You are free to believe what you wish to believe, as are we all. I am disappointed that while simultaneously claiming that my logical processes are faulty you decline to point out specific instances of such so as to help me refine my arguments, instead simply repeating ad nauseum your objections.

Fare thee well.

In my original response to you, I pointed out:

"With due respect, I take issue with the idea that religion and science are fundamentally the same. The contradictions generated to maintain such thoughts are almost as numerous as those that have them. If someone is religious, own it! Stop trying to smuggle it into concepts that reject the premise of faith. The beliefs of religion are not the same as the principles of science.

It's remarkable (and familiar) how many of those in the Gulch with religious views tend to hold them 'piecemeal' or 'a la carte' --- sifting out the 'not so pleasant' parts and cobbling together bits of common sense into a belief system that is less punishing to man's nature.

We all find ourselves at different levels of understanding of what we think. If we don't occasionally check our premises, then we'll stop learning or forget how we got where we are."

So again, I appreciate the exchange, but we disagree on too many key concepts. I don't think either of us is interested in a circular discussion.

I would ask what part of my assertions you view to be "a mix of contradictory conceptual packages" as you made no such mention of it prior to now. I would consider it a favor to me if you would illustrate.

"In my view, the absence of understanding is not a void to be filled with subjective hopes --- nor is it decided because most people have similar thoughts."

The number of people who believe something does not make it so, i.e. truth is not subject to majority rule, I agree. Ultimately, the individual has to decide whether or not to pursue truth and knowledge. They have to decide that their own prejudices and biases about a matter are inconsequential to knowing the truth and pursuing it.

I wasn't sure if you were addressing me in your response - no problem, just letting you know, in case I was accused.

Our criteria for "facts" are very different...and from what I've read of your views, not likely to be resolved.

The quantity of people that _believe_ an idea do not make it a fact. Galileo can't help your cause...his rational conclusions were in the minority at the time...your general beliefs are in a majority today.

The human mind has the ability to believe that anything is true. That's why we need the tools of thought like reason and logic.

I think we have established that you and I cannot agree on the definition of the critical concepts required to further this discussion. I read your assertions as a mix of contradictory conceptual packages and you probably see that as a failure on my part to understand. We disagree. :)

In my view, the absence of understanding is not a void to be filled with subjective hopes --- nor is it decided because most people have similar thoughts.

_Believe_ what you wish, Robbie. I'm not denouncing _you_.

Oh, there are many principles taught by various religious entities which are false. It is the search for a body of true principles that is the worthy endeavor to me. There is a vast ocean of conflicting ideals among the various parties of religion. It would be absurd to claim that even though we as a nation recognize the right of all people to worship what they will that all religious sects were of the same veracity or value - either to society or to the individual. I certainly do not wish to give the impression that I hold such to be the case.

While the pursuit knowledge may certainly be tried in as many ways as there are individuals (with each resulting in a proportional variety of belief sets), if one seeks the truth and is willing to adopt correct principles whenever he sees them, one will eventually accumulate truth and through these experiences be better attuned to recognizing other truths as they manifest. But what if there is another, more direct way than sampling each and every vice in the process of testing them?

I would inquire as to what exactly it is that you think can not be proven? In your statement, you assert that "something" is inherently "unprovable", yet you have not specified what that "unprovable" something is nor have you specified which tests you have undertaken to prove or disprove the "unprovable". I would think that to the keen scientific mind, the steps would be to first categorize and define what one wishes to test so as to form an idea about what one wishes to know.

'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' --Sherlock Holmes

As I mentioned above, subsumed under the concept of 'faith' is "belief in the unprovable". It is generally defined as the belief in something you cannot definitely prove. That idea is not fundamental to reason.

Fundamentally, religions and religious views are based on beliefs. On the other hand, science is fundamentally based on objectively derived facts - a process using reason, not faith, to reach conclusions.

Thank you for being respectful.

I think that your position rides wholly on this one statement: "Simply because faith and reason are, by definition, polar opposites."

I have explained to you what I believe faith to be, and why I can not find a contradiction between faith and reason. Obviously, you do not accept my proffered definition, so I would ask you to cite your own. I can't seem to find it in your posts other than to refer to it as a noun ("a" faith meaning a specific instance of a religion) or a negative inference (opposite of reason). Would you mind telling me how you define faith?

Blarman, you may choose to believe what you want; I have no personal interest in changing your particular views. I have merely countered your assertions regarding religion and science, and I've answered the question you asked. Personally, I've been down the road of faith in the past; still, I think we will agree to disagree regarding it's merits today.

Blarman: "To me, faith is a precursor to proof, but is not proof itself. Faith is what leads us to derive and test a hypothesis, but it is neither the assumptions, the hypothesis, the test, nor the conclusion."

In my view, "blind faith" is redundant. Your definition of faith sounds like it is covered by the concept of Curiosity. It is also, unlike the generally acknowledged definition of faith. Curiosity has led us all down countless paths - not all of which were rational. Yet, it is an amazing part of our nature which can drive us to incredible achievement.

Respectfully, we disagree.

See my reply to khalling above and I'll be in touch.

I don't want to clutter up the thread with posts on religion, not only because I believe it to be inappropriate, but because what I would share is personal and private. So it looks like I'm going to have to break down and become an official Producer instead of just the intellectual leech I've been so far. ;D

I'll be in touch.

I would first say that I am afraid that it is probably due to those who profess faith that there is so much confusion on the matter in the first place. I will restrict my comments not to what others profess, but what I not only believe, but practice.

To me, faith is a precursor to proof, but is not proof itself. Faith is what leads us to derive and test a hypothesis, but it is neither the assumptions, the hypothesis, the test, nor the conclusion.

"Faith, belief in the unprovable"
Is false concept. "Blind faith" is an oxymoron. One has faith that a test may be performed to determine validity. Nothing more, nothing less. Faith impels one to act and test the hypothesis: without faith/action, it is rendered simply random conjecture that is thrown to the dust heap of irrelevance. Faith itself is neither true nor false - only individual principles are true or false.

I would posit the following, but please correct me if you see something I have erroneously omitted.
1. We use our reason to posit some aspect of truth about the universe. We do this by building on knowledge through either education or (very rarely) through intuition.
2. We examine whether or not the topic of our reason is important enough for us to do something about and whether or not we want to know the answer. We exercise our self-actualization and determine if there is _potential_ value in proceeding.
3. Based on the possibility of that _potential_ value, we are moved to act: to design, build and test a hypothesis. But we do all these without knowing the outcome of the test beforehand. THIS is faith. It is an investment of our time, energy, and resources in the hope - but no guarantee - of a positive return.
4. We then view the outcome of the test and compare to our hypothesis. If the outcome matched our expectation, we call this "confirming our hypothesis" and we extend this to mean that we have successfully identified a sound chain of reasoning. If the outcome differed from our expectation, we are then forced to re-evaluate our hypothesis and either the underlying assumptions or reasoned associations from which it was born.

I think my caution would be against making the conclusion that simply because one person has not attempted to verify the validity of a hypothesis (or has used an inconclusive or improper testing mechanism), that no one else has been successful either.

I fully respect the right of everyone to believe in what they will and to choose their own path. You have the right to believe me or not when I say that I know of a test that can establish the truth about "religion". You have the right to believe me or not when I tell you that the results of my personal test confirmed my belief in God. None of that has any effect on you. It only matters for me, because only MY internal principles, motivations, and knowledge are ultimately affected by MY actions. YOU are the only one with the power to alter YOUR internal principles, motivations, and knowledge. The question boils down to whether or not you are interested in learning more about the test to the degree you are willing to perform it and live according to its results. That is the great leap of faith that is one of the most daunting challenges to all of mankind: to step face to face with himself and his heritage in order to determine who he really is and what he may become.

To your last point about the hidden kernel in religion, I believe there is. Written into most religions is a version of the Golden Rule, each using different wording. It also appears again using structured reasoning in the libertarian principle of non-aggression.

Your continued characterizing of religion as a testable field is impressive. If I ever see a falsifiable religious concept, then I will yield, but for now we will have to agree to disagree. Enjoy your weekend.

I have no reason to pursue it. That is not faith.

Simply because faith and reason are, by definition, polar opposites. Faith, belief in the unprovable, is the heart of religion; without it, religion fades away. Reason is the engine of science; it does not accept anything as a given without objective identification.

If one believes in something as a result of faith, then one should acknowledge that belief for what it is - a thought accepted as a given without objective evidence. It is what it is. Reason didn't make the final "leap" in that process. If someone thinks it did, then they desperately need to check the premises and gaps of their logical progression.

Those fundamentally defending their beliefs by trying to co-opt the virtue of reason are without religious integrity. Again, if that is bothersome, then personally check your premises and "render unto" accordingly.

"Religious statements are not falsifiable, they are usually subjectively interpreted."

Any test which is based on false principles or incorrect knowledge is going to fail because the hypothesis is incorrect. Would you agree? And there is certainly the aspect of confirmation bias that can be applied to both religious and non-religious followers. In your post, you are stating your belief that all "religious" tests are false, but I would argue that that is because you do not have the requisite knowledge with which to construct a valid test. It isn't like putting two chemicals in a beaker and watching them foam up or turn colors. They are a different kind of test altogether, but I assure you, they work if you first take the time to learn the tools and then perform the test correctly.

What I find is that many people who say that religion can't be tested using the scientific method are themselves looking for an external validation. I would ask this: if you go to watch a fireworks display, does it make you patriotic? No. Patriotism is a belief that exists independent of the fireworks. Such as with most religious tenets.

True "religion" comes from within - not without. If you do not have the internal desire to change your behavior - and most especially if one resists admitting the possibility he may be wrong - not even an outward manifestation such as an angel or earthquake is going to affect you in any way other than to harden you. True religion involves identifying and then living true principles - willingly. It is in the living of these principles that the hypothesis is confirmed, and only occasionally the external "sign".

"The more heavily religious the politics (towards theocracy), in general the more intolerant."

This is an example of guilt by association - a logical fallacy. If you want to talk principles - that's great. Let's be specific. Principles apply in a logical fashion. But generalizations do no one any good.

Have there been men of power associated with religion who have abused their station? Indubitably. Does that mean that the principles of the religion are invalid - or merely that the person chose to abandon the principles in favor of power? It can also mean that that religion's basis of power stands on principles that are inconsistent with logic. Please understand that I am not advocating the abandonment of reason OR logic. Truth is truth - no matter what scope it falls into.

One would be encouraged, however, to posit the following: WHY are there so many religions - so many groups of seemingly conflicting beliefs - if man has such a capacity for logical reasoning? Further, despite all the noise present from all these conflicting belief sets, does there still exist a kernel which is in fact built on correct principles? Is there a sparkling diamond hidden in the masses of coal? It is very easy to glance at the coal pile and say it is just coal. For those who search, however, the diamond is there.

"With due respect, I take issue with the idea that religion and science are fundamentally the same."

If I may ask, why? Simply because God is involved?

blarman, I don't believe I ever "derided" any followers of religion. Religion serves a purpose for the person who believes, and as conscious1978 put it so well, they should own it. They should be proud of it for what it is.

For someone who likes to get into defining terms, you must know that a science "hypothesis" is an unambiguous and falsifiable statement. It has to be that way to be testable. Scientists throw out many hypotheses before settling on one that seems to be unbreakable. Religious statements are not falsifiable, they are usually subjectively interpreted. That subjectivity is the main reason it does not blend well with politics. We live in hope that the few we elect will act objectively. The more heavily religious the politics (towards theocracy), in general the more intolerant.

why didn't you lay it out already?

That would be an amazing discovery. It would lead to new answers and new questions.