Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 16 of 326 (460209)
03-13-2008 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rob
03-13-2008 10:12 AM


Rahvin:
quote:
Stop trying to equate science with faith. They aren't the same.
The quote I gave you earlier is from an argument in support of my thesis. So as Moose eluded to, I didn't quote mine it, except from myself.
You can read it here: rob_lock LiveJournal
I didn't say you quote-mined. I said you seem to love copy/pasting other people's work without putting it into your own words. There's a difference.
Part of that argumentation is supported by a quote from Paul Davies who is currently at the University of Arizona. Please note that Davies is not a Christian, but he understands what you do not.
So, legitimate scientists disagree with you also Rahvin.
Oh no! An appeal to authority! Whatever will I do to defeat this blatant logical fallacy!
I don't care who your quote author is, Rob. It's not relevant. I couldn't care less how many degrees he may or may not have, or what his religion is. All I care about is his argument, which stems compeltely from defining "god" to be "reality." If you don't agree with that definition (and the dictionary doesn't, for one), then the rest of his argument does not follow.
quote:
“The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.
Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.
But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”Theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.
That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”
(Paul Davies / The Privileged Planet Q&A segment)
Paul Davies is wrong. The belief that the Universe is ordered in an intelligible way is not a leap of faith without evidence. It's backed up by the fact that everything has continued to work in the same way for as far back as we can test. The speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe. Gravity works the same everywhere in the Universe.
It's possible that the laws of physics could change tomorrow...jsut as it's possible a magic fairy is sitting on your shoudler right now. But all the evidence suggests the constants of the Unvierse are just that - constant. All of the evidence shows that we do not live in a Universe impossible to model. Scientist sbelieve the Unvierse is intelligible becasue so far it has proven to be so!
Again, that's the opposite of faith, which is a belief not based on evidence.
His asinine equating of science to theology is simply false. They are polar opposites. They can be compatible, as I'm certainly not saying that one cannot agree with science and still have religious faith. But their approaches are compeltely opposite. Science deals with that which is objectively observable and provable. Faith deals with that for which there is no objective and observable evidence. There's nothing theological regarding science whatsoever.
Let's go to the dictionary again:
quote:
the·ol·o·gy
-noun, plural -gies.
1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.
Science is only related to theology if one asserts, as Mr. Davies did, that "god = reality." If you start from that definition, the rest of his argment has validity. But since that definition is clearly a matter of personal opinion and faith, it is objectively invalid. The rest of his argument is irrelevant - his base assumption is false, so his conclusion is also false.
Once again Rob, you're trying desperately to insist that blind, evidence-less faith holds the same validity as a scientific model based upon objective, repeatable, testable evidence. You want very badly to say "you do the same thing, so stop saying my beliefs are flimsy!" You want everyone to validate your opinion that your beliefs and science should be given equal consideration. This is exactly the same as the idiots who want to "give equal time" to evolution and Genesis Creation in schools. The facts are the same now as they are in the classroom: religion and science are not the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 10:12 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 7:56 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 60 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 10:51 PM Rahvin has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 17 of 326 (460210)
03-13-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ThreeDogs
03-13-2008 11:04 AM


Why? Is it really anyone's business what, when, who, where, and how I equate? Are you the arbiter of who thinks or says what who thinks or says?
Saying that science and faith have the same validity is a false statement. One is based on objective evidence. The other is not. You're welcome to hold whatever opinions you'd like, but if you say something factually incorrect, you should also expect to be called on it.
Also, I'd like for you to produce the "many of the faithful" you address in your opening paragraph. I want to hear if that is actually what they attempt. Your adversaries, I imagine?
I don't think "naming names" is appropriate as I'm not attacking individuals, but rather an argument that has been posed both directly and indirectly on this forum many times by many people of faith. Since his post is the one that spawned this thread, I'll at least name Rob.
The specific number and identity of the individuals who do this is irrelevant. The argument is fallacious, and that is all that matters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ThreeDogs, posted 03-13-2008 11:04 AM ThreeDogs has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 18 of 326 (460211)
03-13-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Taz
03-13-2008 11:53 AM


Re: defining faith
Hi True,
True Believer writes:
ICANT, I think I have an idea of where you want to go with this.
I am only trying to find out what the ground rules are. As you know I get into trouble all the time by assuming. I am trying not to make that mistake before I begin to type.
Am I supposed to understand teslanese?
I find my definition of faith in:
Hebr 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
But personally I believe in God just as much as I do in the keyboard I am typing on and I have just as much evidence for God as I do the keyboard. I have been privileged to visit His House and I am not talking about a Church building.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 03-13-2008 11:53 AM Taz has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 19 of 326 (460212)
03-13-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by tesla
03-13-2008 11:17 AM


Re: defining faith
quote:
Scientific models like the Theories of Gravity, Evolution, and the Big bang are based on mountains of reproducible, objective, testable evidence.
and all of science agree they are tentative.
Yes, pending additional objective evidence. Still no faith involved, tesla. We don't claim science has omniscience, we claim that the models of science are highly accurate.
quote:
like to use the dictionary for general definitions.
then look it up in Hebrew.
How the hell is that relevant?! We don't speak hebrew here tesla, and this isn't a Biblical thread. Hebrew has nothing to do with anything.
I see you ignored the vast majority of my post, and that you're continuing with your own personal tesla-ese definition of "Faith." You're wrong, tesla. Period. Faith is not an action. That's why we have to use phrases like "an act of faith." Faith is, as the dictionary defines it, as everyone understands it except for you, belief not based on objective evidence.
I type on my keyboard and expect the letters to appear on the screen not by faith, but because of objective experience and evidence that it has done so every other time I have typed on it. Faith would be expecting fairies inside that magic box to make the letters appear on the screen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 11:17 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 1:42 PM Rahvin has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 20 of 326 (460215)
03-13-2008 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taz
03-13-2008 11:45 AM


Re: defining faith
The problem lies with the blind leading the blind.
there is only one christ, one God, yet many interpretations.
The Official Site of Pastor Melissa Scott, Ph.D. Study proofs of the Resurrection, the Apostle Paul, what Faith really means and more...
here is one teacher i have enjoyed from time to time.
when translating other languages, mistakes often happen from the translator imposing an opinion as to how the language is meant to be in context, since the text does not have periods or quotation marks or such.
the English language is quite stupid. we drive on a parkway, and park in a driveway, we also have complexity, but few agree on how complexity should be defined.
we have existence, which anything that exists is a part of. (but its not a REAL thing many say)
and to exist is "being" and "being" is to exist.
With this, how can i hope to make any sense to any of you?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taz, posted 03-13-2008 11:45 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Taz, posted 03-13-2008 2:12 PM tesla has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 21 of 326 (460216)
03-13-2008 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
03-13-2008 11:39 AM


Re: defining faith
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
quote:
Faith is a belief that is not based on proof.
Science studies anything and everything we are able to observe and test.
reproducible, objective, testable evidence.
Before I get in trouble let me see if I understand this.
In this thread these things will be absolutes.
Faith will be the belief in things for which there are no proof.
No proof will be not observable, not testable and not reproducible.
Science will be anything we can observe, and test that is reproducible.
Is this what you are saying we need to agree on if we are to have meaningful debate?
Correct anything that is incorrect.
God Bless,
I see where you're going with this.
Science also includes deductive reasoning based on models of that observable, reproducible evidence. For instance, we can infer from the way gravity is tested here on Earth that gravity will work the same way on Mars. When we test this by actually sending a probe to Mars, or using the planet's gravity well to alter the course of a probe, that inference is confirmed. We can then further infer that gravity must work the same way throughout the Universe. We've tested many examples of that as well.
Note that logical inference based on models derived from observable evidence is still not faith, as it is still based on objective, repeatable evidence, and the inferences themselves are testable given the correct technology.
If I infer from past experience that you are likely to be a human being despite the fact that I have never directly observed you, I am not taking that on faith. I'm basing a prediction on previous experiences and objective evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2008 11:39 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2008 3:09 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2008 10:04 PM Rahvin has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 22 of 326 (460217)
03-13-2008 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by tesla
03-13-2008 11:14 AM


Why kill faith?
tesla writes:
and then acting on it. that is faith because you do not have doubts of the assumption, or you would not be studying it.
Why do you have this need to make faith equal to empirical experience?
The whole point of faith, the strength of faith, is to assume something without the need for empirical experience.
Why are you trying to tie faith down with the restrictions of science?
Faith is supposed to be infinite, isn't it?
Faith is supposed to be unending, isn't it?
Faith is supposed to be unrestricted, isn't it?
Empirical experience is restricted. It requires repeatable and verifiable tests.
Faith does not have this restriction.
Why do you want to demean faith?
God is not an empirical experience. This does nothing to absolutely show that God does not exist.
Sure there are people like me who only think empirical experience has any real meaning to reality. Sure there are people that will say you believe in fairy tales. Sure some poeple will say 'faith is a failed system'. But you obviously don't think faith is a failed system, so why do you care what these people think?
Why are you so concerned with what these people think that you'll re-define the only unique attribute of your thought process right out of existence?
I think it's great that you're able to make assumptions based on faith. I think having a variety of people use a variety of different ways to come up with new ideas is the most efficient way to identify brand-new phenomenon.
But don't try to lie and say that faith is the same as science. Faith is different from science for a very important reason. Faith is different from science because it is not bound by the same strict rules. When you attempt to say faith is the same as science, you then bind faith by the same restrictions as science.
That is a very dishonest way to live a life. It deemans faith, and confuses those who don't understand science.
Please, for the sake of keeping faith a special thing of it's own, stop trying to say that faith is the same as science.
Once you learn that faith is not science, you can apply faith and make use of it's strength in areas that are applicable.
Areas of science are not applicable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 11:14 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 1:50 PM Stile has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 23 of 326 (460219)
03-13-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Rahvin
03-13-2008 12:57 PM


Re: defining faith
Here is a better definition in English. Notice the action required.
Faith - Wikipedia

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 12:57 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 2:01 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 24 of 326 (460221)
03-13-2008 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Stile
03-13-2008 1:36 PM


Re: Why kill faith?
Please, for the sake of keeping faith a special thing of it's own, stop trying to say that faith is the same as science.
Once you learn that faith is not science, you can apply faith and make use of it's strength in areas that are applicable.
Areas of science are not applicable.
I'm not killing faith. Faith is. It is faith in WHAT or WHO that is important.
People act in the World and in science because they have faith in the world and their observations (tentative tho it may be) in science.
But faith in christ, and faith in God is greater still, because there were those who seen Jesus and his miracles of even raising the dead, yet they did not believe, even as they saw it.
God IS. Like air you breath IS. And what makes your relationship with him possible is KNOWING he is there. Which you CAN observe. Just like you observe in science. But until you know, and act in prayer, you will only have your faith in the world.
The mustard seed is in the world. Its faith is that in the right conditions it will grow. but we can watch it grow. It IS tangible. But you are blind, and do not see that the miracle you witness in sciences and study is grown by the very faith of all that is. And the action of all, is faith. But the faith of the seed is in God. The faith of a man is in themselves and the world.
This is the truth.
Edited by tesla, : typo

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 03-13-2008 1:36 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 03-13-2008 2:03 PM tesla has replied
 Message 28 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 2:07 PM tesla has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 25 of 326 (460223)
03-13-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by tesla
03-13-2008 1:42 PM


Re: defining faith
Here is a better definition in English. Notice the action required.
Let's try quoting what you mean isntead of a bare link, shall we?
quote:
Faith can refer to a religion, or to belief in one or more deities. It has two general implications which can be implied either exclusively or mutually:
* To trust:
o To commit oneself to act based on self experience to warrant belief, but without absolute proof.[1] Mere belief on the basis of evidence is not faith. To have faith involves an act of will. For example, many people saw Blondin walk across the gorge below Niagara Falls on a tightrope, and believed (on the basis of the evidence of their own eyes) that he was capable of carrying a man on his back safely across. But only his manager Harry Colcord had enough faith to allow himself to be carried.
o Believing a certain variable will act or has the potential to act a specific way despite the potential influence and probability of known or unknown change.
+ To have faith that one's spouse promise or commitment.
+ To have faith that the world will someday be peaceful.
+ To have faith that a person will pay you back.
+ To have faith that you will be alright despite adversity.
+ To have faith in one's full dependence on the will of supernatural forces or deities.
* A means to obtain something.
o To have faith in a process. (Faith in the Law)
o To have faith in a source or resource. (Faith your pay check or employment)
o To have faith in a method to obtain. (work hard, lie, cheat, buy, trade, be attractive, etc.)
o To have faith in the pathway to a specific desire. (The fastest way to a man's heart is his stomach.)
+ Faith is the development of pathways through doubt. With certain resistances to life, wishing to obtain more life force cause people to develop means and methods to overcome the resistance. For example: With the development of farming and grocery stores the ability to get necessary food has became easier, takes less time and allows for more living. Everyone still has to eat, but the means of obtainment has shifted. Our forefathers used to pray to God for a good crop, as that was part of their faith. Many farmers still do that, but now many pray that the paycheck hits the bank before the cable bill.
+ When something is wanted and there stands doubt between your current condition of need and the thing desired, systems of faith are employed. A person will first work existing pathways already established by faith. If they fail, they will seek to develop other pathways by faith, not knowing for sure if the path they pursue will provide the object they seek.
+ The desire for things dominates the application of faith. Many of those actively applying faith to specific pathways seek less tangible things, such as love, peace, harmony, or even eternal life. Faith is an individual path. Just because it worked for one person, doesn't mean it will work for another. Just because A person went to their place of employment and got the paycheck with their name on doesn't mean that their brother can do the same. He has to establish his own means to obtain things.
In either case, faith is based upon the interpretation of the intangible or the physically tangible. It is primarily associated with religion in modern times.
I bolded the relevant parts. No, tesla, no action is required for faith - acts of faith are one expression of faith, but you can have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster without taking any particular action. Faith is not a verb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 1:42 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 2:05 PM Rahvin has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 26 of 326 (460224)
03-13-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by tesla
03-13-2008 1:50 PM


Re: Why kill faith?
tesla writes:
People act in the World and in science because they have faith in the world and their observations (tentative tho it may be) in science.
You keep saying so. But it's not true. I've shown you it isn't true. I have no faith in the world or my observations. I have tentative empirical experiences. Not tentative faith, whatever that might mean.
God IS. Like air you breath IS.
This is blatently untrue. I can empirically experience the air, I can test what levels of oxygen and nitrogen and other molecules are present in it.
I cannot empirically experience God. I cannot test what levels of oxygen or nitrogen or other molecules are present in God. Why would you say they are the same thing?
The mustard seed is in the world. Its faith is that in the right conditions it will grow. but we can watch it grow. It IS tangible. But you are blind, and do not see that the miracle you witness in sciences and study is grown by the very faith of all that is. And the action of all, is faith. But the faith of the seed is in God. The faith of a man is in themselves and the world.
So with empirical experiences, we have tangible things that are tangible to anyone and everyone.
With your 'faith', we have 'tangible' things that are not quite tangible to anyone and everyone. You say I am blind to the 'tangible' part of faith.
This is a key difference between empirical experiences and faith.
This is the truth.
The truth is, you're killing faith by attempting to equate it with empirical experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 1:50 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 2:11 PM Stile has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 27 of 326 (460225)
03-13-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rahvin
03-13-2008 2:01 PM


Re: defining faith
I bolded the relevant parts. No, tesla, no action is required for faith - acts of faith are one expression of faith, but you can have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster without taking any particular action. Faith is not a verb.
All of the parts are relevant.
You missed this part:
Mere belief on the basis of evidence is not faith. To have faith involves an act of will.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 2:01 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2008 2:12 PM tesla has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 28 of 326 (460227)
03-13-2008 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by tesla
03-13-2008 1:50 PM


Re: Why kill faith?
I'm not killing faith. Faith is. It is faith in WHAT or WHO that is important.
People act in the World and in science because they have faith in the world and their observations (tentative tho it may be) in science.
Belief based on observations is not faith, as per your own definition.
But faith in christ, and faith in God is greater still, because there were those who seen Jesus and his miracles of even raising the dead, yet they did not believe, even as they saw it.
God IS. Like air you breath IS. And what makes your relationship with him possible is KNOWING he is there. Which you CAN observe. Just like you observe in science. But until you know, and act in prayer, you will only have your faith in the world.
The mustard seed is in the world. Its faith is that in the right conditions it will grow. but we can watch it grow. It IS tangible. But you are blind, and do not see that the miracle you witness in sciences and study is grown by the very faith of all that is. And the action of all, is faith. But the faith of the seed is in God. The faith of a man is in themselves and the world.
This is the truth.
Two words: Prove it.
Show evidence of that which you have faith for. That's the difference between science and faith. If you ask for the evidence behind any scientific theory, you will be provided with its observable, objective basis.
You can't give evidence for faith-based beliefs. If you could, it wouldn't require faith. Your particular theology is irrelevant. You posit the existence of a supernatural entity, but you are completely incapable of providing objective evidence suggesting that entity actually exists. That's the very definition of faith.
Science consists completely of evidence and logical inference derived from evidence. No faith is involved - the first words out of a scientists mouth upon hearing a new hypothesis are "what's your evidence?"
The difference is so massive even a child should be able to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 1:50 PM tesla has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 29 of 326 (460228)
03-13-2008 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stile
03-13-2008 2:03 PM


Re: Why kill faith?
I cannot empirically experience God. I cannot test what levels of oxygen or nitrogen or other molecules are present in God. Why would you say they are the same thing?
All that is exists only inside existence, which is the name of God.
Nothing that IS is outside God, but God can cut off what he chooses from his body as it is written. We separate ourselves from him, but he is with us still until the day of judgement.
I wrote the publican and the scientist, which explains that. everything you see, has come form God and is a part of his body.
Here it is:
The Publican and the Scientist:
Setting: A small hill outside a bustling city. Two men are seated near a small tree, one is a publican, the other is a scientist.
Publican: I wish it were possible to see God.
Scientist: I see God all the time.
Publican: What!? How can you say such a thing?
Scientist: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. That means all that i see has come from the very body of God.
Publican: With all the filth, and sin and evils in the world, do you really think that God would want that as a part of his body?
Scientist: I do not claim to know why God does what he does, i am simply making an observation.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 03-13-2008 2:03 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 03-13-2008 4:43 PM tesla has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 30 of 326 (460229)
03-13-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by tesla
03-13-2008 2:05 PM


Re: defining faith
You missed this part:
quote:
Mere belief on the basis of evidence is not faith. To have faith involves an act of will.
An act of will is not a physical action as you have been proposing! You've been claiming that walking across a room is faith, that typing on a keyboard is faith, but an act of will is something completely different.
The act of will mentioned is a description of the mental process of overcoming doubt without evidence. It's the process of convincing yourself that there is really a fairy over at the other side of the room, even though you can't see it or any evidence of it. That is completely different from saying "faith requires an action."
The important part as it pertains to this discussion is "belief on the basis of evidence is not faith." The examples you've been giving in each of your responses do not involve faith because they are based on the evidence of experience! That's what defines the difference between faith and science - evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 2:05 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 2:15 PM Rahvin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024