Evolution & Sin

[Fade]

Many people belive in Jesus Christs death and resurection of because of the evidence - for example, the apostles after seeing the resurected Jesus didnt need faith anymore they absolutely knew if he had risen or not. After this many of them went to horrible deaths proclaiming what they knew was true - this is different to other people who have been killed for their faith as the apostles knew if what they were proclaiming was true. To claim they went to their horrible deaths knowing what they were proclaiming is just a lie is absurd. They died for what they knew was true or what they knew was false.
We are left with the choice as to what makes most sense of this scenario. Do you belive that they would die for what they knew was a lie? It makes more sense that they would go through the things they did because they knew the truth. With this in mind it can strengthen out faith, its based on reason.

At least they were being intellectually honest. They didn't need faith because they had subjective evidence for what they believed. They were there. Faith was irrelevant to them. I don't see this as a valid arguement against my claim that faith is intellectualy dishonest.

 

[michel]

At least they were being intellectually honest. They didn't need faith because they had subjective evidence for what they believed. They were there. Faith was irrelevant to them. I don't see this as a valid arguement against my claim that faith is intellectualy dishonest.

"Faith is intellectually dishonest" - I almost think that is funny. Do you not have any faith in anythinbg in your life ?

 

[JerryL]

"Faith is intellectually dishonest" - I almost think that is funny. Do you not have any faith in anythinbg in your life

A firm belief that something is true despite a lack of evidence for it? No, I can't think of anything.

I suppose it depends on how one equivocates "faith".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... faith is intellectualy dishonest.

All belief systems rely on axioms. Here, Sunstone's distinction beween "faith in the absence of evidence" and "faith in the face of evidence" seems useful.

 

[Fade]

"Faith is intellectually dishonest" - I almost think that is funny. Do you not have any faith in anythinbg in your life ?

What JerryL said

 

[Fade]

All belief systems rely on axioms. Here, Sunstone's distinction beween "faith in the absence of evidence" and "faith in the face of evidence" seems useful.

then I suppose that I would view "faith in the face of evidence" as being intellectually dishonest.

 

[michel]

What JerryL said

O.K so, let's say you are married; at the end of the day, you believe that your wife will be there to welcome you back from your work. You have no evidence that she will be there, isn't that called 'faith' ?:jam:

 

[Fade]

O.K so, let's say you are married; at the end of the day, you believe that your wife will be there to welcome you back from your work. You have no evidence that she will be there, isn't that called 'faith' ?:jam:

No, that would be trust. I trust that she will be there because of my past experience of life with her. But I also accept the possibility that she could well decide to run off with another man/woman.

 

[michel]

No, that would be trust. I trust that she will be there because of my past experience of life with her. But I also accept the possibility that she could well decide to run off with another man/woman.

Faith:firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

I'm sorry, I think you are splitting hairs.......

 

[Fade]

Faith:firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

I'm sorry, I think you are splitting hairs.......

No, YOU are splitting hairs over the different definitions of faith.

I am refering to "faith:firm belief in something for which there is no proof". This, to me is being intellectually dishonest.

anyway, I don't completely trust that my wife will be there when I get home. You seem to have convenienently forgotten that I accept that she might not be there. Thus I don't have faith, nor completely trust...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All belief systems rely on axioms. Here, Sunstone's distinction beween "faith in the absence of evidence" and "faith in the face of evidence" seems useful.

... then I suppose that I would view "faith in the face of evidence" as being intellectually dishonest.

I am refering to "faith:firm belief in something for which there is no proof". This, to me is being intellectually dishonest.

So, which is it, Fade? Is all faith "intellectually dishonest", or simply faith in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary?

 

[Fade]

So, which is it, Fade? Is all faith "intellectually dishonest", or simply faith in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary?

The second one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The second one.

But that is clearly not what you've said above.

 

[Fade]

But that is clearly not what you've said above.

Okay, mr pedantic.

faith in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary is intellectually dishonest AND faith:firm belief in something for which there is no proof is also intellectually dishonest.

 

[michel]

No, YOU are splitting hairs over the different definitions of faith.

I am refering to "faith:firm belief in something for which there is no proof". This, to me is being intellectually dishonest.

anyway, I don't completely trust that my wife will be there when I get home. You seem to have convenienently forgotten that I accept that she might not be there. Thus I don't have faith, nor completely trust...

O.K, you live your life the way you want to, and I will do the same with mine; but please don't say that my faith is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Okay, mr pedantic.

faith in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary is intellectually dishonest AND faith:firm belief in something for which there is no proof is also intellectually dishonest.

Are you calling me names now?

Fade, pedagogy aside, It would be particularly helpful if you could maintain the same position over two consecutive posts. Be that as it may, it's good to meet someone whose belief system is devoid of axioms.

 

[Fade]

Are you calling me names now?

Fade, pedagogy aside, It would be particularly helpful if you could maintain the same position over two consecutive posts. Be that as it may, it's good to meet someone whose belief system is devoid of axioms.

At least you aren't Circular Logic Man

How did my position change? It seems the same to me. Taking issue with the difference between 'evidence in the face of' and 'Lack of proof' is, forgive me, a little pedantic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Taking issue with the difference between 'evidence in the face of' and 'Lack of proof' is, forgive me, a little pedantic.

And who is taking issue with these differences other than you?

Einstein had an abiding faith in the possibility of a unified theory that would embrace both electo-magnetism and gravity. He embarked on his quest in the absence of "proof" for or against the existence of such a theory. How was this intellectually dishonest?

 

[Fade]

And who is taking issue with these differences other than you?

Einstein had an abiding faith in the possibility of a unified theory that woud embrace both electomagnetism and gravity. He embarked on his quest in the absence of "proof" for or against the existence of such a theory. How was this intellectually dishonest?

The difference in that case is that he didn't sit back and accept the possibility, he actively set out to provide evidence that would make the theory a possibility, thus providing his own "proof". That to me is more like determination than faith and certainly isn't intellectually dishonest. I also have no doubt that Einstein accepted the possibility that there wasn't a unifying theory.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The difference in that case is that he didn't sit back and accept the possibility, he actively ...

OK Fade. Have it your way ...