Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

I see two big problems in this thread so far - both are vague or absent definitions. I think we should all agree on a good definition of these two terms before we continue our discussion.

The first word is "morals". If you define "morals" as a universal code of conduct, I would think most non-theists would say that they do not have morals. We do have personal opinions as to what is 'right' or 'wrong' to do in a given situation, but not in general (like thou shalt not kill - what if someone's intent on killing you?). I personally include these individual judgments of subjective 'right' and 'wrong' in my definition of morality. However,

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What I have seen is patterns of behavior due at least in part to social stresses, which is not the same thing.

That seems to be directly opposing my view of what 'morals' are. So let's get this straight. Are they a universal code of which actions are right and which are wrong, or are they the ability to make decisions we consider right in any given situation?


The other word is of course 'faith'.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

It's a synonym of trust, not belief. It's trust in something one cannot know for certain, based on evidence that typically includes direct experience and sources one finds authoritative. Obviously you reject their evidence and reasoning, but it's present nonetheless.

I would argue that one can never know anything for 'certain', just beyond reasonable doubt - does that mean that everything is 'faith'? My definition of faith is also not "a belief held despite evidence of the contrary", because what if there is massively more evidence in favor of a belief?

I think faith is "A belief which is not backed by empirical evidence". In this light, personal experiences do count as evidence. However, assumptions and conjecture based on these experiences require faith. For example, the belief that "I was walking through the woods the other day and suddenly I felt a great joy, and a great clarity" is not faith-based. However, if one extends this experience and says "God touched me in the woods and now I see the light" is faith-based.

A trust in someone is also not 'faith' under my definition - it is a belief backed by your previous observations of their competence or success.

Can everyone agree on this definition of faith?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I think faith is "A belief which is not backed by empirical evidence".

That's problematic in that faith is not the belief itself, but the support of belief. Perhaps "a non-empirical support of belief." It's also synonymous with confidence.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That's problematic in that faith is not the belief itself, but the support of belief. Perhaps "a non-empirical support of belief." It's also synonymous with confidence.

I understand. You can take this route and it does make sense. It is faithful to believe in the uniformity of nature; that if nature does one thing a certain way, it will continue to do so. For example, once we empirically view one thing, we rely on nature to keep that empirical observation uniform. However, even this is a inductive inference to the unpredictable future. We cannot empirically observe the future, only predict and predictions are residual incarnations of implications and derived from inferences. Reinforcing these would be invariable beliefs and faith to theorems such as the uniformity of nature.

Is this what you are saying?

There is one problem with this; if we adhere to the randomness and arbitrary nature of reality, we must propogate this logic to universality. We must be able to apply it to all systems of view otherwise it is subject to bias and extends beyond its context to a separate entity; another set of beliefs.

This being the premise, we ought to not believe in the uniform nature of anything. Every moment ought to be random and give room for every single possibility. This means you ought to give leeway to the possibility that you can turn into jello in the next moment of reading this very setence.

My question is then, how plausible and pragmatic is this approach? Unfortunately, we are tangible mortal beings that rely on a physical approach to sensing reality and require a set of beliefs and preconceptions in order to best structure and interact with our environment. Without these, we would all inexorably die.

What do you think...?

~

Originally Posted by thegnome54

That seems to be directly opposing my view of what 'morals' are. So let's get this straight. Are they a universal code of which actions are right and which are wrong, or are they the ability to make decisions we consider right in any given situation?

I can't tell but it seems like you are agreeing with me. I was arguing that behavioral patterns that respond to social stresses were not the same as morals. Are you saying that they are? It is my belief that morality is opposed to natural social responses. This can be illustrated by a feeling of remorse after an 'immoral' act, even though no negative consequences were experienced.