Proof (Evidence) or Faith?

[Nana_Ama]

Which do you think is more important in life, proof or faith?  There are some things you can prove...but there are also somethings you cannot prove, such as if a person truly loves you.  Which do you think is more worthwhile or has more value and why?

[Waldszenen]

Both are equally important. With no proof there's no credibility or factual basis to... well, anything. With no faith you're not human.

[6ft 4]

You can't prove anything you can only provide support for something.

Basic Science HELLLLLOOOO   

[wintervind]

Only faith is dangerous.
 Look at the Stalinist and Nazi regimes. Most of the citizens were blinded by their faith in their governments. Scary huh?
A few statistics-
Stalin was responsible for 7 million deaths of Russians citizens which included Jews, Germans, and other non-ethnic Russians and those in contact with foreigners, and even those whose distant relatives were immigrants to Russa. It is now known as the Great Terror and happened between the years 1935-1940. The people allowed this to happen because of their "faith" in their government
This all happened before the Holocost which further diminished the population of Europe by another several million
Faith anyone? I would definately question it

[greyrune]

I think both are hugely important in life.  There are some things i'll never take on faith, after all you can't just trust everyone.  If you were to live without faith though life would be impossible.  If you needed proof of everything how would you do anything?  There's no proof that what i see in front of me is really there.  We have to take reality on faith.  A balance is needed, some people never really learn the balance and either question everything or walk around asuming everything is true (they're pretty rare though, we tend to learn after a couple of muggings, though the question everything types often don't learn they just assume they're better than us because they're so deep).

You can't prove anything you can only provide support for something.

Basic Science HELLLLLOOOO   

2+2=4, maths is usually absolute and provable truth.

[Daevren]

No 1+1=2 cannot be proven, it is an axiom, 6ft 4 is right.


I thought Stalin was responsible for 20 million deaths: https://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin


Faith and ideology is more dangerous than greed. People don't kill children for money. They do kill children for faith and ideology. It doesn't really matter if it is a religion or not.

[Torp]

I once heard a saying that goes something like this, "Place your faith in Allah, but tie your camel."

[Eusebius_dk]

Only faith is dangerous.
 Look at the Stalinist and Nazi regimes. Most of the citizens were blinded by their faith in their governments. Scary huh?
A few statistics-
Stalin was responsible for 7 million deaths of Russians citizens which included Jews, Germans, and other non-ethnic Russians and those in contact with foreigners, and even those whose distant relatives were immigrants to Russa. It is now known as the Great Terror and happened between the years 1935-1940. The people allowed this to happen because of their "faith" in their government
This all happened before the Holocost which further diminished the population of Europe by another several million
Faith anyone? I would definately question it

When supporting or voting for a politician it's all about faith. You have no proof if the guy is a bastard before he gets in power. Many people seem to believe in George Bush, and look what happened... By saying that I know that 1) The people of Germany and the Soviet Union had not much of a choice electing either Hitler or Stalin, and 2) Some people must have been aware that those two guys were dangerous.

BTW, didn't Hitler have a lot of scientists around him to prove all his sick theories on jews?

And when talking about music, I guess there is no proof that music exists at all. If you're doing scientific research you may be able to measure the sound coming from a piano (but that's just waves in the air), or you could find out how the brain reacts to people when they're listening to music. But where's the magic and spirit of music? It is a question of believing in music...

My short text here is going towards the question from the thread about maths in music. If you need proof for everything, why not try finding a perfect equation that can tell whether a piece of music is great or not.   

[greyrune]

No 1+1=2 cannot be proven, it is an axiom, 6ft 4 is right.

Hmmm.... yeah you're right i guess, it is true that you can't prove it any other way than just saying, it is.  Surely there are some things that are provable though, after all you have to write loads of proofs in maths class (this was a while ago for me and i always hated maths).  I mean if you solve an equation surely you're proving that X=whatever, even if you can't prove 2+2=4, if you assume that's true you can prove other stuff.

[pianonut]

what i find interesting is that science has as hard a time proving its facts as those that are christian to prove the idea of faith to someone who has not experienced it first hand.

sometimes in science things are fact until proven otherwise.  this would mean that the difference between science and faith - is that one is proven until unproven by a better theory and the other is proven consistent when proven.  ie. archaeology shows places spoken of in the bible as actual to the geography and dating, the calendar shows christ's birth as bc and ad (so it must have been a historical event), there are churches built upon the supposed remains of several disciples (st. peter's, etc.) and traditions of the church pass on information that never would have been if they had not existed. 

ok.  that's my perspective.  then there's also the fact that the heaven's never cease to tell of God's glory.  we cannot fathom the end of the universe.   if our world was finite, we might ascribe to God finite means  (scientifically limited to our physical world).  this does not help us with the meaning of life, or what our potential is in the future.

i believe between the first verse of the bible and the second, there is a gap of time that God simply has not explained to us.  we know that when he created this world, He was hovering over WATER which covered the earth.  perhaps there were other creations?

it seems that peace is harder to obtain than scientific data.  if people knew how to get along it would accomplish more than having men in space (although space exploration is very interesting).  i am awaiting a time when 'swords will turn into plowshares, and spears to pruning hooks.'

 

[Torp]

...we know that when he [god] created this world, He was hovering over WATER which covered the earth. 

This probably gets more to the heart of this thread than anything else.  There is absolutely no way to evdentially prove that god created the world.  Conversely, there is no way to evidentially prove god didn't create the world either.  The scientific methodology provides a tremendous amount of evidence to support what has happened on this earth since it began.  The scientific methodology still has many questions to answer; by design, it always will.  Ultimately this question revolves around whether you choose to place "faith" in evidential-based or faith-based explanations.  In my mind, the universe is no that black and white.  When it comes to explaining how the physical world works, I am significantly more comfortable with evidential systems.  I believe, given enough time, that science would answer all of the questions about how the universe works.  However, when it comes to the questions about the meaning of life, why am I here, who dies when, etc., I am not easily satisfied with evidential systems.  Then again, I am not thrilled with faith-based systems that offer nebulous explanations along with the added benefit of being d*mned for all eternity if I don't sign on the dotted line of their doctrine.

it seems that peace is harder to obtain than scientific data.

Unfortunately, this is true.  Unfortunate too is the thought that the lack of peace in this world is often a result of conflict between the faith-based systems that all claim to promote peace.

[mikeyg]

I find more comfort in cold hard fact than I do in some alleged spirit.

[i_m_robot]

1+1=1

[Daevren]

Hmmm.... yeah you're right i guess, it is true that you can't prove it any other way than just saying, it is.  Surely there are some things that are provable though, after all you have to write loads of proofs in maths class (this was a while ago for me and i always hated maths).  I mean if you solve an equation surely you're proving that X=whatever, even if you can't prove 2+2=4, if you assume that's true you can prove other stuff.

You can't do any math with the axioms like 1+1=2 and x=x. I am not a math philosopher but these are just basic assumtions everybody accepts and likes to accept. You have similar axioms for more complex things. Like the five axioms of Euclidean geometry. 

[BoliverAllmon]

and that is why I am not a math major.

[musik_man]

Only faith is dangerous.
 Look at the Stalinist and Nazi regimes. Most of the citizens were blinded by their faith in their governments. Scary huh?
A few statistics-
Stalin was responsible for 7 million deaths of Russians citizens which included Jews, Germans, and other non-ethnic Russians and those in contact with foreigners, and even those whose distant relatives were immigrants to Russa. It is now known as the Great Terror and happened between the years 1935-1940. The people allowed this to happen because of their "faith" in their government
This all happened before the Holocost which further diminished the population of Europe by another several million
Faith anyone? I would definately question it

I don't know if Stalin and Hitler are good examples of faith only.  One of the central tenets of Marx's work(which lead to the birth of Communism) was that his ideas weren't just a faith but rather based on scientific observation of history and mankind.  You can also say the same for Hitler, as someone mentioned earlier.  Many of his beliefs, such as eugenics were championed by scientists (also you could note that Facism also was born out of Marxism.)  In these cases science itself became a sort of religion.

As for the original question.  I didn't vote in the poll as I believe both are important.  The thing is that they serve two different purposes, and once you use one in exchange of the other you're gonna get nasty results.  I think one of my friends from up at college said it best with "Science explains how not why."  Science can tell us how things work, but it can never explain things like morality, our purpose in life, etc.  Once you get into those realms, you need faith.  It's impossible to rationally prove for example that murder is wrong.  Or that rape is wrong.  etc  If you believe those things, then you use faith, which shouldn't be discouraged.

[Bouter Boogie]

Think I would go for proof then 

[ted]

There is also the interesting question of what precisely constitutes proof. Even in such a seemingly well defined area as mathematics people still argue about proof and about what is rigorous and what is heuristic. Take the example of Appel's proof of the four colour conjecture. It requires the use of a computer to decide whether certain things exist. So a complex programme was written which did, after a massive search, find that these things existed. The old idea of a concrete, written out proof is strained a bit there unless the code itself is considered part of the proof. As time goes on increasing numbers of cases will occur where reasoning itself, for reasons mostly to do with sheer size, is carried out by computers.

I do not think many people will feel inclined to peruse screeds of code to decide for themselves that it performs as it should. At the individual level something has to taken on faith soon or later otherwise knowledge would not progress because of constantly reinventing the wheel. "Trust" might me a better word. When I switch on the light I trust the people who have gone before me and found that electricity has certain properties - the "proof", as it were.  This "faith" in people may seem minor by comparison with the usual sense of the word but our everyday lives wouldn't be much without it.

There are also the areas of human thought which rely completely on imagination and mysticism and for which "proof" has no relevance.  Surely most art belongs to this class of thought. These things are very important too, but have little connection with rationality.

Overall, therefore, I am inclined to agree with the posters who assert that both are important and I find a bald choice between them very difficult.

[wintervind]

Sorry. Got a  little caried away the other day with the Stalin and Hitler. I've been in deep with historical non-fiction which tends to be depressing when one reads of all the follies of the human race expecially from the 20th century

I believe that these leaders could have been avoided if the people would have less faith in their govenments. The trouble is that these leaders were so incredibly effective with their propaganda that most were willing to follow them to death.

The reason I chose these two as an example is because it shows the extremes that leaders will go to to control their people and how they use faith to do it.  Hitler, for example, in the final days of the war, convinced his generals that he had a "secret weapon" that would desimate the allies in one swoop and therefore they had to fight to their deaths in order to hold on until this weapon was ready.


Although Hitler and Stalin considered themselves polar opposites(and mortal enemies) they used the same tactics to create ferver within their empires.

In America, many of the same tactics are being used by our leaders to convince us that war in Iraq is the only way to win the war on terror. All the propaganda needed is the  mention 9/11 and people are convinced.
( In NO way am I comparing the atrosities mentioned above with what is happening in the Middle East.)

Even though these are the extremes it is important for all of us to doubt faith and really question what we read and are being told by our teachers/leaders

sorry in advance for more ranting......

[Daevren]

I agree with wintervind.

Ideology, morals and values and religion create an binding in societies an communities which are important for social structure. People want to be in a group and for a group to exist and be important the group has to have things that bind them as a group. This is important for people.

I don't see much difference between christianity or communism.


The result is that people can be made to believe anything and they will apperently kill for these ideas. This doesn't sound very good, does it?


The US government documented the Nazi propaganda techniques and tactics. So they literally studied them. It is no suprise that they also use them. Plus, its not the first time. Propaganda, and there is a lot of it out there, often uses the same tactics as the nazis did. Knowingly or by coincidence. Even harmless or 'good' propaganda sometimes uses similar tactics. Not suprisingly because the Nazis used effective and clever propaganda techniques.

[i_m_robot]

I don't see much difference between christianity or communism.


The result is that people can be made to believe anything and they will apperently kill for these ideas. This doesn't sound very good, does it?

dont generalize an entire religion

most christian arent bible huggers

hell most christian dont go to church

but there are a large number of bigots (gays go to hell, mixed baby abominations and other BS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

people will kill for anything -like insults directed at them or their mothers (city life)

people say violence is in our nature

self says these people are idiots

the only thing in our nature is our desire to survive

if you kill - you are a fukkhed (maybe this is bigotry -oh well fukkhed)

as the aliens have shown:

*in a pompus self righteous voice (biblical)*

One cannot, must not, and shall not hate his neighbor less he be seen as a wild beast and thus treated as one. But given the clock hath stricken twelve and the mooses tail doth sway to right in the blowing wind, so must he yield to the righteous path during the on coming storm. This time of acquiescence will bring light during these times as a new path will be revealed by dawning of the moon. Go he not amungst those who would dare try to shelter themselves in their own excrement, for these times shall not be of triumph but of suffering and illness and in the end the result will be the same only, had he not attempted to fight his destiny he would have reached his destination sooner and his shoes would be clean.

[Torp]

i_m_robot you crack me up.  You tell someone not to generalize, then you create a post full of generalizations.

[i_m_robot]

i_m_robot you crack me up.  You tell someone not to generalize, then you create a post full of generalizations.