Are you a bright?

[C1ay]

Good question, and a difficult one to answer. I am inclined, like you, to answer in the negative: No, I cannot be sure gravitons do not exist. At the same time, I can say with a 100% confidence level, that until a shred of evidence is presented in favor of their existence, my "faith" in their nonexistence will be absolute. Or, my faith in their existence is zero, i.e., there is no faith involved. This like saying, until an Ergofarquad is discovered, I will assume (with a 100% confidence level) that Ergofarquads do not exist. Call it faith, or whatever you want. I call it pragmatism: stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value; the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences; a practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.

 

It appears though that it is simply the label "faith" you object to which to me is nonsensical. I see nothing wrong with rationally deduced faith. Without understanding the mechanism of gravity I have faith that it will keep me from floating off the planet. All of the postulates of science are taken on faith because there is zero evidence they may not be true. We accept them as true without evidence, on faith. We do so because they come with skepticism and like you say, pragmatism. They are obvious consequences of nature.

 

This is not the same as religious faith where believers take up serpents and dance with them believing some mystical being will protect them. Where believers drink poison believing their deity will save them. This irrational faith exists in the face of skepticism and is often accepted contrary to evidence that refutes it. In this perspective faith is akin to a psychological disorder where it functions as an obstacle to rational thought. That this faith exists is not a reason for us to object to faith itself but to the irrational results of such faith.

[coldcreation]

It appears though that it is simply the label "faith" you object to which to me is nonsensical. I see nothing wrong with rationally deduced faith. Without understanding the mechanism of gravity I have faith that it will keep me from floating off the planet. All of the postulates of science are taken on faith because there is zero evidence they may not be true. We accept them as true without evidence, on faith. We do so because they come with skepticism and like you say, pragmatism. They are obvious consequences of nature.

 

 

"Disillusion comes only to the illusioned. One cannot be disillusioned of what one never put faith in." (Dorothy Thompson)

 

 

This is not the same as religious faith where believers take up serpents and dance with them believing some mystical being will protect them. Where believers drink poison believing their deity will save them. This irrational faith exists in the face of skepticism and is often accepted contrary to evidence that refutes it. In this perspective faith is akin to a psychological disorder where it functions as an obstacle to rational thought. That this faith exists is not a reason for us to object to faith itself but to the irrational results of such faith.

 

“Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to”

(George Seaton)

 

“'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true”

(Friedrich Nietzsche)

 

 

CC

[REASON]

There's a difference between Faith as Trust, and Faith in fantasy.

[coldcreation]

...

 

CC, if we disagree on our degree of atheism, then we disagree. It seems that 100% atheists are content in their faith of disbelief while agnostic atheists maintain skepticism. I suppose it's just a different way of approaching reality.

 

My point is that there are many concepts in the domain of science (e.g., dark energy, CDM, the big bang itself) that fair no better than others in the domain of religion - a fact that seems not to have been taken into consideration by the brights.

 

That these forces and entities are artificially contrived representations is revealed clear enough.

 

 

 

It seems as if illusion in faith has been replaced by faith in illusion.

(Coldcreation)

 

 

 

 

CC

[freeztar]

That these forces and entities are artificially contrived representations is revealed clear enough.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "artificially contrived", but knowing you, I'm assuming that you mean ad-hoc. :)

 

Lambda and company are way different than religion. These theories agree well with observation. If better theories come along, then the BBT will be abandoned. That is not fantasy, it is the progression of science.

 

Anyhow, I doubt the bright movement would agree with you about scientific theories being faith, and thus no better than religion. Science is amenable to change, religion is not. Certain scientific theories might be wrong, but that does not make them supernatural.

 

 

"Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination." - John Dewey

[alexander]

Are you a bright?

That just depends on lighting, exposure, f-stop, and iso....

[freeztar]

That just depends on lighting, exposure, f-stop, and iso....

 

[coldcreation]

I am seriously thinking about registering as a bright.

[coldcreation]

:phones:

 

 

 

“Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until you hear them speak.”

(Brian Williams)

 

 

“When I look into the future, it's so bright it burns my eyes.”

(Oprah Winfrey)

 

That's what happens to me when I look into the past.

 

Don't lose the shades yet. :cup:

 

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

I am seriously thinking about registering as a bright.

 

Please do so. The voices that support the supernatural are drowning out those that speak against it.

[alexander]

I am seriously thinking about registering as a bright.

would this minute change in your profile perhaps serve the same purpose? or would you rather have it changed back?

[coldcreation]

would this minute change in your profile perhaps serve the same purpose? or would you rather have it changed back?

 

Good question. I'm not sure what the question is though.

 

What do you mean by serve the same purpose? Changed back to what?

 

The reason I would accept joining the group, now as opposed to before reading this thread and the linked website in the OP, the Bright homepage, is because I like the concept that bright is like a set in mathematics, under which groups atheists, naturalists, scientists, natural philosophers, free-thinkers, foot soldiers operating from behind a computer (mostly on public fora dedicated to science, but not exclusively), and even detractors like myself :)

 

 

 

 

CC

[freeztar]

Changed back to what?

CC

 

Whatever you had before. :)

 

(good one Alex :) )

[modest]

Good question. I'm not sure what the question is though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:)

[coldcreation]

 

:)

 

Sweet. I hadn't noticed, but I like it, and am proud to be a bright. All that's left is that I register to make it official.

 

Perhaps, some day we will have a president (or a pope) that can proudly proclaim "I am a bright."

 

But what would he or she say at the end of the State of the Union speach, in place of "God bless you and God bless America"?

 

 

CC

[Moontanman]

I'm so bright the people around me gotta wear shades!:)

[C1ay]

But what would he or she say at the end of the State of the Union speach, in place of "God bless you and God bless America"?

 

"Live long and prosper" comes to mind or simply "Have a nice day".