|
Author
|
Topic: Creation, Evolution, and faith
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 31 of 456 (552875)
03-31-2010 2:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by rockondon
03-31-2010 11:19 AM
|
|
quote:
Accusing scientists of using faith is accusing them of arriving at conclusions using blind faith; its disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
You've got a point; those who speak of the "faith" of scientists are generally trying to dismiss science that they don't like. But I think the OP was speaking more about accepting on "faith" the presuppositions which underlie science, not so much the conclusions arrived at. And in this the OP is making a valid point about metaphysics and philosophy of science.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by rockondon, posted 03-31-2010 11:19 AM | | rockondon has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 85 by Flyer75, posted 04-05-2010 1:44 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 87 by subbie, posted 04-05-2010 4:28 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 32 of 456 (552878)
03-31-2010 2:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by PaulK
03-31-2010 11:43 AM
|
|
quote:
If a conclusion is based on reason it does not require faith.
I disagree. Scientists "believe" that their theories are true. Their "faith" in their theories relies on reason.
quote:
I don't believe that the faith of actual believers is based on reason. My experience of apologetics suggests that it is more founded on rationalisations, believed only because they reinforce pre-established ideas.
In some cases, yes. But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason.
quote:
Whether faith is intrinsically opposed to reason I will need to consider further, but it is indisputable that faith is often opposed to reason.
True, and this is closer to the "blind faith" idea. But I've seen similar behavior in science.
quote:
To get back to the topic the whole pint of the argument is to give the impression that the faith of creationism is equal to the evidence and reason of science. Clearly this is false, and it is a fine example of faith opposing reason and of apologists attempting to rationalise away the fact that the evidence is very much against them.
Regarding YEC, I tend to agree with you. But we've sometimes seen scientists behave in similar ways, holding on to theories which have already been disproven by new data. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2010 11:43 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by Taq, posted 03-31-2010 3:01 PM | | kbertsche has replied | | | Message 34 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2010 3:20 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 33 of 456 (552886)
03-31-2010 3:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by kbertsche
03-31-2010 2:26 PM
|
|
I disagree. Scientists "believe" that their theories are true. Their "faith" in their theories relies on reason. It relies on making risky predictions, and then testing those predictions. Scientific theories are not based on reason. They are based on empiricism. If theories were based on reason then we wouldn't have Quantum Mechanics.
In some cases, yes. But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason. Can you give an example?
True, and this is closer to the "blind faith" idea. But I've seen similar behavior in science. Example?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2010 2:26 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|
Message 34 of 456 (552892)
03-31-2010 3:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by kbertsche
03-31-2010 2:26 PM
|
|
quote:
I disagree. Scientists "believe" that their theories are true. Their "faith" in their theories relies on reason.
So now you are equating belief with faith, no matter what the grounds for belief. That really isn't the typical use when referring to religious faith. As I see it religious faith is, at the least, a strength of belief beyond that justified by the evidence. Let us not forget John 20:29:
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.
quote:
In some cases, yes. But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason.
Personally I doubt that. And since you are just making assertions without offering any examples you give me no reason to change my opinion.
quote:
True, and this is closer to the "blind faith" idea. But I've seen similar behavior in science.
The difference is that such behaviour is rejected and condemned in science, yet often institutionalised and praised in religion. Need I point out that even Kent Hovind finds his supporters ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2010 2:26 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 35 of 456 (552905)
03-31-2010 4:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
03-31-2010 3:20 PM
|
|
quote:
So now you are equating belief with faith, no matter what the grounds for belief. That really isn't the typical use when referring to religious faith. As I see it religious faith is, at the least, a strength of belief beyond that justified by the evidence. Let us not forget John 20:29: Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.
See Message 28. In Christianity, faith, belief, and trust are essentially synonymous; they are all forms of the Greek "pisteuo" or "pistis", which is related to being convinced or persuaded. This doesn't go beyond evidence; it is based on evidence and reason.
quote:
quote:
In some cases, yes. But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason.
Personally I doubt that. And since you are just making assertions without offering any examples you give me no reason to change my opinion.
Paul regularly reasoned with people in an attempt to persuade them to believe. Read Acts 17, for example, where he did this in the synagogues and on Mars Hill.
quote:
The difference is that such behaviour is rejected and condemned in science, yet often institutionalised and praised in religion. Need I point out that even Kent Hovind finds his supporters ?
This is not so common among theologians or in religious academic settings, but unfortunately it is too common in lay religion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2010 3:20 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 36 by Taq, posted 03-31-2010 4:35 PM | | kbertsche has replied | | | Message 37 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2010 4:49 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 36 of 456 (552908)
03-31-2010 4:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by kbertsche
03-31-2010 4:21 PM
|
|
This doesn't go beyond evidence; it is based on evidence and reason. Can you give examples of this evidence and reasoning?
Paul regularly reasoned with people in an attempt to persuade them to believe. Read Acts 17, for example, where he did this in the synagogues and on Mars Hill. I see a lot of assertions, but no reasoning. Care to explain?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2010 4:21 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 37 of 456 (552913)
03-31-2010 4:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by kbertsche
03-31-2010 4:21 PM
|
|
quote:
See Message 28. In Christianity, faith, belief, and trust are essentially synonymous; they are all forms of the Greek "pisteuo" or "pistis", which is related to being convinced or persuaded. This doesn't go beyond evidence; it is based on evidence and reason.
Aside from asserting that Christianity takes an impoverished view of the English language, ignoring the nuances of the different words, this doesn't address John 20:29 which praises belief without evidence.
quote:
Paul regularly reasoned with people in an attempt to persuade them to believe. Read Acts 17, for example, where he did this in the synagogues and on Mars Hill.
I just read Acts 17. There's no reasoned argument there, just assertions. It's not even good evidence that Paul HAD reason on his side. Acts is not exactly an unbiased account.
quote:
This is not so common among theologians or in religious academic settings, but unfortunately it is too common in lay religion.
I would say that that it is less obvious in academia but still we see poor quality arguments from people like Swinburne and Plantinga (Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument is a fine example of smoke-and-mirrors argumentation, admirable only for the subtlety of the deception. Reason tells us that the argument is worthless, yet still it was touted as a significant argument for the existence of God).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2010 4:21 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 38 of 456 (552974)
04-01-2010 12:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by Taq
03-31-2010 4:35 PM
|
|
quote:
quote:
This doesn't go beyond evidence; it is based on evidence and reason.
Can you give examples of this evidence and reasoning?
quote:
Paul regularly reasoned with people in an attempt to persuade them to believe. Read Acts 17, for example, where he did this in the synagogues and on Mars Hill.
I see a lot of assertions, but no reasoning. Care to explain?
Did you read Acts 17? The reasoning is there. Paul's arguments may not resonate with us today, but they were strong enough and provocative enough to convince some of the philosophers of his day.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by Taq, posted 03-31-2010 4:35 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|
Message 39 of 456 (552978)
04-01-2010 2:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 12:53 AM
|
|
quote:
Did you read Acts 17? The reasoning is there.
I did read it and the reasoning is definitely missing. Did you read it or did you just have faith that the reasoning was there ?
quote:
Paul's arguments may not resonate with us today, but they were strong enough and provocative enough to convince some of the philosophers of his day.
Acts 17 claims that he did, but that is all. We can't know to what extent Acts is accurate (likely it exaggerates) or to what extent emotive appeals rather than reason were the persuasive force. If your best evidence that Christian faith is based on reason is that a pro-Christian document says that Christians more than 1950 years ago had reasoned arguments, then you don't have a case worth considering. Obviously if those arguments aren't even known to modern Christians they can't form the basis of modern Christian faith - which renders your original assertion false. And you don't even have good evidence that the situation was really any better back then.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 12:53 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
Granny Magda
Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: 11-12-2007 Member Rating: 4.1
|
|
|
Message 40 of 456 (552987)
04-01-2010 4:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 12:53 AM
|
|
Many Assertions, No Reason
Hi kbertsche, You seem genuinely perplexed that Acts 17 is not being accepted as an example of reason in action, despite containing phrases like "he reasoned with them". Let's take a closer look at Paul's attempts at reason.
quote:
24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
This is a baseless assertion.
quote:
25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
Another baseless assertion.
quote:
26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
Several baseless assertions.
quote:
27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
More baseless assertion.
quote:
28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
Another baseless assertion, with added appeal to authority.
quote:
29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stonean image made by man's design and skill.
False premise.
quote:
30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
Does he really?
quote:
31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
That's nice.
quote:
32When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." 33At that, Paul left the Council.
That's it? That's his proof? An appeal to an event he never witnessed? Paul is simply appealing to the authority of scripture here. If this is supposed to be an example of reason in action, I would hate to see what Paul wrote when he was speaking from faith. It's nothing but a string of logical fallacies, so poor that any student of logic could see through it in an instant. Colour me unimpressed.
Paul's arguments may not resonate with us today, but they were strong enough and provocative enough to convince some of the philosophers of his day. Then they were wrong, if that is, they ever existed at all. Surely you're not going to appeal to the authority of a group of nameless and likely fictional dead Athenians? Is that what you call reason? Also, were you planning to answer Taq's question?
kbertsche writes: True, and this is closer to the "blind faith" idea. But I've seen similar behavior in science. If you can't answer that, you have no argument, so I really feel that you should take a stab at it. Mutate and Survive
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 12:53 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 4:18 PM | | Granny Magda has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 41 of 456 (552994)
04-01-2010 6:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
03-31-2010 4:49 PM
|
|
quote:
Aside from asserting that Christianity takes an impoverished view of the English language, ignoring the nuances of the different words, this doesn't address John 20:29 which praises belief without evidence.
What would you think if a non-scientist were to accuse science of taking "an impoverished view of the English language" in its use of scientific terms, terms like evolution, relativity, energy, power, etc? When using scientific terms, we need to use them correctly. The same holds for theological/religious terms. Allowing atheists to define "faith" is just as disingenuous as allowing YECs to define "evolution." Below are definitions from ISBE, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. This focuses more on the English word than the Greek; perhaps a definition of "pistis" from a Greek lexicon would be more helpful.
ISBE writes:
Belief. See FAITH. ---------- Faith: ... In the NT it is of very frequent occurrence, always representing pistis, with one exception in AV (not RV), He 10:23, where it represents elpis, hope. 1. ETYMOLOGY ... 2. MEANING: A DIVERGENCY ... But in the overwhelming majority of cases, faith, as rendering pistis, means reliance, trust. To illustrate would be to quote many scores of passages. It may be enough here to call attention to the recorded use of the word by our Lord. Of about twenty passages in the Gospels where pistis occurs as coming from His lips, only one (Mt 23:23) presents it in the apparent sense of fidelity. All the others conspicuously demand the sense of reliance, trust. The same is true of the apostolic writings. In them, with rarest exceptions, the words reliance, trust, precisely fit the context as alternatives to faith. 3. FAITH IN THE SENSE OF CREED Another line of meaning is traceable in a very few passages, where pistis, faith, appears in the sense of creed, the truth, or body of truth, which is trusted, or which justifies trust. ... 4. A LEADING PASSAGE EXPLAINED It is important to notice that He 11:1 is no exception to the rule that faith normally means reliance, trust. There Faith is the substance (or possibly, in the light of recent inquiries into the type of Greek used by NT writers, the guaranty) of things hoped for, the evidence (or convincing proof) of things not seen. This is sometimes interpreted as if faith, in the writer’s view, were, so to speak, a faculty of second sight, a mysterious intuition into the spiritual world. But the chapter amply shows that the faith illustrated, e.g. by Abraham, Moses, Rahab, was simply reliance upon a God known to be trustworthy. Such reliance enabled the believer to treat the future as present and the invisible as seen. In short, the phrase here, faith is the evidence, etc., is parallel in form to our familiar saying, Knowledge is power. 5. REMARKS ... 6. CONCLUSION In conclusion, without trespassing on the ground of other articles, we call the reader’s attention, for his Scriptural studies, to the central place of faith in Christianity, and its significance. As being, in its true idea, a reliance as simple as possible upon the word, power, love, of Another, it is precisely that which, on man’s side, adjusts him to the living and merciful presence and action of a trusted God. In its nature, not by any mere arbitrary arrangement, it is his one possible receptive attitude, that in which he brings nothing, so that he may receive all. Thus faith is our side of union with Christ. And thus it is our means of possessing all His benefits, pardon, justification, purification, life, peace, glory. As a comment on our exposition of the ruling meaning of faith in Scripture, we may note that this precisely corresponds to its meaning in common life, where, for once that the word means anything else, it means reliance a hundred times. Such correspondence between religious terms (in Scripture) and the meaning of the same words in common life, will be found to be invariable. BTW, you are mischaracterizing Jesus' statement in John 20:29 as praising "belief without evidence." Read the context. Jesus is gently rebuking Thomas for what he said 4 verses earlier. Thomas already had strong second-hand evidence from people who he knew and should have trusted, but this was not sufficient for him. Jesus says this evidence should have been sufficient. But an in-depth discussion of "evidence for faith" or "faith and reason" would quickly pull this thread off-topic. There are a number of threads on EvC forum which have discussed this already. Let's try to stick to the OP topic, if possible. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2010 4:49 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 43 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 6:51 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 42 of 456 (552996)
04-01-2010 6:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Taq
03-31-2010 3:01 PM
|
|
PaulK writes: Whether faith is intrinsically opposed to reason I will need to consider further, but it is indisputable that faith is often opposed to reason.
kbertsche writes: True, and this is closer to the "blind faith" idea. But I've seen similar behavior in science.
There are numerous cases in science where new data comes in, but scientists are unwilling to accept this new data because of prior intellectual commitment to a theory. The Big Bang was accepted fairly quickly, but it still took some time. The academic establishment of Galileo's day opposed him and his data fairly strongly due to prior commitment to an Aristotelian worldview. For something closer to the idea of "blind faith," consider the cold fusion claims of Pons and Fleischman. They had some early (incorrect) data which led them to champion the theory. When their later data and the data of others showed that the theory was wrong, they did not abandon it but clung to it unreasonably. There have been a number of other such claims in the history of science. Some of these have been nicely summarized in the classic article "Pathological Science" by Irving Langmuir, which was reprinted in Physics Today at the time of Pons' and Fleischman's claims.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Taq, posted 03-31-2010 3:01 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 47 by Taq, posted 04-01-2010 11:32 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|
Message 43 of 456 (552997)
04-01-2010 6:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 6:32 AM
|
|
quote:
What would you think if a non-scientist were to accuse science of taking "an impoverished view of the English language" in its use of scientific terms, terms like evolution, relativity, energy, power, etc? When using scientific terms, we need to use them correctly. The same holds for theological/religious terms. Allowing atheists to define "faith" is just as disingenuous as allowing YECs to define "evolution."
I would regard it as absurd. Because the scientific use of terms is narrower and more precise - something that is needed to support the scientific use of reason. You, on the other hand are insisting on broadening the meanings, to make three distinct words synonyms. I would also point out that in these discussions "faith" is not a technical term with a precise meaning. It is an ordinary English word and it would be absurd to say that the English language should be bent to fit the convenience of theologians.
quote:
Below are definitions from ISBE, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. This focuses more on the English word than the Greek; perhaps a definition of "pistis" from a Greek lexicon would be more helpful.
Or perhaps English language uses would be more appropriate, unless you wish to quibble about the accuracy of the translation. But we can look in a Greek lexicon:
Intermediate Liddle Scott at Perseus
I. trust in others, faith, Lat. fides, fiducia, Hes., Theogn., attic; c. gen. pers. faith or belief in one, Eur.: generally, persuasion of a thing, confidence, assurance, Pind., attic
2. good faith, trustworthiness, faithfulness, honesty, Lat. fides, Theogn., Hdt., attic
3. in a commercial sense, credit, trust, πίστις τοσούτων χρημάτων ἐστί μοι παρά τινι I have credit for so much money with him, Dem.; εἰς πίστιν διδόναι τί τινι id=Dem.
4. in Theol. faith, belief, as opp. to sight and knowledge, NTest.
II. that which gives confidence: hence,
1. an assurance, pledge of good faith, warrant, guarantee, Soph., Eur.; πίστιν καὶ ὅρκια ποιεῖσθαι to make a treaty by exchange of assurances and oaths, Hdt.; οὔτε π. οὔθ᾽ ὅρκος μένει Ar.; πίστιν διδόναι to give assurances, Hdt.; διδόναι καὶ λαμβάνειν to interchange them, Xen.:of an oath, θεῶν πίστεις ὀμνύναι Thuc.; πίστιν ἐπιτιθέναι or προστιθέναι τινί Dem.: φόβων π. an assurance against fears, Eur.
2. a means of persuasion, an argument, proof, such as used by orators, Plat., etc.
Note especially 1.4 Theology. New Testament.
4. in Theol. faith, belief, as opp. to sight and knowledge, NTest.
quote:
BTW, you are mischaracterizing Jesus' statement in John 20:29 as praising "belief without evidence." Read the context. Jesus is gently rebuking Thomas for what he said 4 verses earlier. Thomas already had (second-hand) evidence from people who he knew and should have trusted, but this was not sufficient for him. Jesus says this should have been sufficient.
However you read it, Jesus is rebuking Thomas for asking for more evidence, when faced with an event that should be very difficult to believe. To assume that it is meant as a mild rebuke for not finding the evidence he had sufficient is highly questionable, and assumes that "those who have not seen" is restricted to those with a similar level of evidence. I do not find that plausible, and there is nothing to stop it being read as an endorsement of blind faith.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 6:32 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 44 of 456 (553000)
04-01-2010 7:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
04-01-2010 6:51 AM
|
|
quote:
I would also point out that in these discussions "faith" is not a technical term with a precise meaning. It is an ordinary English word and it would be absurd to say that the English language should be bent to fit the convenience of theologians.
When speaking of science, I will unapologetically try to use scientific terminology. When speaking of religious faith, I will likewise unapologetically try to use theological terminology. We should try to be as scholarly in our discussions of religion as in our discussions of science.
quote:
Note especially 1.4 Theology. New Testament.
I find the Liddell & Scott definition a bit odd. Here are some others:
UBS Greek Lexicon writes:
pistis, eo—s f faith, trust, belief; the Christian faith; conviction, good conscience (Ro 14:22,23); perhaps body of faith, doctrine (Jude 1:3,20); assurance, proof (Ac 17:31); promise (1Tm 5:12)
Thayer's Greek Lexicon writes:
4102. pistis? pistis, pisteo—s, he— (peitho— (which see)), from (Hesiod, Theognis, Pindar), Aeschylus, Herodotus down; the Septuagint for }e∑muna, several times for }e∑met and }a∑ma—na; faith; i.e.: 1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the N.T. of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervor born of faith and conjoined with it a. when it relates to God, pistis is the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ ... 2. fidelity, faithfulness, i.e. the character of one who can be relied on: ...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 6:51 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 7:40 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 45 of 456 (553006)
04-01-2010 7:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 7:18 AM
|
|
quote:
When speaking of science, I will unapologetically try to use scientific terminology. When speaking of religious faith, I will likewise unapologetically try to use theological terminology
But remember that this started with your condemnation of Dawkins' use of "faith". Even if you can show that there is a precise theological definition (and you should do that before claiming to use it) it seems unreasonable to expect Dawkins to be using that in a book written for the lay public. I will also remind you that right now your case for faith being based on reason is Acts 17 which does not contain reasoned arguments - despite your assertion to the contrary - and only claims that Paul had such arguments.
quote:
I find the Liddell & Scott definition a bit odd. Here are some others
I don't think these help you much. The UBS one only tells us that pistis has a wider use than "faith" which might help if quibbling with the translation but is hardly relevant to the English usage which we are really discussing. THe argument that "pistis" is often translated as "faith" does not establish that the meaning of English word should be broadened to match the Greek. The Thayer's definition is even less helpful. Highlighting the NT usage:
n the N.T. of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervor born of faith and conjoined with it
a. when it relates to God, pistis is the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ ...
If you think that these beliefs can be established by reason to the point of justifying fervent belief then you really need to make a case for that. My own assessment - after seeing many arguments for the existence of God - is that this would seem to largely refer to what I would call blind faith. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 7:18 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 4:26 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2