Then you're in a terrible double-bind, aren't you, Matt?
You're asserting that scientific belief and religious belief are basically the same because people use the word faith to describe both, so you're denying that the word faith can apply to many dissimilar types of belief: everything's the...
It's so cute that you think that's even remotely true.
Your argument hinges on the fact that they use the same WORD, so the concepts are exactly the same. By your logic, as I pointed out before, the Thames and a rose are basically the same thing because the word FLOWER describes both. You're so...
But in this thread, I've completely avoided characterizing faith propositions as bad and science ones good. Regardless of my personal position, it still holds that faith propositions and science propositions are essentially different. I don't see how we can say they're all the same without...
The distinction you make between faith and blind faith is a hypocritical one that clearly demonstrates what's wrong with characterizing all beliefs as basically identical faith claims.
I distinguish between two basic sets of propositions. (I realize you've called this distinction irrelevant...
Please point out where I ever said it was false! You proved I'm right: if you believe the religious claim, it's true. But that's not even remotely the same as believing a scientific claim through gauging how consistent it is with the rest of the scientific claims you already believe. But you...
Really? How can you judge a religious claim true or false when its meaning may not even be intended literally? John 3:16 is true for millions of believers, despite the fact that it conflicts with beliefs they also affirm like people don't survive their deaths. There's no conceivable way to...
And I continue to dispute this. There's only one thing you've ever asserted that scientific propositions and faith claims have in common (all together now): they're not 100% proven. This is not the 'basic level,' because it never addresses the differences between what each set of claims are...
Matt, at least I made an effort to engage with your definition of faith. I find it wanting, because by your definition every belief is faith. I've tried to get you to take your "100% proven" blinders off, stop painting all truth claims with the same brush, and get you to look at this in terms of...
Like to switch your choice? ;)
I think you're the one with the blind spot here, Matt. You can't let go of your definition of faith as "belief in anything that's not 100% proven, objectively and irrefutably true, and absolutely unquestionably certain." Nothing, nothing, and I repeat, nothing is...
It does if the stream is religion! Your initial statement was that science and religion are two streams. But equating the two in such a way is disingenuous. The kind of evidence necessary to establish the existence of one is essentially different than that which supports the other.
I thought...
Okay, Matt, I'll play. Allow me to appropriate your analogy and clarify my own attitude toward faith.
One stream is an actual, physical river. We can know what direction it flows and how deep or wide the river is in various spots. It's not a matter of believing in the stream: anyone can come...
Let's try this, Matt.
Certain claims are supposed to mean basically the same thing to everyone and to have some verifiable truth value in the context of other claims we believe to be true. Other claims are not meant to even be taken literally, conflict freely with other claims we affirm to be...
No one is disputing that, Matt. No one has ever or will ever claim that scientific claims are proven 100%. This bizarre obsession you have with the "unproven" nature of scientific claims is not relevant. You keep bringing it up for no reason whatsoever.
And some things, like 'faith' in...
But that's how Matt uses it. His exact words in this very thread were: I think if you can't absolutely prove something, then it requires faith. His weird fetish about things being 'absolutely proven' isn't relevant to this matter.
As I noted on page 3, 'faith' in scientific claims and 'faith'...
This is the crux of the issue. A belief supported by evidence isn't faith. Anything believed in the absence of evidence, or despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is faith. Anything believed in the absence of any reasonable measure of validity for the belief is faith.
Again, I come back to two propositions:
A) Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor who lived some time within the last twenty million years.
B) God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Now...
I love how I get characterized as neither normal nor open-minded. I fail to see how this supports the point about religion explaining who and why.
You never get tired of your favorite shell game, do you, Matt?