Except mentats.
edit: I apologize for the abruptness of my responses, but I normally don't have a lot of time to contribute to discussions like this even though I enjoy doing so. After this thread has been dead for a month or two, you guys will probably see a massive post from me that covers every point of contention between the two major sides. I just don't have the energy to wrap my brain around the whole thing right now, after being awake Thursday and Friday solid with only a powernap at around 4AM.
Your argument hinges on MW's definition of Faith. I, for one, have many reasons for my Faith. Consider the case of Albert Einstein. His reason brought him to an understanding that God does exist.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Why should people, especially Christians, take the "definition" of faith that m-w gives...? Why wouldn't Christians just take the definition of faith from the one book that they believe to be true?
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb. 11:1.
That's the best definition of faith that you will ever get... m-w doesn't have authority to define faith any other way.
One slight problem with that definition of faith is that it doesn't mean anything but it does sound good. You might as well have said that faith is psychosis. And MW does have the authority to define faith. Dictionaries tell us how we use words. The authority is in the usage.
I need proof to know, not to believe. I believe what I want, I know only what I have proof of.
I would rather leave unreligious (or anti-religious) nuts like you alone and marginalize you as necessary.
Calin
And there we have it. Both the rational and the irrational reach the same conclusion about each other. So much for methodological distinctions.
The solution seems to be that we should go on knowledge rather than belief/faith where the interests of others are affected by our own actions.
There is no reason to think that we should go on knowledge rather than faith where the interests of others are affected by our own actions. Our actions almost always affect the interests of others. What really is knowledge after all? Knowledge is what we believe to be true, and requires a certain degree of faith. We really need to hold true to the definition of faith, which says nothing about its own use but simply what it is. Nobody has shown that there is anything wrong with faith itself; they have only shown that its use has been incorrect in certain situations. I would assert that faith has no moral determination associated with it - it is neither good nor bad, it's just an idea. But I think that faith can be used incorrectly in certain situations; its use can be good or bad. I think faith should be used where reason fails. However, this point can be debated.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I'm slightly intoxicated.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I'm slightly intoxicated.
Is it reasonable to believe what is written in textbooks, for example? Textbooks say that Paul Revere spread the alarm tha the British were coming, but how do we know that this information is true? We have to have faith that history was recorded correctly. You couldn't really prove that he did that unless you were there to witness it. It doesn't mean that it is unreasonable to believe that he did, it just means you weren't there to see it. People have a tendency to distort history over time, so you need a little faith to believe in just about anything. So is it so strange that people would believe in Christianity, for example? The Bible is a history for the Christian religion...of course no one alive now was there to see Jesus rise from the dead or heal the blind and crippled, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And it doesn't mean that it is unreasonable to believe that it might have. Christian Faith is for those who have gone past the step of believing in the possibility, and are putting the possibility to the test in their own lives. It is unreasonable to say that something is without reason when you haven't experienced the difference it can make because you were unwilling to give it a chance...despite the fact that there is documentation to support it (verifiable or not). If it were unreasonable to test something out, science would be dead in the water. I have never seen God, I have never seen Jesus, and I have never seen Paul Revere, but I have faith that they all exist(ed)....and there is more proof in my life today to support God's power and Jesus' sacrifice than Mr. Revere's famous ride. Believe what you like, and reason all you want...I know where I stand.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter