 'lead' to the cause, otherwise you would be implying that the effect is the 'cause' of the cause.

No I am saying inability to physical perceive the cause will not negate the effect.

As for skepticism and compatibility with faith, I would say they are "compatible" on certain levels. Let me illustrate by using the biblical account of Mary when she was told she would bear Jesus, she said "How can this be seeing I have never had sex", that in my opinion is healthy skepticism.

Kay17:


I was the one trying to define 'healthy skepticism', and you didn't define it. Could restate your definition of 'healthy skepticism"?!

Rational Skepticism. Skepticism that ceases to be when what is true has been thourougly and logically established.

Reyginus:
Rational Skepticism. Skepticism that ceases to be when what is true has been thourougly and logically established.

Now, apply that to the use of faith.

LordReed:


No I am saying inability to physical perceive the cause will not negate the effect.

As for skepticism and compatibility with faith, I would say they are "compatible" on certain levels. Let me illustrate by using the biblical account of Mary when she was told she would bear Jesus, she said "How can this be seeing I have never had sex", that in my opinion is healthy skepticism.

No what you would actually have is a shrouded cause with an effect.

Good.

Kay17:


Now, apply that to the use of faith.

I have done that in the previous analogy I presented. You can review the analogy and point out the loopholes.

Reyginus:
No. That is more like a sermon on trusting on God. The same way a child trusts and hopes on his father of a particular gift he promised, because, by all standards, he has not broken any of the rules that qualifies him for the gift.

In skepticism, the child, due to ignorance of the reason his dad didn't get him his gift last time, he begins to doubt if his father will get him anyone today. The main his dad didn't get anything for him it is to test him and see how he handles himself when the expected does not show up. A precocious child may ask questions and come to understand his reasons.

The same thing happens when a Christain doubts. It will only be unhealthy when the Christain knows or have been told the reason for the delay but still doubts.

This application, right?