What can be done to convince you that observable data is more valid than blind faith?

Question

No where do I claim it to be the be all, end all, just that it is more valid than your blind opinions.

Answer 1

If AJM is any indication of the nescience of the theist mind, I'd say the answer to your question is "nothing."

AJM: I doubt your mind is more than I can handle, because I'm certain I can handle a child's mind. But if you want to discuss the issue further, you can prove yourself to be more than a little girl and email me.

Answer 2

Blind belief in what you refer to as 'observable data' is no more valid that a unsubstantiated belief in anything else.

Data is just that--data. Data can be manufactured, and data is often affected by whomever is doing the 'observing'. It is not infallible--and neither are the people who are collecting 'the data'. Also, how is it that you know that you have ALL the data on a particular issue?

Evidence is just that--evidence, and does not necessarily prove that 'a thing is true'.

What we need to do is to look for the principles BEHIND the data, and to have a way to verify and/or validate the truthfullness of whatever 'data' (facts, etc) we are choosing to use.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point, and completely agree with you. However, in using a 'extreme' or polar opposite approach; you run the risk of doing and/or becoming the very thing that you are trying to NOT do/be.

Everyone assumes that 'logic and reason' will always win out and/or agree.

You ever seen a disagreement (lack of a meeting of the minds) between two VERY 'logical and/or mental' individuals; let's say like between two physicists who only deal in what they perceive as being "data and facts"--and "the obvious"?

If they are both using logic, reason, data and facts, why is it that there are so many 'logical, reasonable' people who disagree with each other?

A great example is the issue of global warming where there are many scientists on both sides of the issue who disagree with each other either about 'the facts' or what 'the facts' actually are.

Regards,

Answer 3

Well I think its important to note that faith isnt blind. Was the faith you had in your parents blind? How about the faith in your spouse? Faith revolves around working and loving relationships and God is no different. In fact, God is the one most apt not to disappoint you in those regards.

I would say that observable data is only good for limited scientific purposes and that it really has different goals than faith. Science is mans feeble understand and attempt to become stronger in the world.

Faith however, has the goal of becoming stronger in all our relationships and especially with God who can bring salvation.

Answer 4

I'm already a subscriber of reality, but I used to be a (really bad) fundie. What got me was actually meeting people of different faiths who were usually better people than the members of my church. Then when I started asking questions and was told 'the devil' was speaking, not me, I realized that these people are crazy.

I've never met the devil, and every question I had was a legitmate concern that I had come to through independent thought. To have someone tell me that questions were put in my head and mouth by something other than myself was very demeaning. I couldn't stand it, and would not accept it. If the devil is going around doing all the things christians say he is, you would think it would be universal knowledge and someone would have caught him on video by now.

Answer 5

I'd argue the 'blind faith' perspective you have.

How do you observe love? Not the by-product, but love itself? Is it real? Do you have data to demonstrate love as a real thing?

Answer 6

if observable data is so true, then why is every item pertaining to the dinosaurs now being re-written? Each museum is going through massive changes with their dino displays and all facts.

why? cause about a month ago they came out and said " oops, we made a few mistakes " few? lol, that's an understatement. they are changing heads, bones, stance, colors, feathers or skin, etc.

and if observable data is fact, why then are text books and school books updated yearly but the bible never is updated?

think bout that, logically.

Answer 7

Kurt Godel proved that the consistency of mathematics cannot be proven. The result of this is that mathematics must be accepted on faith. I may not be willing to take the leap of faith required to believe that there is a god (or that there is no god) -- but I am willing to take the leap of faith required to believe that mathematics works.

Don't you think a similar leap of faith is required to believe that "observable data" also exist?

We all take leaps of faith.

Answer 8

I have yet to see any valid observable data that disproves the existence of God.

Answer 9

I have actual observable data that supports my faith.
However, if I had never seen anything that supported my faith I would most likely consider data that proved my faith to be invalid.

Answer 10

Actually, I haven't met any observable data that destroys my faith. Rather the opposite, many observable data, for example in nature, strengthens my faith in an intelligent Creator. So what?