• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  2. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  3. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  4. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  5. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  6. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  7. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  8. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  9. E

    Faith: a working definition

    Translation: I have my fingers in my ears and I can't hear you la la la...
  10. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  11. E

    Faith: a working definition

    Matt, listen to Willamena if you won't listen to me. All your talk about 100% proven and absolutely true is making you sound sort of psychotic.
  12. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  13. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  14. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  15. E

    Faith: a working definition

    Jay, I tried to make a coherent distinction between the two here. If you don't agree, let me know what the relevant similarity is.
  16. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  17. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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'...
  18. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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.
  19. E

    Faith: a working definition

    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...
  20. E

    Faith vs Logic

    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?
Top