SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: zonder who wrote (7131)4/3/2003 11:38:34 AM
From: Doug R  Respond to of 21614
 
From the site Mike M posted:
Having employed the "empiricist principle" of verification, at its early stages the analytical philosophy of religion claimed that all major religious assertions are mere expressions of emotion without any cognitive significance. Discussions have shown that it is not easy to apply the classical notion of truth to the revealed reality which lies beyond verification through science. The protagonists of critical rationalism (A. Flew, W. W. Bartley, H. Albert), taking advantage of the Popperian principle of falsification, note the essential non-falsifiability of religious assertions and hence the impossibility of evaluating them with respect to their veracity and falsity.

Investigations within the analytical philosophy of religion have given no clear answer to the question of the sense in which religious beliefs can be falsified and hence to the question of whether they can be seen as real assertions, i.e. qualified as true or false. It was however observed (I. T. Ramsey, D. D. Evans, J. Wisdom et alii) that the radically negative stance of logical positivism which claimed that religious utterances are deprived not only truth but also meaning does not give justice to actual meaningful use of religious language. Believers refer in their assertions to an extra-linguistic reality and hold criteria which allow them to identify what a certain religious community believes. In the course of time it was noticed that the truth-function in religious language which is adapted to the transcendent reality demonstrates itself differently than it does in languages of science. Since the seventies the analytical philosophy of religion is characterized by metaphysical realism and sees religious claims under consideration as straightforwardly true or false. In order to communicate the supernatural truth any religious language uses in fact expressions of everyday language but it modifies their meaning. Moreover, religious utterances fulfil not only the descriptive task but first of all other tasks: evocative, performative, interpretive, evaluative, expressive, etc.



To: zonder who wrote (7131)4/3/2003 12:31:58 PM
From: Mike M  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21614
 
Re:<<Hm. Then would it not be fair to say that it is not "evidence" in the scientific meaning of the word, since such proof is inescapable, verifiable, and "translates" to everyone? >>

In matters of faith?

Let's review the definition of evidence:
Encarta:
ev·i·dence [ évvid’ns ]
noun

1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet.


2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime The police have no evidence.


3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry
**************************************

The problem relates to the acceptance of the evidence of witnesses by the "jury"...

hence:

Message 18792043



To: zonder who wrote (7131)4/3/2003 12:38:03 PM
From: H-Man  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21614
 
According to the local Muslim clerics in Najaf, the suicide bomber that blew up his taxi - his wife and family was kidnapped and was told that his family would be executed if he did not carry out the mission.

They also say that the family members of the seven women and children who were killed near the same place, also had their families taken and threatened with execution if they did not try to run the check point. Other reports indicate that there was a second car behind the van that sped away when the soldiers opened fire.

Hell of a motivation system you got over there. I bet you are just beaming with pride.



To: zonder who wrote (7131)4/3/2003 9:37:42 PM
From: briskit  Respond to of 21614
 
Zonder, faith is not (and cannot be) the result of irrefutable, unavoidable, inescapable, scientific or philosophic proof. If so it would be taught next to math. That's true of all faiths, or they would not be called faith. In any case, a more important distinction is that faith requires a commitment of a person, personally addressed (at least Jews & Christians say) by the claim of God, rather than a fact. A fact is appropriately related to by comprehension and acknowledgement, and correlation to other facts. It does not call for a commitment of a person in the sense, say, that Jesus called for from people, or that God calls for from people. To use this language is foolishness to those who choose to live by their grasp of empiricism. Or else the claim is refuted on the basis that there is a variety of claims in the market place of faith views. That is why Jesus was eventually killed, because those in power were not willing to give up their commitments to, for example, their interpretation of the 10 Commandments. When faced with that choice they chose that Jesus must be driven outside their community of faith, and they used the means of Roman crucifixion. Those were faith decisions, with brutal consequences. Those were not factual. But try marrying someone on the basis of factual and empirical evidence. What is required in love and relationship is exactly a personal commitment, called forth by another person. Anything less only brings heartbreak. Sometimes people suffer and even die for their belief in facts and sciences, but it seems to me they are rarely called upon by the facts to do so. It is, rather, their commitment, or faith if you will, which calls them to that behavior.