Formal debate

[Jameson]

On other forums I have seen formal debates set up, where two people discuss an agreed upon topic for a certain number of rounds. There are certain things that vary, such as word count, length of time between responses, and number of rounds. Is anyone interested, or have a good topic to discuss, or just have any input?

Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

On other forums I have seen formal debates set up, where two people discuss an agreed upon topic for a certain number of rounds. There are certain things that vary, such as word count, length of time between responses, and number of rounds. Is anyone interested, or have a good topic to discuss, or just have any input?

Let's debate: The Relative harm of Secular faith vs. Religious faith.

No holds barred. Free for all. No limits.

[Jameson]

So you're saying no conditions for the debate? Just start talking? Do you have any preferences to the structure of this?

Which side do you wish to take?

Just some basic questions.

Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

So you're saying no conditions for the debate? Just start talking? Do you have any preferences to the structure of this?

Which side do you wish to take?

Just some basic questions.

I would like to start with the argument that secular faith is more harmful than religious faith.

Hopefully, others will chime in; then we will see where the thread drifts to. If we need rules; they can be tweaked as we move along. I am desparate to get the Junior Members to participate; and, thought this might not be too technical; but, controversial and passionate for many???

I selected this topic because its subject is too "hot" for most physics forums.

[Jameson]

Well then I say take it away!

The topic of debate is secular faith is more harmful than religious faith. For the positive, Epsilon=One, and for the opposition, myself.

Here we go...

[Epsilon=One]

Well then I say take it away!

The topic of debate is secular faith is more harmful than religious faith. For the positive, Epsilon=One, and for the opposition, myself.

Here we go...
Secular faith is insidious.

Secular faith is difficult to protect from. Most people, including many of those that preach it, particularly teaching physicists, do not recognize it.

Religious faith is much more honest in that its purveyors clearly state that much faith is required because their "brand" of faith is not provable.

Religious faith is rife with caveats; secular faith is fraught with false truths that seldom come with caveats; such as, the speed of light is constant and as a "photon" is some kind of massless particle, gravity attracts, the Big Bang "banged"; and Black holes have been observed.

When the cognoscenti do not recognize what is metaphysics; how can the layman be anything but traumatized when the subconscious is aware of what is ludicrous. Religious faith is much less traumatizing to the psyche because most everyone is well aware of its contradictions to reason.

It is the unquestioning acceptance of secular faith (a firm belief in something that is ludicrous on its face) that makes possible the belief in religious faith, which underlies much of mankind's suffering.

[Jameson]

There are different kinds of faith. There is believing in something completely and without any logical, rational, or provable reason, which is what I would call religious faith. Many have this kind of faith, but certainly not all. Then there is more generic faith. I would say a great deal more of us have faith in history, in science, and in mathematics. We assume quite a bit about our lives based on faith in government, historians, scientists, etc. It is just not feasable to go about our lives without some degree of faith, that is belief without complete and undeniable reason.

So which kind is worse for humanity? I would say that the religious one is. I have seen various proofs and disproofs of God, but none have really been settled on as fact. The way one believes in God is not the same way ones belives in science. Religion endorses the belief that there life has reason, and assumes that that reason is known. But, the thing is, religion admits that those things cannot be proven, but must be known through faith. It's like asking a student, "Do you believe in the quadratic forumla?". The student replies, "Yes, of course." You ask why and the student responds, "I don't have a proof or reason, I just believe."

That kind of thinking is harmful to the human race. It is unquestioning and unexamining.

-------------

Now to your post.

Religious faith is rife with caveats; secular faith is fraught with false truths that seldom come with caveats; such as, the speed of light is constant and as a "photon" is some kind of massless particle, gravity attracts, the Big Bang "banged"; and Black holes have been observed.

Why is the belief in any of these things harmful? There is evidence to provide those thoughts. That does not make it true, but at least justifies it in a way other than faith.

Many thanks!
Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

...Then there is more generic faith. I would say a great deal more of us have faith in history, in science, and in mathematics. We assume quite a bit about our lives based on faith in government, historians, scientists, etc.

This is not my definition of faith; though there certainly is a lot of it here, nevertheless.


It is just not feasable to go about our lives without some degree of faith, that is belief without complete and undeniable reason.

I basically disagree; with the caveat that I'm using a more specific definition of faith than you are.

So which kind is worse for humanity? I would say that the religious one is.

I disagree. Without secular faith, there can be no religious faith. That is: If god is provable, there is no need for religions that prevaricate. Religions as welfare and social clubs are good . . . to promote intolerance and proselytize is not good; it is evil.


I have seen various proofs and disproofs of God, but none have really been settled on as fact.

Your experience does not make it so.

The way one believes in God is not the same way ones belives in science.

I can find very little difference. I have looked hard with much effort for many years. Even if the fault is mine; it can't be entirely mine. Can it?

[QUOTE=Jameson]Religion endorses the belief that there life has reason, and assumes that that reason is known. But, the thing is, religion admits that those things cannot be proven, but must be known through faith. It's like asking a student, "Do you believe in the quadratic forumla?". The student replies, "Yes, of course." You ask why and the student responds, "I don't have a proof or reason, I just believe."

That's fine for the "quadratic formula"; how about, gravity, the Big Bang, the duality of light, etc., etc.

That kind of thinking is harmful to the human race. It is unquestioning and unexamining.

My point regarding secular faith.

-------------

Now to your post.

Why is the belief in any of these things harmful? There is evidence to provide those thoughts. That does not make it true, but at least justifies it in a way other than faith.

Many thanks!
Jameson

The harm is the layman is not aware of caveats; and it perpetrates the pernicious confusion that might be alleviated if theoretical science would open its doors to "new" thoughts that, now, are considered unnecessary because "all is under control."

[Jameson]

I think before we can procede any further, we need to agree on what exactly we mean by "faith". Otherwise, it seems we are talking about two different things and would defeat the purpose of this discussion.

Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

I think before we can procede any further, we need to agree on what exactly we mean by "faith". Otherwise, it seems we are talking about two different things and would defeat the purpose of this discussion.

Agreed. All discussions should so start. All words connote differently to all persons. Korzybski would love you.

I'll make a quick start, you tweak or dismiss. (Girls and sun are waiting for me).

Faith is an undue reliance on believing something that is patently unbelievable. Usually this belief is brought about by catechismal indoctrination by the elite.

[Jameson]

Agreed. All discussions should so start. All words connote differently to all persons. Korzybski would love you.

I'll make a quick start, you tweak or dismiss. (Girls and sun are waiting for me).

Faith is an undue reliance on believing something that is patently unbelievable. Usually this belief is brought about by catechismal indoctrination by the elite.

Sorry for the huge gap in our discussion. I've been swamped.

I don't have a big problem with your definition, but I think it kind of favors your side. I'll propose this definition, and see if we can't find something to agree on.

Faith is claiming to have knowledge of something admittingly without fact.

I'll see how you tweak that.

Thanks as always,
Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

Sorry for the huge gap in our discussion. I've been swamped.

I don't have a big problem with your definition, but I think it kind of favors your side. I'll propose this definition, and see if we can't find something to agree on.

Faith is claiming to have knowledge of something admittingly without fact.

I'll see how you tweak that. No problem with gap. I appreciate the break; I’ve been busy. Occasionally, this topic hurts my brain.

Your definition, above, is fine. (I hope.)

I’m anxious to see what pitfall you have prepared for me. :)

On with it . . .

After all the above. I've decided to tweak as an after thought. Is the below tweak acceptable.

"Faith, religious or secular, is claiming to have knowledge of something admittingly without fact."
(I'm trying to get an edge back. :))

[Jameson]

No problem with gap. I appreciate the break; I’ve been busy. Occasionally, this topic hurts my brain.

Your definition, above, is fine. (I hope.)

I’m anxious to see what pitfall you have prepared for me. :)

On with it . . .

After all the above. I've decided to tweak as an after thought. Is the below tweak acceptable.

"Faith, religious or secular, is claiming to have knowledge of something admittingly without fact."
(I'm trying to get an edge back. :))

Agreed. :) I'll be post something later tonight to further this disucussion I'm enjoying so much.

Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

Agreed. :) I'll be post something later tonight to further this disucussion I'm enjoying so much.Thanks for delay. SFN is driving me bananas. :) They are delaying some very significant posts to PMF with their drivel and closed-minded moderators.

There is nothing comparable, in the scientific world, to the Renaissance spirit of Intellectual Inquiry as found at www.PhysicsMathForums.com.

Amazingly at SFN, I found some agreement with Tom Mattson who banned me from PF. See: Proof of One at the end of post (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=753&page=2&pp=20).

See: FTL, Proof of One (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=204819#post204819).

[Jameson]

Forgive me for not being punctual. I have not posted here in quite some time and the only honest reason I can give it that I've just been busy and haven't been able to find the time.

I have sat for some time considering our debate and I realized that I do not completely agree with the side I started. This does not happen often for myself, but I think that secular faith is worse for knowledge and true understanding than religious. The religions that focus mainly on faith deal with abstract concepts and questions I would say are unanswerable, which is why I can see a rationalization to have faith. For something hopefully more concrete, that is math and science, I would hope that faith does not become a major component of either.

The only thing I really have a problem with in religious faith is that I think it promotes ignorance. Some people think since they are going to heaven and they have all of life's answers, there is no reason to examine or question anything. I feel that attitude promotes ignorance.

So if there is another topic you wish to debate, I would love to partake. I have a suggestion, one that's very complicated, but I think we can make it work.

Debate proposal: Is there a proof of God?

or something of this nature.

Thanks,
Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

Forgive me for not being punctual. I have not posted here in quite some time and the only honest reason I can give it that I've just been busy and haven't been able to find the time.You will never have to apologize to me for being busy; you’re preaching to the choir. See: http://www.CQthus.com/PT/TOC.

I have sat for some time considering our debate and I realized that I do not completely agree with the side I started. This does not happen often for myself, but I think that secular faith is worse for knowledge and true understanding than religious.Your conclusion is impeccable.


The religions that focus mainly on faith deal with abstract concepts and questions I would say are unanswerable, which is why I can see a rationalization to have faith. For something hopefully more concrete, that is math and science, I would hope that faith does not become a major component of either.Unfortunately, since the Pomo elite era of physics (Einstein’s death to Hubble Space Telescope), secular faith is deeply entrenched among those in academia. Your logic is as impeccable as your above conclusion.

The only thing I really have a problem with in religious faith is that I think it promotes ignorance. Some people think since they are going to heaven and they have all of life's answers, there is no reason to examine or question anything. I feel that attitude promotes ignorance.I feel that religion is a great social experiment; and, that god should be left to the physicist . . . and mathematician. See: http://www.epsilon-1.com.

So if there is another topic you wish to debate, I would love to partake. I have a suggestion, one that's very complicated, but I think we can make it work.

Debate proposal: Is there a proof of God?Fine topic. Can we start with this essay. “A Proof of God” (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=150); or maybe, “Atheists, enlightenment, and Intelligent Inquiry” ( http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=189); also, see: "My Creed." (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=90)

I've argued either side. I am equally despised by both those that are religious and those that are atheists.

[Jameson]

I'll be glad to start with those topics, but I'll need some time to read them over. I have to say, I'm impressed with your volume of content on this site.

[Epsilon=One]

I'll be glad to start with those topics, but I'll need some time to read them over. I have to say, I'm impressed with your volume of content on this site.The more time you take; the better for me. I've got UCI, Caltech, and UCLA to cover through Monday.

Most all postings on that site you scanned have been posted in the past month, or so; since I ran inti Dr. E. I have around 80 Domains, if you ever have any spare time, I'll list a few.

I edited the post above; probably, after you read it. Check the last paragraph.