Faith-based Worldviews

[natewood3 0]

Are all worldviews faith based? Are all belief systems ultimately based upon faith in a supposedly self-attesting authority that cannot be proven without assuming it? Can you prove that reason is the ultimate authority without using it? Can prove that skepticism is true without being skeptical of your own skepticism? In other words, when it comes down to it, how is it that all people ultimately believe in things by faith, not necessarily things contrary to reason, but things unable to be proven without assuming the thing to be proven true? Are not all systems of belief ultimately based on faith/belief in an unproven axiom/presupposition?If not, please explain.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Are all worldviews faith based? Are all belief systems ultimately based upon faith in a supposedly self-attesting authority that cannot be proven without assuming it? Can you prove that reason is the ultimate authority without using it? Can prove that skepticism is true without being skeptical of your own skepticism? In other words, when it comes down to it, how is it that all people ultimately believe in things by faith, not necessarily things contrary to reason, but things unable to be proven without assuming the thing to be proven true? Are not all systems of belief ultimately based on faith/belief in an unproven axiom/presupposition?If not, please explain.

I would have to agree...People like to downplay faith b/c of its use in christianity, but faith is probably the most important tool we have as people in general

[crowTrobot 2]

Are not all systems of belief ultimately based on faith/belief in an unproven axiom/presupposition?If not, please explain.

if by "reason" you refer to science and the scientific method, that has nothing to do with faith. it is simply making useful predictions using past empirical evidence. by definition there is no assumption of absolute truth involved. the scientific "system of belief" is not based on or interested in absolute belief (faith).on the other hand if by "system of belief" you refer to philosophy then you might have an argument.

I would have to agree...People like to downplay faith b/c of its use in christianity, but faith is probably the most important tool we have as people in general

why? it can make you feel better about yourself certainly, but in terms of human society it seems more detrimental than useful to me - faith is the primary cause of social boundaries.

[Mattnxtc 0]

if by "reason" you refer to science and the scientific method, that has nothing to do with faith. it is simply making useful predictions using past empirical evidence. by definition there is no assumption of absolute truth involved. the scientific "system of belief" is not based on or interested in absolute belief (faith).on the other hand if by "system of belief" you refer to philosophy then you might have an argument.why? it can make you feel better about yourself certainly, but in terms of human society it seems more detrimental than useful to me - faith is the primary cause of social boundaries.

Crow whether you want to admit it or not, You use faith every single day in your life. You rely on faith more so than most other things in ur life

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Everything we know in life is based on some sort of Axiom or presupposition.In the Descartian way of thinking about it, that is.Even math, the basis of all science, is based on certain axioms that people take for granted.If you want to call this faith, you're free to do so.Of course, some axioms are A LOT easier to believe than others.I don't want to use examples and make comparisons, but you can see where I'm going with this.

[natewood3 0]

if by "reason" you refer to science and the scientific method, that has nothing to do with faith. it is simply making useful predictions using past empirical evidence. by definition there is no assumption of absolute truth involved. the scientific "system of belief" is not based on or interested in absolute belief (faith).on the other hand if by "system of belief" you refer to philosophy then you might have an argument.why? it can make you feel better about yourself certainly, but in terms of human society it seems more detrimental than useful to me - faith is the primary cause of social boundaries.

If I am referring to science, science still assumes various things, things that are taken for granted at the outset. For example, the uniformity of nature is assumed in science, as well as in everyday life. How would you account for the uniformity of nature?In the title of this thread, I use "worldviews." That is what I believe is ultimately based upon some belief in some ultimate standard/presupposition/axiom. The question becomes, is one justified in taking that authority for granted?

[Mattnxtc 0]

Everything we know in life is based on some sort of Axiom or presupposition.In the Descartian way of thinking about it, that is.Even math, the basis of all science, is based on certain axioms that people take for granted.If you want to call this faith, you're free to do so.Of course, some axioms are A LOT easier to believe than others.I don't want to use examples and make comparisons, but you can see where I'm going with this.

eh..I do understand where your going though absolutes like math arent really what I was going for. I was thinkin more general to everyday activities

[crowTrobot 2]

Crow whether you want to admit it or not, You use faith every single day in your life. You rely on faith more so than most other things in ur life

lol no. i expect things to be true based on past experience, but i don't rely on absolute belief for anything. there's a huge difference. you and nate are both trying to broaden what is meant by faith by mis-defining it apparently.

[timwakefield 68]

If I am referring to science, science still assumes various things, things that are taken for granted at the outset. For example, the uniformity of nature is assumed in science, as well as in everyday life. How would you account for the uniformity of nature?

Please explain what you mean by 'uniformity of nature.'

[crowTrobot 2]

If I am referring to science, science still assumes various things, things that are taken for granted at the outset.

starting "assumptions" of science are not believed through faith, though. they are believed to be true because they make successful testable predictions. faith-based belief by definition doesn't do that.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Please explain what you mean by 'uniformity of nature.'

I'll field this oneWe use the laws of physics to describe nature, but if you really think about it, there's no reason that nature should obey mathematical laws. As Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible." We can only assume that the laws that we know and love will last forever and that every time we measure a quantity the laws that we assume to be true will hold. I'm not sure that this is what he's talking about, but it's an interesting topic and it's important to remember for anyone interested in science.

[timwakefield 68]

I'll field this oneWe use the laws of physics to describe nature, but if you really think about it, there's no reason that nature should obey mathematical laws. As Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible." We can only assume that the laws that we know and love will last forever and that every time we measure a quantity the laws that we assume to be true will hold. I'm not sure that this is what he's talking about, but it's an interesting topic and it's important to remember for anyone interested in science.

Basically the assumption that natural laws do not change throughout the universe?Regarding Natewood's post about uniformity....why does this need to be "accounted for?"

[natewood3 0]

Everything we know in life is based on some sort of Axiom or presupposition.In the Descartian way of thinking about it, that is.Even math, the basis of all science, is based on certain axioms that people take for granted.If you want to call this faith, you're free to do so.Of course, some axioms are A LOT easier to believe than others.I don't want to use examples and make comparisons, but you can see where I'm going with this.

So what you are saying is that all of our knowledge is based on an ultimate presupposition/axiom. Can that presupposition be proven? What would you call this knowledge based on a presupposition?My question is how are you justified, or how do you make sense of the fact that the future is going to be like the past? How do you even know that? If you say you don't, you have just assumed you do, because words presuppose that they will have meaning, as they have done in the past. If you do not believe in the uniformity of nature, it is impossible to live.How do you know the future will be like the past? Are you even justified in assuming such things?

[crowTrobot 2]

So what you are saying is that all of our knowledge is based on an ultimate presupposition/axiom. Can that presupposition be proven? What would you call this knowledge based on a presupposition?

arguing against knowledge just makes you an agnostic. it doesn't justify christian faith.

My question is how are you justified, or how do you make sense of the fact that the future is going to be like the past? How do you even know that? If you say you don't, you have just assumed you do, because words presuppose that they will have meaning, as they have done in the past. If you do not believe in the uniformity of nature, it is impossible to live.

you might do better breaking up your ideas into separate paragraphs. that one just hurts my brain to read.

How do you know the future will be like the past? Are you even justified in assuming such things?

i expect the future to be like the past, however i don't believe in the future based on absolute truth (faith). it is more a matter of belief in "practical" truth, which is flexible. if the future starts unfolding in an unexpected manner i will adjust my expectations. that's how science works.

[natewood3 0]

arguing against knowledge just makes you an agnostic. it doesn't justify christian faith.

I honestly have no idea how that answered my questions that I asked...Someone said our knowledge is based on some ultimate presupposition, assumption, axiom, soemthing we take for granted. However, if that is true, then that first presupposition or assumption MUST BE justified and shown to be true. Otherwise, knowledge is destroyed because all knowledge that flows from that false presupposition will also be false. Truth does not flow from falsehood. Hence, if our ultimate presuppositions cannot be shown to be true and self-evidencing or self-justifying, then knowledge is destroyed.

you might do better breaking up your ideas into separate paragraphs. that one just hurts my brain to read.

You said earlier you expect certain things to be true because of past experience, so why is it that you believe the future is going to be like the past?

i expect the future to be like the past, however i don't believe in the future based on absolute truth (faith). it is more a matter of belief in "practical" truth, which is flexible. if the future starts unfolding in an unexpected manner i will adjust my expectations. that's how science works.

Why are you equating absolute truth with faith? Could you elaborate? Could you define faith also? I do not believe we are using the same definition. Since I am a Christian, and the Bible is my ultimate authority, I can define faith no other way than what the Bible teaches...Hence, it seems you are importing a different view of faith into the Christian worldview and proceeding to show that it is absurd or incoherent or unjustified on that basis...so a definition of what "faith" means to you would help the discussion.

[natewood3 0]

starting "assumptions" of science are not believed through faith, though. they are believed to be true because they make successful testable predictions. faith-based belief by definition doesn't do that.

So scientists assume certain things at the outset and believe them because they make successful testable predictions? That makes no sense to me...you just believe them because you believe them or because their helpful? That makes them true or right? Here is a list of assumptions of scientists:1. The human senses are reliable and capable of giving accurate information about a “mind-independent” physical world (and not merely information about successive sense impressions).2. Science must assume some uniformity of nature in order to justify induction. (Uniformity is critical when researchers assume that they can legitimately infer from past cases to unexamined future cases. But the justification of induction is a philosophical issue.)3. Science assumes both uniformity and the existence of universals in order to justify inductive inferences from the examined members of a class. (These assumptions are necessary in order to extend their findings to all the members of a class, past and future. But these assumptions themselves cannot be justified inductively.)[28] 4. Science assumes that the laws of logic are true.5. Science assumes that numbers exist (i.e., is the “two-ness” of an oxygen molecule just as much a constituent as its other chemical properties?).6. Science assumes that language has meaning (i.e., scientific theories are examples of language and are therefore involved in issues of semantics).7. Science assumes that truth exists and that it involves some sort of correspondence between theories and the world.8. Science assumes certain moral, epistemic, and methodological values in its practices. (Truth-telling and honest reporting in experiments are regarded as moral virtues.)(These assumptions are necessary to ground science as a rational discipline. But these assumptions are philosophical in nature or “brute givens" which cannot themselves be verified by science.)http://www.frontlinemin.org/paganscience.asp

[crowTrobot 2]

So scientists assume certain things at the outset and believe them because they make successful testable predictions? That makes no sense to me...you just believe them because you believe them or because their helpful? That makes them true or right?

whether the starting axioms used by science are actual truth (if such a thing exists) or not is irrelevant, because they are proven as practical (yes, helpful) truth (definition of practical being benefical for the comfort and survival of humanity).all you're doing is arguing against the validity of knowledge in general, which is fun for a mental workout, but has no practical value. and the philosophical path you're trying to take certainly won't validate christian faith, so i'm not sure where you're trying to get with this. i think your train of thought might have missed a couple stations

[natewood3 0]

whether the starting axioms used by science are actual truth (if such a thing exists) or not is irrelevant, because they are proven as practical (yes, helpful) truth (definition of practical being benefical for the comfort and survival of humanity).all you're doing is arguing against the validity of knowledge in general, which is fun for a mental workout, but has no practical value. and the philosophical path you're trying to take certainly won't validate christian faith, so i'm not sure where you're trying to get with this. i think your train of thought might have missed a couple stations

You have just said that actual truth does not exist, so why does any of this even matter? I am right, you're right. So God exists, and God doesn't exist. If you are going to resort to simply subjective truth, there is no reason in even discussing anything at all, ever.

[crowTrobot 2]

You have just said that actual truth does not exist,

uh.. no, you did. i said that's irrelevant because, whether there actually is or not, at least there SEEMS to be an objective reality accessable to our senses that behaves consistently in a certain way, and until there is some reason to suspect otherwise i'll go with that for practical reasons. no need for philosophical justification.

I am right, you're right. So God exists, and God doesn't exist. If you are going to resort to simply subjective truth, there is no reason in even discussing anything at all, ever.

yep, and your faith goes in the toilet. welcome to agnosticismville.

[natewood3 0]

uh.. no, you did. i said that's irrelevant because, whether there actually is or not, at least there SEEMS to be an objective reality accessable to our senses that behaves consistently in a certain way, and until there is some reason to suspect otherwise i'll go with that for practical reasons. no need for philosophical justification.yep, and your faith goes in the toilet. welcome to agnosticismville.

I am definitely not an agnostic. I believe that God is the foundation of all knowledge, and the beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. I believe in Christ are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Without God, there is no knowledge. Without God, there is no intelligibility. I believe the only way there CAN be knowledge is if the Christian God exists, meaning the God of the Bible.My contention would be that all other worldviews make knowledge impossible, because all reject the God of the Bible as the foundation of knowledge. You say there seems to be an objective reality accessable to our senses; I say without God, that is impossible. The problem is with your worldview, you cannot make sense of the fact that there is intelligibility. I am not sure how you believe that we come to know things, but I believe that God is the precondition of intelligibility and knowledge. Hence, I am as far from agnosticism as one can get...

[timwakefield 68]

So scientists assume certain things at the outset and believe them because they make successful testable predictions? That makes no sense to me...you just believe them because you believe them or because their helpful? That makes them true or right? Here is a list of assumptions of scientists:1. The human senses are reliable and capable of giving accurate information about a “mind-independent” physical world (and not merely information about successive sense impressions).

Okay, what's his point? All that exists is mind, this is a basic tenet of Buddhism. It does not, however, imply that we should distrust our senses.

2. Science must assume some uniformity of nature in order to justify induction. (Uniformity is critical when researchers assume that they can legitimately infer from past cases to unexamined future cases. But the justification of induction is a philosophical issue.)

Why should we not assume induction? His basic argument is 'Why should we assume that the sun will rise tomorrow? Just because it rose today?' Well it's not exactly jumping to conclusions that it'll rise tomorrow. Nobody is trying to assert that scientific knowledge is entirely accurate all the time....sometimes it is inaccurate because small assumptions proved to be false.In science you are allowed to make small assumptions, but should make the least and smallest assumptions possible. This is part of the basic scientific principle....Occam's Razor.

3. Science assumes both uniformity and the existence of universals in order to justify inductive inferences from the examined members of a class. (These assumptions are necessary in order to extend their findings to all the members of a class, past and future. But these assumptions themselves cannot be justified inductively.)[28]

We CAN justifiably assume that time will exist with a linear forward progression, albeit in relation to the observer's relative motion in time/space.

5. Science assumes that numbers exist (i.e., is the “two-ness” of an oxygen molecule just as much a constituent as its other chemical properties?).

WHAT????????? Any mathematician knows that man created numbers. They certainly exist, but only in our heads. That doesn't mean they can't explain things.

6. Science assumes that language has meaning (i.e., scientific theories are examples of language and are therefore involved in issues of semantics).

By writing this article, the author also assumes that language has meaning. If he did not think that this was a reasonable assumption to make, the article would not exist. It does, so he himself considers this assumption reasonable.

[natewood3 0]

Okay, what's his point? All that exists is mind, this is a basic tenet of Buddhism. It does not, however, imply that we should distrust our senses. Why should we not assume induction? His basic argument is 'Why should we assume that the sun will rise tomorrow? Just because it rose today?' Well it's not exactly jumping to conclusions that it'll rise tomorrow. Nobody is trying to assert that scientific knowledge is entirely accurate all the time....sometimes it is inaccurate because small assumptions proved to be false.In science you are allowed to make small assumptions, but should make the least and smallest assumptions possible. This is part of the basic scientific principle....Occam's Razor. We CAN justifiably assume that time will exist with a linear forward progression, albeit in relation to the observer's relative motion in time/space.WHAT????????? Any mathematician knows that man created numbers. They certainly exist, but only in our heads. That doesn't mean they can't explain things.By writing this article, the author also assumes that language has meaning. If he did not think that this was a reasonable assumption to make, the article would not exist. It does, so he himself considers this assumption reasonable.

The question is not whether or not scientists should affirm these things. They MUST in order to do science. However, these assumptions, as stated at the end are "philosophical in nature or “brute givens" which cannot themselves be verified by science." The contention is that only the Christian worldview can explain these assumptions...

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The question is not whether or not scientists should affirm these things. They MUST in order to do science. However, these assumptions, as stated at the end are "philosophical in nature or “brute givens" which cannot themselves be verified by science." The contention is that only the Christian worldview can explain these assumptions...

I really do not see how "only the Christian worldview can explain these assumptions." Even if the assumptions that science has to make somehow imply a need for a god (which they don't), there is no reason that this god is necessarily the Christian god of the bible. Your jump in logic is massive. But I guess it doesn't matter since logic can only exist with a god, right? So therefore to disprove you using logic, there must be a god, right? My head hurts.

[crowTrobot 2]

I am definitely not an agnostic. I believe that God is the foundation of all knowledge, and the beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. I believe in Christ are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Without God, there is no knowledge. Without God, there is no intelligibility. I believe the only way there CAN be knowledge is if the Christian God exists, meaning the God of the Bible.

and you believe all that through faith. nothing you said invalidates any other non-christian world view including agnosticism. what you believe through faith has no meaning to someone who doesn't have your faith. to someone without your faith what you just said is illogical emotion-based cult speak.

My contention would be that all other worldviews make knowledge impossible, because all reject the God of the Bible as the foundation of knowledge.

again something you believe through faith. you could insert almost anything for "God of the Bible" and that statement would mean the same thing to someone with (or without) faith in that particular thing. in particular there are a few billion hindus and moslems that would find your contention insulting. as an agnostic i'm just laughing at the self-contradiction.

You say there seems to be an objective reality accessable to our senses; I say without God, that is impossible.

why? prove that we aren't just finite-lived self-aware machines in a god-free eternal universe.

The problem is with your worldview, you cannot make sense of the fact that there is intelligibility.

i guess you are asking me to explain the *purpose* behind "intelligibility" (not why it appears to exist) when i'm not assuming it has any purpose (other than what we give it). your egocentric christian though processes are making YOU assume intellect has a purpose, and your tunnel vision makes it impossible for you to see why people might think differently.