Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
View Entire Thread
Re: Re: Re: ... even the God botherers are at it....

Something has to fill the box that is emptied.

Re: Re: Re: Re: ... even the God botherers are at it....

I think JEB already mentions this, that godless people are more gullible to buy into believing something else. I recall reading it in AGW as a religion.
I guess you can say that godless men... err.. people of science believe in it instead of a god.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ... even the God botherers are at it....

So Chesterton said, but there is some doubt. According to a bit of research published last year or thereabouts a team claimed to have found what was promptly dubbed the "God Gene", possession of which renders an individual more likely than the norm to believe something in the absence of evidence.
Although it's very early days yet, this would explain much about religions and pseudoreligions. Chesterton's claim would then hold true for the set of believers, i.e. those with that gene or (more likely) gene combination. Personally, in conversation recently, I heard myself say that I can't recall ever having believed in anything; and on further thought realised it is true. (We were talking about Father Christmas, and when we stopped believing in him). To me, anything is accepted provisionally until a better explanation comes along.

Re: ... even the God botherers are at it....

Chesterton was right but he forgot the corollary, which is that when people replace belief in Chesterton's God with belief in something else at least some of them are right.

I believe the above comment is now illegal in the UK.

Re: Re: ... even the God botherers are at it....

The definition of 'faith' as 'belief in the absence of evidence' is wrong. Faith is different from belief. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of [insert politician of choice] but one need not have faith in him/her. Conversely, one can have faith in somebody without believing that they will always do the right thing, or what you want. Faith is more of an active decision to make certain (rebuttable) basic assumptions about the world, people, etc.. For instance, a sensible person might be a Humanist without requiring evidence for the underlying axioms of Humanism.

Re: ... even the God botherers are at it....

Faith and “having faith in” are not synonymous, neither are feet and “having feet in”.

Re: Re: ... even the God botherers are at it....

A false analogy, I suggest. Feet appear to exist independently of what they happen to be in at any given time, but you cannot have faith (or belief) without having faith (or belief) in something or somebody. Faith is defined by the act or condition of having faith in something.