I've got mail (Feedback Welcome)

I'm posting this because I'd like to hear how others might have responded.

I recently received this in my inbox:

I found your site. Your definition of faith is flawed, because it assumes that all faith is flawed. Emotion about an irrational notion or a false notion is certainly a problem. But faith is something that you use all the time whether you are rational or not to find truth about things that are true.

For example, I have faith in the future. The future is something that hasn't happened yet, because I cannot yet see it. But that doesn't mean that it isn't real, because it will shortly present itself. And from past experience, I know that it is real, because it has presented itself previously. And it takes faith for me to believe that it will continue to present itself. And wait, what is that? Woah, the future just became the present, and I believed it would, and hey, I was right! And I just proved it. Because the future just became the present. See the mental exercise there? Faith is useful when based on the truth. A hypothesis is faith, because its hope in that which is not seen, but which might be true, and if proven, then it is true. A natural law is a proven fact that started out with a hypothesis that is now proven. Therefore your definition of faith is fundamentally flawed, because the principle of faith is interwoven with science. You just have just dismissed it entirely in the realm of religion, because you have dismissed religion entirely. If you don't believe in religion, you should just say so, but don't trash on faith. Faith is something that you can't do away with, because it is fact when it is used with something that is true.

Faith, or the HYPOTHESIS, opened the way to every discovery in science. Faith is the CREATIVITY that brought about the reason for doing the EXPERIMENTATION, that let to the DISCOVERIES in science. Therefore, I challenge your fundamental definition of faith. If you hate religion, just say so. If you don't believe in God, because you don't believe in something that the scientific method can't touch, then just say so. But you can't trash on faith, because it is the core principle behind the scientific method.

Now, how do you get to know God? Not through the experimentations of science, but through spiritual experimentation. If you don't believe in that, then it is simply because you haven't done the experimentation, and you haven't had the true desire to experiment to get the result that would yield fruit. Therefore I challenge your notion that God and religion is something deluded or irrational, because you haven't used the principles of the scientific method to prove that your assertion is so. And you can't use the tools in your lab to scientifically prove God is there. You have to scientifically pray.

A believer and knower of a scientific and rational God,
XXXXXX

I pondered over this email for awhile and decided to respond as follows:

Hello XXXXXX,
Thanks for visiting my site, and taking some time to send an email. I appreciate your input, however, all you have really done here is prove your lack of understanding not only in the definition of faith, but in your definition of a hypothesis and your complete disregard for the scientific method.
You are attempting to integrate faith into logic and the 2 are mutually exclusive. Time or "The Future" does not require faith. The mental exercise you so sarcastically presented really proves nothing. Why not attempt to prove this with some evidence? How could we possibly do this without faith? To begin with we would have to create a hypothesis based on observable repeatable evidence (A hypothesis is simply an educated guess based on observable evidence it is not faith) from there we could make a prediction and based on the results we should be able to share this evidence with others to verify our observations in order to validate our initial hypothesis. I'm sure you can figure the rest out.... We could use our rising sun as the basis, the fact that we grow older, etc.. So, you see no "faith" is required. Faith is never based on "Truth". It is however something required to believe in something that has no evidence.

PS. "You have to scientifically pray" is probably the funniest thing I've heard in awhile... Thanks!

I'm providing you with a few links that may clear up your understanding of the scientific method..

• Introduction to the Scientific Method
• Scientific method
• Steps of the Scientific Method

Sincerely,
Robert

And now for his reply:

You sound a bit overconfident in yourself. Let me quote from dictionary.com since you reject the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith ):

14 results for: faith

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
faith

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

The relevant results here for a secular definition of faith (outside of a religious context) are 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9, and all back up my points in my original email.

Therefore, this refutes your argument on faith, and shows that my definition was perfectly fine. Further, reference #2, specifically backs up the fact that having confidence in the ultimate result of a hypothesis, and the proposal of a hypothesis, is indeed an act of faith. Therefore you are simply wrong. Faith is a HOPE of truth. Faith is always based on something that you hope turns out to be true, and is useful when that which is hoped for does turn out to be true, just as a scientist hopes that his hypothesis turns out to be true once tested. Therefore you are plain wrong.

Faith is a principle of reality that is based upon a guess that you hope for might turn out to be true, and if it does turn out to be true, then the faith was useful. This principle can be used in a secular context just as easily as a religious context. Just because you reject the religious context out of hand doesn't justify dismissing its usefulness in a secular context. Therefore, the fact that it is used in conjunction with a hypothesis means that it is a core piece of the scientific method and you are now refuted. Don't argue with me. Go argue with the dictionary.

Now, in a religious context, if you don't believe something to be true, and it does turn out to be true on judgment day, then you are damned because you didn't care to attempt to find out if it was true before judgment day.

Now, in the scientific method, facts are found out by the use of observation of observable phenomena. The problem with spiritual things is that they are not observable phenomena, and are usually only discernible by their effects, not unlike dark matter and dark energy. How do you use the scientific method with spiritual things? By spiritual experimentation. First, you must have a desire to know if spiritual things really do exist, and if they do, then you must want to know if God exists. If you don't care, then don't bother. But you should know first of all why it would be useful for you to know why God exists.

Many Christians are absolutely wrong about the reason for existence. Is it really to serve God as the religious people that originally indoctrinated you tried to drill into you? No. That is only something that you end up doing because you want to, that is, if you end up being happy in the state you end up being in. Happiness is the design and purpose of our existence. Misery is not.

What makes you happy right now? And what is lasting happiness? What if you die and then you haven't prepared to be happy after death? Let's say for the sake of argument that your mind is an immortal thing that cannot be destroyed, just as light is, or matter is. If your mind is indeed going to outlive your body, and is actually an independent entity that cannot be destroyed, doesn't it make sense to find out ahead of time before you can't do anything about it, and haven't prepared for the eventuality?

My last reply was as follows:

Interesting argument. In your honor, I will rename my "Definition for Faith" on my website to "A Religious Definition of Faith".

I still have my doubts as to your conclusion and your use of the term faith, but i have read where this argument has been made before.

Thank you for your feedback.

Robert

Now, if you happen to make it through all of that... What do you think? He brought up truth, yet I don't recall mentioning anything about truth. Any hypothesis has an equal chance of being true as it does being false prior to being verified who says the one hypothesizing wants it to be true or false? Anyway, I had so many thoughts on this that I simply didn't know where to begin, so i figured I'd share and see what others thought as well.

Slingshot Theory

I really love this stuff. A new theory is always intriguing in my opinion. When theorizing on things of this scale it's simply mind boggling. This really begins to make you think we really are just a drip of water in someones cosmic sink.

Cristiano Germani Slingshot Theory

Here are some highlights that I found interesting..

"I AM a heretic," Cristiano Germani announced to an audience of
cosmologists last month. Few would disagree, as he is proposing a
radical alternative to standard cosmology: a universe with no big bang
creation moment, and no rapid inflation. Rather than a big bang, he
suggests a slingshot.

When someone claims to be a heretic it always seems to catch my attention. And oddly inspires me to at least listen to their view point as objectively as possible :)

But then Germani considered a spinning universe. "In fact, it is much
more realistic that the universe will be rotating as it drops," he
says. Something more interesting happens to a rotating universe as it
hurtles down the throat. Because it is spinning, it avoids falling
into the tip of the throat and whirls round it instead. Like a
boomerang or a stone from a slingshot, it then flies back up again.
Germani realised that the second leg of this journey could correspond
to the expanding universe we observe today.

See what I mean.... A drip in someones cosmic sink lol.... I've thought about this when contemplating the Bubble Theory as well. This stuff is way above my head, but very interesting.

And an angel appeared....

To the three women being held captive, and spoke to them God's word that one of them would give birth to a daughter that would save the Sea....

Hey, you never know... maybe god speaks to the fishes too. Too bad the young saviour was killed by a stingray, or maybe that was the sacrifice needed.. lol

Ok seriously, I came across this in "The New Scientist" about a "Virgin Birth" and I could not resist. It makes one wonder... Is it possible for humans to reproduce asexually? Sure, it probably is very rare.. but could this possibly explain many of the stories about virgin births? I mean heck... is it possible that Mary was actually a hermaphrodite? Yes, highly unlikely... but quite interesting to ponder :)

Possible Earth like planet found...

We think it's bad now with the discrimination against other races/cultures/religions here on earth..... How will religion spin it when we find life on other planets? I'd like to think a majority of people would understand and be excited and interested in such possibles, but others would just claim it is a big hoax, or simply deny it. My best guess would be that Religion would broaden it's scope , claiming we should bring the "Good News" to our neighbor to include other planets as well. I'm not sure how they will cover the whole "God created man in his image" thing , especially if we do find other human like races out there. Then there would be the question, If jesus came to earth to die for our sins, does that mean if life is found on another planet it would be more perfect than we are? Maybe without sin? hehe It's going to be an interesting ride, that is for sure.

Fascinating news: Possible Life Supporting planet found

Parasite hijacks brains

Parasite hijacks brains with surgical precision - life - 02 April 2007 - New Scientist

I just thought this was a pretty interesting. Given that I am a bit of a sci-fi geek, and I do enjoy the StarGate's :)

It's always fascinating to me, when science seems to trail just behind science fiction. Almost as if we create the possibility then see it become reality.

Faith fuels home education boom

I just read this post BBC NEWS - Faith fuels home education boom and figured this would be a good time to get my opinion out on the matter of Faith based Home Schooling.

First, let me explain my background in education. Kindergarten to 7th grade I was in public schools. When 8th grade rolled around my parents had become engulfed into the religious dogma of Pentecostal Christianity at an Assembly of Free Worship Church. For those unfamiliar, this type of church is simply one that does not want to participate with the Assemblies of God's. They hold the same core beliefs, it's mainly just a matter of politics, etc.. Anyway, since we attended this church and the church decided to open a private school it should come as no surprise that my parents quickly decided this would be a better environment in witch to raise their children. So, from 8th grade - 11th grade was spent attending said private school. Finally, to conclude my christian education my senior year was spent as a home schooled student of Victory Christian Academy. Both in the private school, and in my final year of school I was taught based on the ACE Curriculum. Personally, I liked the curriculum itself, and for self motivating students that can think for themselves I think it's a great curriculum. Of course there are things I think now that would make it more effective like removing all the scripture memorization and removing the bogus Science information about creationism. However, I can identify with this 13yrd student and the comments he made below.

Quoting the post on BBC Jake says the following:

"I like the flexibility. If an opportunity to play tennis or anything else pops up I can do it and just make up the schoolwork later. "
I said the exact same thing, the problem is it's pretty much bullshit that is drilled into the child's head by the parents in order to justify what they are doing. How can I say this, because I said the exact same things. I tried to justify my senior year of being home schooled because I was able to work during the day and still have my nights to hang out with friends or go to church of course. Another issue is what fun is it to be able to go play tennis, the movies, or anything else that "Pops" up if most kids your age are still in school? Let me tell you from personal experience, It's NOT! Sure it's enjoyable, but compared to being able to hang out with a variety of children your own age, with different beliefs and different ideas... It really isn't that much fun.

"And with the one-on-one instruction, it seems you can move ahead quicker and be at a higher level of learning."
Oh this is just dumb. One-on-One instruction? In ACE, because of the way it is done there literally is no need for an instructor. It is pretty much a self-based teaching process. This did allow for me personally to move ahead quicker, but I would not consider it a "Higher Level" of learning. I personally knew many students that left private schools and went back to public schools and found themselves grossly behind other kids their own age. I understand that there are other home school systems like Abeka that do require "Instructor" interaction and are not very similar to ACE, but there are many similarities between many of the Home School Curriculum's.

And yes, says Jack, he does socialise with other children.
"I have friends from church, from sports, and I do know other local home school kids."
Socialising with those from church, from the sports you participate in with those from church, and from other local home school kids that most likely attend the same church does not in my opinion qualify as socialising. In my opinion that is like considering your Tuesday night dinner with the in-laws is also a socializing event. To me true socialization occurs when you are in an unusual or new environment with people you either don't know, or don't know well and you can interact with them. Getting to know NEW people, discussing, and learning other points of views.... That's what socializing is to me.

"Our Christian faith is pretty strong and we thought this might be the best way to be able to pass on those values to our son."
At least with this statement they are being completely honest. This is this sole reason they open private schools, and decide to home school. They think the schools are too secular, and they are afraid their kids will learn something before becoming indoctrinated.

"Character is just as important as academics. And so what we're looking for are character training issues and we would rather do that ourselves."
Oddly enough I totally agree, however character can be taught even with a child attending a public school. All it takes is the parent spending that extra time with their kid often.

"I worry about the lack of accountability in homeschooling,"
I do too, back when I was attending... The "Instructors" at the private school were not required to take ANY training at all. All they had to do was simply volunteer for the position. Sometimes they were compensated, other times it was their "Gift" to god. Very scary!

"I worry about the lack of socialisation for youngsters outside of their families."
As I mentioned above, this is in my opinion most defiantly a problem. When you are always taught about the problems with the "Real" world, but you are always "Sheltered" from it... When you are finally forced to be part of that environment it's usually a culture shock. It was for me. It took me years to overcome the fallacies I was taught when i was younger.

"I worry about the access to other kinds of non-academic resources that youngsters have in public schools that you might not have in a homeschooling situation."
I do too! Public schools systems have the infrastructure in place and have more resources. There are simply more people that do attend public schools.

In conclusion let me state that there are situations when Home schooling is appropriate, but when you have the option of letting you child attend a public school please don't deprive you child simply based on your beliefs. Teach you child your values and beliefs at home. Your child will appreciate it when they are older. I sure wish I would have been allowed to graduate with the 100's of others that where in my class. I might seem a bit bitter towards my education in my younger years, and that would be because I AM! It took me till I was in my late 20's to learn about things that many knew back in high school it was very frustrating.

Woefully inadequate...

After following some recent blogs... It has revealed to me that I know nothing. I have no problems admitting that my intellect or education does not rival that of the great scientists of this world, nor does it seem that I posses the wonderful ability to articulate sound arguments when it comes to debating the matters of the existence/non-existence of a deity. Most of what I rely on that brought me to where I am today has been the experiences growing up, from reading books in an attempt to increase my understanding of the world, from the many conversations with others, and from simple observations.

A few of thoughts on a few matters:

Are all those that religious closed minded and ignorant?
Of course not. If that were true, it is very likely we would not be allowed the freedoms that we have today. From my experience with other people based on my observations only, it does seem that people in general are lazy. At least when it comes to understanding their own faith. It seems they want to believe in a god and after life because that is what everyone else does. It also appears that they simply don't want to have to "Think" or "Reason" or even ask questions. Most people that claim to be Christians (that I know) don't even read their own bible! They go to church on Sunday, and accept verbatim everything that preacher says.

Do I think it is simplest in the Christian faith or any faith for that matter to attribute that witch can not be answered to a deity?
Absolutely! Science provides more logical and reasonable answers to questions about things better than simply attributing it to a god. This in my opinion can be backed up with History. Before medical knowledge existed, when people got sick it was attributed to demons, bad behaviour, or some other form of a non-holy life. We look back on those times and consider those people to have been ignorant and some of the remedies to be superstitious. It would seem to me then, if this happen in the past, and since our knowledge is continually increasing about the world around us that this will happen again. With each step we gain in science, biology, archeology, etc we come closer to understanding the world around us from a different and new perspective.

Why do I deny the existence of the Judaic Christian God?
Because most things attributed to that god can be dismissed (again in my opinion). Example: Being raised in a Pentecostal Church there were things that happen that are difficult to explain. Anyway, most of the notable events occurred when the entire congregation was in unison. During these times you could literally feel something was there. For a long time I had no explanation for this simply because there was nothing else that could be compared to. Until I went to my first "Secular" concert many years later. During one of the performers songs the entire stadium was singing in harmony. At that moment is when I realized; that was the commonality! It wasn't that god was in our presents, it was because a group of people were all participating in something together as one... It truly is a remarkable feeling almost overwhelming. The goosebumps, that tingling sensation throughout your body, but most certainly did not qualify as god. At least not the god of the Christian faith, why the heck would he/she/it be participating in a "Secular" song that was not uplifting to him/her/it??

This post has already become larger than I anticipated, but just had to get some of these thoughts out. Just because I might not have a Harvard education, or posses a large vocabulary, or know all the correct ways to present ideas through arguments does not mean I can't continue to try. Typically, I do not seek out to covert people to atheism... Why? Because, I reject religion for the simple fact they must be right. By nature of the Christian faith, it is the only way! This seems ludicrous to me. If it truly is the only way, then you would think god would have provided a means for his message to be easily seen by all instead of through education from an Evangelist.. I mean damn what good is being all powerful if you are stuck using your own creation as a messenger? of witch you made imperfect so you would know they are going to screw something up. lol

My thoughts for today :)

The Mystery of Consciousness

Very interesting read..
The Mystery of Consciousness

Who am I

My name is Robert. I'm a 32yrs family man, with a good and understanding wife, and a good son.
Let's start with my background... My first experience with religion prior age 12 was that typical of most people. We went to church for Easter, and Christmas. Except for the brief time I once went to vacation bible school, but that was for a girl... so I don't remember anything about the church or what they were teaching except for learning that damn song about "Germs" my invisible dog.... (I still find myself singing that chorus sometimes lol) . A few years later is when things really changed.... My parents joined a Pentecostal church, and things seemed to change over night. All my music was thrown out, movies at the theaters were out of the question, and I started attending the private school at the same church, just to name a few. To sum it up, from age 12 till 17 I spent around 6 days a week involved in church. After graduating it went back to just every wed night and both services on Sunday from age 17 - 21. After turning 21 I found myself in and out of church till around 25. During this time was when my biggest changes would happen. Although my journey actually began around 10th grade. I remember because it started in school with a course they called "New Testament Survey" and with the Science curriculum that they taught, if your curious the curriculum was ACE. First, let me get this out.... When I was in this private school, Dinosaurs never existed.... they were considered fake because there was no biblical background for them!! You would not believe my surprise when a couple years ago I heard that now Christians claim there IS biblical text that refer to creatures that could have been dinosaurs... wow what a difference 10yrs can make! Back to my story, My first glimmer of doubt came with how the Science course began to explain creation and the flood. Keep this in mind, you are hearing First hand account of what I was taught from 1986 - 1992. At the time the explanation of the creation and the flood went something like this. God created the earth same as you've heard before, by their counts with the whole "day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to God" therefore the earth could not be any older than 6000 yrs. Next came the explanation for the earth/flood. Basically the entire planet was a tropical paradise. They explained this by saying there was a vapor like canopy of water encompassing the entire planet. This created a "global warming" effect making the planet a perfect place where there temperature was tropical everywhere. God cause the flood by allowing the vapor to collapse onto the planet, with all this water coming down (btw, they never explained the water that supposedly shot up from the earth) the planet was completely covered with water and remained that way for 40 days until the water receded. Even at my age, and even with my strong beliefs at the time.... this was very difficult to accept. I had so many questions that were unanswered, so many unknowns... Another thing that attributed to my yearning to learn more was the fact that I was always told it was "Wrong" to read anything that did not support our beliefs or did not give "God" glory. In that respect , my teenage years were extremely sheltered from real life. It wasn't until I finally started to work in the real world that I found other people who not only had similar doubts, but had completely different beliefs. The only other real interaction with those of different faiths I hung around with were those at the Martial Arts School. They gained alot of respect from me of course, not only because it's part of the study of the Arts, but because of their high level of respect for others regardless of how they believe. I suppose the biggest eye opener was when i began reading books on my own. Starting with of all people "Tim Allens - I'm Not Really Here" , that led to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, witch led to "What the Bleep Do We Know" (a very entertaining read), and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" (Excellent Book in my opinion), other books I read around the same time but in no particular order include: "essential Philosophy Everything You Need to Understand the World's Greatest Thinkers" ; "everything's Relative and Other Fables from Science and Technology" ; "The Handy Religion Answer Book" (this was a hard read for me.. it's like reading a school book, but it's packed with tons of information about the 8 major religions Judaism,Christianity,Islam,Buddhism,Hinduism,Confucianism,Taoism, and Shinto) ; "Misquoting Jesus The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" (another excellent book!) ; and "The God Delusion" (another pretty good book). After much conversation with the few people similarly minded, and much deep thought and meditation brings me roughly to where am i today. This post became much longer than I originally intended, but it's seems to be a pretty good background :) If you made it this far, glad you stuck around! Now, it's your turn! Let me know when you post your story, you can email me at rpkthoughts@gmail.com