Stven Hawking SAYS SO!

[doughesson]

Would that make his point less valid?

Couldn't say for sure.It would be interesting to see the reaction he'd get by announcing in the middle of one of the biggest religious gatherings in the world that there is no God in any shape,form or name.
I doubt that wheelchair has that many horses under the hood to allow him to escape.

[fireinfo10]

So if someone cannot see, prove, or explan something they have faith, or believe in, they are irrational?




You appear to be very agressively trying to dismiss him as irrational. Why is that?

There is no God before the athiest looking in his mirror.

[HuntPA]

I must object to your reasoning and logic on your two points.
1) macro evolution is not a red herring. It is a way to separate what has been scientifically proven from what is a theory. Call it a classification or subcategory. Micro Evolution would be the other subcategory.
2) Recent studies done by atheist organizations have shown that more 50% of scientists do not believe in the "accepted" big-bang theory that states the universe and everything came into being approximately 14-15 billion years ago. But again, you are bringing in popular opinion to something that should be based completely on observations and reproducible tests.

There has been much observed, tested, and reproduced that show "micro-evolution". Speciation, adaptation, and loss of genetic information fit perfectly with entropy and the "laws" of nature. I also have not seen anywhere that this has been disputed. There has never been a test or experiment that reproduced the theory of "macro-evolution".

To take it one philosophical step further,
-The big-bang was not observed.
-The big-bang cannot be reproduced (if it were it would most certainly destroy everything in the massive gravitational collapse leading to the bang)
-"Macro-evolution defies several accepted "laws" such as entropy, physics (having neighboring galaxies rotate in opposite directions when they were created by the same event), known astro-physics, and other "laws"
----Therefore, it does not meet the requirement of true science in that it is not observable, reproducible, or conforming to scientifically proven laws. So let's call it what it is; "Macro-evolution" is as much of a religion (actually called naturalism) as creationism.

[voyager9]

So if someone cannot see, prove, or explan something they have faith, or believe in, they are irrational?

According to Dictionary.com there are a few definitions for irrational:

1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.

While the underlying concept of the word describes something that it's not based on logic all of the definitions have a negative connotation.

Faith can be described as irrational since it is not based in logic. That doesn't in and of itself make it a bad thing. Unfortunately doing so also brings the negative connotations with it..

[ChiefKN]

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
--Mark Twain

Here are some more.... although, I'm sure you are familiar with this page.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/twain.htm

Here is one that didn't make the list:

“God has put something noble and good into every heart His hand created.”

Mark Twain

[Acklan]

Agreed. Believing in something for which there is no objective evidence, "proof," is contrary to reason or "irrational."

So if someone cannot see, prove, or explan something they have faith, or believe in, they are irrational?

Taking a defensive posture and assuming that people who dismiss "faith" as silly feel threatened by it is counterproductive, IMHO.

You appear to be very agressively trying to dismiss him as irrational. Why is that?

[ChiefKN]

For logical reasoning aka rationality, yes. It always has been.

Agreed. Believing in something for which there is no objective evidence, "proof," is contrary to reason or "irrational."

It's inherent in the meaning of reason, rationality, and logic. A beleif without logical support is "irrational" by it's very nature. That's not judgment; it's just what the words mean.

Rational means "governed by reason".

Reason is our method of developing conclusions based on assumptions. Theologians will tell you that reason alone is insufficient to explain the origins of the universe. In fact, the origins of the universe are only theoretical.

I think that is a fair assumption, because there is a tremendous amount of information that we do know about the universe and its origins. In fact, I would say that we have only scratched the surface of what will be the ultimate answer (if ever discovered). Even at that point, the answers will still only be theoretical.

Remember science has been wrong before...

Such as? (BTW, theories are by nature speculative anyway. They aren't considered facts but tentative models that seek to connect and explain objective evidence or "facts.")

The theory on the origin of the universe, even the "big bang" is now being questioned..

2) Evolution is accepted as a theory because of the mountains of objective evidence supporting it and the virtual absence of evidence contradicting it. Is it a fact? Of course not, but it's a theory with every reasonable probability of being substantially correct.

I'm an evolutionist, let me be clear about that. However, as you point out, it's a theory.

What's blurry to you? The rules of logic say that faith is irrational. That seems pretty clear and sharp to me.

The rules of logic do not say that about faith. That is how you are applying the "rules" of logic.

Taking a defensive posture and assuming that people who dismiss "faith" as silly feel threatened by it is counterproductive, IMHO.

I think you need to take a step back. Calling a belief in faith "silly" is not only counterproductive but insulting.

Finally, to deny that you are being judgemental is bizarre. When you state that one must have proof in a belief or it is "irrational" you are then passing judgement on that "proof".

It's not a matter of definitions, it's how you, as the observer, are judging that proof. Someone else, will have a different opinion of the proof.

[scfire86]

There are many examples in science where there is a lack of "objective evidence" and yet we wouldn't consider their theories irrational. Why are we applying different standards to a belief for which there is no "proof".

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
--Mark Twain

[DeputyMarshal]

Is the test now "objective evidence"?

For logical reasoning aka rationality, yes. It always has been.

As for the definition of faith, it's merely believing in something for which you have no proof,

Agreed. Believing in something for which there is no objective evidence, "proof," is contrary to reason or "irrational."

I see no requirement in the definition that it's an irrational belief or that faith requires a lack of logic.

It's inherent in the meaning of reason, rationality, and logic. A beleif without logical support is "irrational" by it's very nature. That's not judgment; it's just what the words mean.

There are many examples in science where there is a lack of "objective evidence" and yet we wouldn't consider their theories irrational.

Such as? (BTW, theories are by nature speculative anyway. They aren't considered facts but tentative models that seek to connect and explain objective evidence or "facts.")

Why are we applying different standards to a belief for which there is no "proof".

"We" aren't.

Other comments from the believers is that logic is a limited man-made process being applied to something supernatural.

So? Language is manmade as well. If that's their argument, they shouldn't be concerned that their beleifs are "irrational" since it's a manmade concept.

science that cannot be proven through any replicable experimentation (macro evolution), but is accepted as good logical scientific theory.

1) "macro evolution" is a red herring dreamed up by Creationists.
2) Evolution is accepted as a theory because of the mountains of objective evidence supporting it and the virtual absence of evidence contradicting it. Is it a fact? Of course not, but it's a theory with every reasonable probability of being substantially correct.

The mere fact that "logic" is not black and white blurs the test you are applying here.

What's blurry to you? The rules of logic say that faith is irrational. That seems pretty clear and sharp to me.

There is no no objective evidence that the plane will make it safely to your destination, either. Therefore, you rely on faith.

Of course there is. SC touched on it already. We know why the plane can fly, we know what factors effect the successful completion of the flight, and we have fair amount of flight experience to make predictive models. Unlike "faith," there are objective facts on which to base our predictions.

You are playing odds, really. You have no objective evidence about that flight, that aircraft.

Specifically? Not many. But we do have ample evidence about the general classes of flights and aircraft and repeated observation supports the theory that we can predict future behavior of flights and aircraft by past behavior. You can't make that statement about "faith."

I guess if you are so threatened by a belief in a supreme being that you have to call those beliefs silly, then you have more important issues.

Taking a defensive posture and assuming that people who dismiss "faith" as silly feel threatened by it is counterproductive, IMHO.

[ChiefKN]

Immature? Heh...more people smoke cigarettes than there are Christians; does that make that the right thing to do, as well? Attempting to make a point by appealing to the masses must mean you're digging deep in the ol' ammo pouch.

The comparison to smoking is bizarre.

I wasn't defending others being christian. I guess this discussion is a bit too philosophical for some on these boards.

I guess if you are so threatened by a belief in a supreme being that you have to call those beliefs silly, then you have more important issues.

[hwoods]

Hey Rick!!!............

Now Look. You Sure stirred the hornets Nest this Time......

[ThNozzleman]

It's not "my mind". I don't have that faith.

Also, I think its a bit immature to write off what a large percentage of the world believes as silliness.

Immature? Heh...more people smoke cigarettes than there are Christians; does that make that the right thing to do, as well? Attempting to make a point by appealing to the masses must mean you're digging deep in the ol' ammo pouch.

[pvfd27]

And what of the dyslexic agnostic, who asked..."Is there a Dog??"

[scfire86]

You are playing odds, really. You have no objective evidence about that flight, that aircraft.

No doubt about it. The odds can be predicted with some degree of certainty and the process can be replicated over and over to determine that probability. The same cannot be done for a supreme being.

[ChiefKN]

But one has a reasonable belief that will happen based upon the history of the plane and the route taken.

The same can't be said for a supreme being that is not anthropomorphic.

You are playing odds, really. You have no objective evidence about that flight, that aircraft.