Science, Religion, and the Surrounding Confusion.

Flint · 08-05-2008, 01:03 PM

Doesn't the Bible define faith as belief despite a total lack of evidence?

This new "rational faith" is so watered down it renders the conversation meaningless.

smoothmoniker · 08-05-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

Doesn't the Bible define faith as belief despite a total lack of evidence?

Ummmm ... no. Unless I'm missing something, the biblical use of the word "faith" relies heavily on induction as the basis for belief. It repeatedly talks about the created world as an evidential basis for believing in both God and in a moral order. That appeal to reference the natural world would make no sense if the highest biblical value was to believe something was true in the total absence of evidence.

Quote:

This new "rational faith" is so watered down it renders the conversation meaningless.

This "new" rational faith is at least as old as Descartes (Aquinas, even?). I realize it's more fun to go bashing fundamentalists (I'll join in, if you'd like) for upholding faith as something opposed to reason, but you'll find very few people to have a "meaningful" conversation with in that camp.

Do you really think it's meaningless to explore the relationship between critical thinking, radical skepticism, and faith?

Troubleshooter · 08-05-2008, 02:28 PM

You can't have faith and apply skepticism to it.

Dogma, sure, but not faith.

Faith is operating without need for verification or validation.

You hear the voice you do the deed.

In contemporary society we have dogmatic filters to apply to what people call faith nowadays, but it all had to start with some guy taking the voices in his head at face value.

Patient X as it were.

Flint · 08-06-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Do you really think it's meaningless to explore the relationship between critical thinking, radical skepticism, and faith?

No, I think it's meaningless to conflate faith and critical thinking to the point that they are interchangable. Doesn't it cheapen both concepts to water them down to the point that they lose their defining characteristics?

When people refer to religious faith, I am certain that the intended meaing is NOT "using the scientific method of investigation in order to determine the most verifiable statistical probability."

smoothmoniker · 08-07-2008, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

Doesn't the Bible define faith as belief despite a total lack of evidence?

This new "rational faith" is so watered down it renders the conversation meaningless.

I took that as implying that the "why" of faith was incompatible with reason.

08-05-2008, 01:03 PM	#1
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Doesn't the Bible define faith as belief despite a total lack of evidence? This new "rational faith" is so watered down it renders the conversation meaningless. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

08-05-2008, 02:28 PM	#3
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	You can't have faith and apply skepticism to it. Dogma, sure, but not faith. Faith is operating without need for verification or validation. You hear the voice you do the deed. In contemporary society we have dogmatic filters to apply to what people call faith nowadays, but it all had to start with some guy taking the voices in his head at face value. Patient X as it were. __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)