Live Debate Right Now Betwwen Dawkins and Lennox

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had another thought:

If I "communed with God" and predicted lotto results three weeks in a row, then communed again and predicted next week's. Would you consider it an equally viable strategy (ie not very) to consult a mufti, or to put money on my prediction?

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't make decisions based on faith. If I did, I would pick whichever one I had faith in. Faith and God are not synonymous. You are using an evidence-based approach to God, faith plays no part. We can use faith-based approaches to non-religious things. Just because you say "pray" and "mufti" doesn't mean we are talking about faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I am suggesting that you (who doesnt use faith to make decisions) may use evidence to evaluate whose faith (mine or the mufti's) is more likely to be correct. I put my money on my vision because of my faith, the mufti bets on his numbers because of his faith. You, a skeptical observer, can use faith to determine which is correct in the event that one faith is partially confirmed by evidence and another is not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had another thought:

If I "communed with God" and predicted lotto results three weeks in a row, then communed again and predicted next week's. Would you consider it an equally viable strategy (ie not very) to consult a mufti, or to put money on my prediction?

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't make decisions based on faith. If I did, I would pick whichever one I had faith in. Faith and God are not synonymous. You are using an evidence-based approach to God, faith plays no part. We can use faith-based approaches to non-religious things. Just because you say "pray" and "mufti" doesn't mean we are talking about faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I am suggesting that you (who doesnt use faith to make decisions) may use evidence to evaluate whose faith (mine or the mufti's) is more likely to be correct. I put my money on my vision because of my faith, the mufti bets on his numbers because of his faith. You, a skeptical observer, can use faith to determine which is correct in the event that one faith is partially confirmed by evidence and another is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh sure but like I said, then we never needed faith to begin with, and my ruling would be 100% unsatisfactory to one of the people, no matter how much evidence it was based on. Basically, if you elect me emperor then we can "resolve dispute" no problem, but otherwise we're gonna have some problems.

Whichever persons faith is most amenable to evidence is going to have the easiest time convincing others, true enough, but thats really just saying whatever the evidence says will be most convincing. The faith is really just the "person with the lightest stone tied around their neck drowns the slowest."

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
But you seem to be advocating a faith that is based on the principle of "you haven't disproved me yet!" which is probably a pretty smart strategy. Doesn't make it legitimate, but it does make it more optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I advocate a faith based on the principle of a last resort (use evidence first, form no view second, rely on faith last). I think it is unreliable and not as good at distinguishing between true and false claims as rational, evidence based investigation is. Therefore, I think it better to go with rationality where there is a conflict between the two and when a faith-derived belief is discovered - to seek out any evidence or rational argument which contradicts the belief (confirmation makes me feel better, but doesnt stop me from looking).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh sure but like I said, then we never needed faith to begin with

[/ QUOTE ]
We "needed" the faith to provide the answer - the evidence doesnt speak to what next week's lotto numbers will be, it merely says I've been right three times in a row, whereas the mufti is still broke.

[ QUOTE ]
Whichever persons faith is most amenable to evidence is going to have the easiest time convincing others, true enough, but thats really just saying whatever the evidence says will be most convincing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really - as I'm suggesting a situation where some of the faith's predictions or tenets are justified empirically, but some are not. I think the unjustified claims are more likely to be accepted by someone without faith if they are part of a body of knowledge which is largely justified.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh sure but like I said, then we never needed faith to begin with

[/ QUOTE ]
We "needed" the faith to provide the answer - the evidence doesnt speak to what next week's lotto numbers will be, it merely says I've been right three times in a row, whereas the mufti is still broke.

[ QUOTE ]
Whichever persons faith is most amenable to evidence is going to have the easiest time convincing others, true enough, but thats really just saying whatever the evidence says will be most convincing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really - as I'm suggesting a situation where some of the faith's predictions or tenets are justified empirically, but some are not. I think the unjustified claims are more likely to be accepted by someone without faith if they are part of a body of knowledge which is largely justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't faith that provided those answers, it is God. And in a rational way. You asked, he answered. Faith plays no part. If you mean that I had to have faith in God in the first place, else I would never have asked him, then this is again a RATIONAL reason to have faith, and your lottery example would be a perfect way of rationally convincing people to believe in God.

Again, nothing to do with faith.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, nothing to do with faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've got confused now, earlier you said it was nothing to do with evidence and I thought we were still talking about the same scenario. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

To summarise or perhaps clarify what I am saying:

I imagine a situation where the mufti and I have conflicting faith-derived beliefs. We both believe we know the lotto numbers every week because God has told us what they are. We proceed in this knowledge, cheerfully oblivious and/or uninterested in how the evidence matches up with the predictions of our respective faiths.

You then turn up, a skeptic, and deny faith is any reliable way to reach the truth. I claim it is, make all kinds of assertions, etcetera and eventually you say "Look, the mufti disagrees with you - if faith is so good, how come he's got it wrong?"

My response is that he is mistaken and I point to the fact that every week up until now I have been correct, whereas he has been incorrect. You would now be quite justified (I think) in believing that my prediction for next week is more likely to be correct than the mufti's.

You have formed the belief that I am right based on evidence. I have formed mine based on "a funny feeling in my head", "God's whispering", or whatever - ie faith. I have used the fact that my faith-derived beliefs are supported by evidence to persuade you that the mufti is mistaken and that my funny feeling is worth banking on. The evidence doesnt allow us to predict what will happen next week or the week after though - we'll have to wait for more god whispers for that.

I think faith is integral to the whole thing. I dont form my belief based on the evidence - for the purpose of this illustration, I'm assuming that even if the mufti was matching lotto results up until now I would continue believing that my answer would be right next week.

I think, despite relying on faith alone for my belief, it is not inconsistent for me to look around for evidence to support my claim when seeking to persuade a faith-suspicious skeptic.

Can you explain where we disagree?

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

This is sort of unrelated to this thread but I just wanted to brag that Hitchens is going to be debating Alister McGrath on my campus next Thursday and I'm definitely going and its going to be awesome.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bring Alcohol with you and offer him some. This should provide you with a nice in if you wanna rub elbows with that outlandish vagabond. Seriously though. He's always two things: 1. drunk, and 2. extremely approachable

I have to insist you hi

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe (as faith-ists often do)

[/ QUOTE ]

[nit] The word is fideist [/nit]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is sort of unrelated to this thread but I just wanted to brag that Hitchens is going to be debating Alister McGrath on my campus next Thursday and I'm definitely going and its going to be awesome.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bring Alcohol with you and offer him some. This should provide you with a nice in if you wanna rub elbows with that outlandish vagabond. Seriously though. He's always two things: 1. drunk, and 2. extremely approachable

I have to insist you hi

[/ QUOTE ]

I might just do that. The approach him thing, not so much the offer him booze thing. I'm really looking forward to it.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think that people who form beliefs based on faith only have a problem if the two conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]


Is that the position they refer to as FOG ( faith of the gaps) ?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Any chance of more words? I'm not suggesting that, in the absence of evidence it is a good idea to jump in and "discover" a faith-based belief.

I am suggesting that if someone consulted the stars and formed a whole host of beliefs, then ran a bunch of experiments which confirmed those beliefs then they dont have a problem they need to address. If the two methods disagree, then they need to form a view on which is more reliable (or maintain an inconsistent position)

[/ QUOTE ]

For starters -
You're playing fast and loose with phrases such as "confirmed those beliefs". If granny counts the wrinkles on her nose to determine lotto numbers and the numbers come up, that doesn't "confirm her belief".

there's more, but I'll wait for clarification of this aspect, luckyme