MarcAC,
Often when it is very obvious – in this case; didn’t know something, studied, found I now learnt something I didn’t know before – conclusion is that studying led to learning – QED.
Induction is a statistical process and works with probabilities as opposed to certainties. It has limitations but is a practical method for living every day life. But there is an element of risk. When someone says they have faith that their car will get them to work it is usually based on the hundreds of prior trips that proved true. One day the car will let them down.
Sure but the word has become integrated into common usage so it is always important to understand the underlying intentions. Even in religions the word is used in multiple contexts. The only thing common is the spelling.
I tend to agree, and LOL to your final clause.
Such discussions about this topic do tend to degenerate into definitions of the word, which is perhaps unfortunate. If I do not use the word and look at the underlying issue what we have is the theist assertion that a god exists. This is the essential tenet of theism and does not express doubt or uncertainty but is a clear expression of certainty. The issue that atheists have with this assertion is the absence of support and theists know this and the more experienced do not attempt to claim evidence or proofs, at least not in the conventional scientific sense. The argument eventually comes down to emotional experience that is claimed as personal evidence of a god. I simply do not find that convincing.
The question is what makes you accept the evidence as evidence?
Often when it is very obvious – in this case; didn’t know something, studied, found I now learnt something I didn’t know before – conclusion is that studying led to learning – QED.
This may be true in some cases but not all. Inductive reasoning, as far as my knowledge goes, is active.
Induction is a statistical process and works with probabilities as opposed to certainties. It has limitations but is a practical method for living every day life. But there is an element of risk. When someone says they have faith that their car will get them to work it is usually based on the hundreds of prior trips that proved true. One day the car will let them down.
Faith, on the other hand, may be more passive (works in the background). But as Water indicated... synonyms do exist... you don't like one word... use the other.
Sure but the word has become integrated into common usage so it is always important to understand the underlying intentions. Even in religions the word is used in multiple contexts. The only thing common is the spelling.
Objectivity, I have learnt after studying meanings from several dictionaries, can be a good thing. It seems Webster's is the "debator's canon"... or "atheist debator's canon" Such faith in the definitions.
I tend to agree, and LOL to your final clause.
Here's a more comprehensive look at the idea of faith. Faith, it seems, does not imply certitude in all cases. One often tends to "fall behind" after adhering to one view of things for too long. Thank God for Water.
Such discussions about this topic do tend to degenerate into definitions of the word, which is perhaps unfortunate. If I do not use the word and look at the underlying issue what we have is the theist assertion that a god exists. This is the essential tenet of theism and does not express doubt or uncertainty but is a clear expression of certainty. The issue that atheists have with this assertion is the absence of support and theists know this and the more experienced do not attempt to claim evidence or proofs, at least not in the conventional scientific sense. The argument eventually comes down to emotional experience that is claimed as personal evidence of a god. I simply do not find that convincing.