Misconception Faith vs. Reason

[rtwngAvngr]

If it were true that short posts are better there would be no such thing as novels and textbooks would be pamphlets. Being precise in a conversation dealing with philosophical issues is important if it gets to a higher level.

Saying they are trying to earn extra credit with more words is a bit disingenuous. Saying that the only opinions that mean anything can fit on a bumpersticker is simply ridiculous.

Saying, "Faith is Important!" calling that the end Truth and declaring victory in a conversation of "Why is faith important!" isn't a win and it isn't even participating. You haven't answered the question.

Equating conciseness with simplicity is also disingenuous.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I certainly survived living a sugar-coated life, but my life became much more managable and rewarding once I embraced rationality. Given the subjective potential in the nature of perception, it is my opinion that functioning in reality is challenging enough without placing barriers (intellectual, chemical, or otherwise) between my perceptions and reality. Such is the nature of my personal experience.

Exactly. The nature of YOUR personal experience.

I wouldn't assert basing one's trust upon past experience to be faith--I would assert rather that trusting beyond the evidence of past experience is faith. My trust is not founded upon such faith. As I asserted earlier, my beliefs in the validity of things (including my relationships) are not based in the lack of evidence or valid logic that confirms them, but rather only upon that evidence or valid logic that does confirm them. Again, no faith involved.

Now here is where he have a difference in opinion. I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that trust based upon past experience is not faith. Furthermore, trusting BEYOND past experience is BAD faith, IMO. You give faith less credit than do I, rendering it only applicable for situation in which it is obvious there is a negative connotation. I of course await your rebuttal as to how trust based on past experience is not faith.

HAHAHA! I have no faith in humanity.

If you think the human race, as a collective, is capable of operating faith-free, then you most certainly have faith in humanity. Certainly more than I.

Is this preference based upon evidence or valid logic, or is it rather, necessarily accepted on faith?

I don't follow.

Check these conclusions:<blockquote>First Conclusion--So, evidence and/or valid logic can confirm whether or not one's faith was correctly placed. If evidence and/or valid logic confirms faith was poorly placed in a relationship (in this instance) then such evidence and/or valid logic both removes the element of faith from the relationship AND serves to diminish the value of the relationship. Correct?</blockquote>If this is correct, is the value of your knowledge confirmed in evidence and/or valid logic greater than the loss of value in the relationship?

First I'll say the conclusion is correct, and I also assert the the gain in knowledge, although painful (in the case provided) certainly, is more valuable than the loss of value in the relationship.<blockquote>

And to that I would agree. I must have misunderstood you earlier, as it appeared you were asking whether or not validation/invalidation of faith could diminish the value of a relationship, which certainly is possible.

Second conclusion--If evidence and/or valid logic can confirm whether or not one's faith was correctly placed, is it not more sensible to simply hold beliefs based on evidence and/or valid logic without the intermediary step of faith? If so, does that not demonstrate that faith is entirely superfulous?</blockquote>I, of course, am asserting "yes" to both.

Sensible? Who's to say? Sensible to you, and maybe even sensible to me in certain applications. But quite frankly, as I've yet to be convinced otherwise, faith can NOT always be validated. As in the case of a relationship. I hate to belabor the point, but I find it necessary.

I am certain that faith makes nothing at all real except that conviction of certainty in the reality of that which is the subject of the faith in question. I think the managablity, practicality, and reasonabilty of which you speak of are necessarily illusionary to one degree or another--to the extent they are illusionary, I submit, they act for unmanagability, impracticality, and irrationality. None of which I consider to be beneficial.

They act as such only when faith is irresponsibly employed.

This reminds me of no1tovote4 wishing for terminology that distinguishes faith from conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Perhaps it is unfair to just call it "belief." Perhaps distinguishing beliefs further is useful, despite my previous argument against it.

We could let belief be:<blockquote>BELIEF:
"Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing."</blockquote>We can keep<blockquote>FAITH:
"Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established."</blockquote>And we can add to our terminology<blockquote>?????????:
"Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established."</blockquote>Suggestions?

Observational confidence? I'm not sure I have a neat and tidy word for it, but understand the distinctions.

Regardless, I think with our current terminology, faith is included in belief, and if your prediction is based upon evidence or valid logic then that prediction cannot be based in faith.
Cool. We are reaching an accord.

I may require we modify our definition to include the word "conclusive":<blockquote>FAITH:
"Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in conclusive evidence, or valid logic, has been established."</blockquote>To render future predictions only based on prior experiences as belief but not faith is disingenuous, in my opinion. At the very least, a difference of opinion. Apparently but I deem "responsible application of faith" you deem simply "belief." This is a semantics issue after all.

Let me put it to you this way:<blockquote>Consider holding upon faith that the sky is blue. The evidence points to a colorless sky that appears blue because of selective wavelength absorbtion/transmission.

Does this evidence that the sky is colorless, rather than blue, diminish the value of the conviction that the sky is blue?</blockquote>As I asserted earlier, I say it does. I predict you do too.

I think I'm following now, so I will timidly agree, but reserve the right to modify in case I am indeed not understanding.

Your logic follows from your premise, but as you know, I'll argue the resposibility of applying faith at all.

So you would question your spouse in that situation? What would your actions be in that situation?

Then I must conclude that you agree with me that faith is not necessary to the condition of being human.

For some humans, sure.

The need for faith is not derived from the natural needs of being human, but it is derived elsewhere.

For some humans, sure.

Here you reaffirm our agreement, correct?

For some humans, sure.

But you certainly are! Don't give up here yet!

But I certainly am not! I am not of the belief that faith is necessary to 100% of the population, nor is it unnecessary to 100% of the population. You're going to need to convince me otherwise. I disagree that you can summarily chalk faith up as either necessary or unnecessary to humans in general.

Some humans need a cheeseburger, others don't, the reqirement for a chesseburger--specifically a cheeseburger--is not a human requirement, but rather an individual requirement derived from sources other than that condition of being human. Faith satisifies a human requirement, but of itself is not one.

No more talk of cheeseburgers. I'm hungry and unable to focus. Consider it part of my human condition.

I do, but I also agree that cotton candy can satisfy hunger.

I think it is of imminently greater benefit to a child that they realize that the dog is gone, and that they accept that fact. If they wish to believe in doggy heaven, I cannot positively assert it doesn't exist, but I see little value to them in pushing the proposition upon them--regardless of how well it works to stop the water works.

And what if you personally believe in such a doggy heaven? Is it appropriate then to suggest such a thing? You're dabbling into the land of whether or not it is appropriate to instill your own beliefs/faiths/etc. onto your child. Yes?

Let's not judge each other just yet.

Pshaw. A lot of fun YOU are.

 

[LOki]

Exactly. The nature of YOUR personal experience.

You suggested it might be pertinent--I hope you're not being dismissive now that it has been offered.

Now here is where he have a difference in opinion. I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that trust based upon past experience is not faith. Furthermore, trusting BEYOND past experience is BAD faith, IMO. You give faith less credit than do I, rendering it only applicable for situation in which it is obvious there is a negative connotation. I of course await your rebuttal as to how trust based on past experience is not faith.

Your past experience is evidence--as defined, conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established is not faith.

If you think the human race, as a collective, is capable of operating faith-free, then you most certainly have faith in humanity. Certainly more than I.

Nope. I still maintain the argument that assertions like "I don't know" and "I am uncertain" are fully functional, appropriate, and preferrable to statemets of faith.

Is it preferrable to apply impeccably, one's rational faculty to find an explaination, rather than summon one out of ones kindnesses, joys, contentments, loves, fears, hatreds, resentments, cruelties, or other irrationalities?

Preferrable is an excellent choice of word. We are in agreement.

Is this preference based upon evidence or valid logic, or is it rather, necessarily accepted on faith?

I don't follow.

Is the preference for applying impeccably, one's rational faculty to find an explaination, rather than summon one out of ones kindnesses, joys, contentments, loves, fears, hatreds, resentments, cruelties, or other irrationalities, based in upon evidence or valid logic, or is it rather, necessarily accepted on faith?

I'm willing to argue that such preference is only meaningful if it is based upon evidence or valid logic.

And to that I would agree. I must have misunderstood you earlier, as it appeared you were asking whether or not validation/invalidation of faith could diminish the value of a relationship, which certainly is possible.

Yes. I think we will aggree then, that just as good faith is is better than erroneous convictions based in faulty evidence and/or invalid logic; that belief, established in (proper?) evidence or valid logic is better than "crappy" faith.

There is a necessary consequence to this agreement though (illuminated in the following exchange), and I don't think it suports your argument.

Second conclusion--If evidence and/or valid logic can confirm whether or not one's faith was correctly placed, is it not more sensible to simply hold beliefs based on evidence and/or valid logic without the intermediary step of faith? If so, does that not demonstrate that faith is entirely superfulous?
I, of course, am asserting "yes" to both.

Sensible? Who's to say? Sensible to you, and maybe even sensible to me in certain applications. But quite frankly, as I've yet to be convinced otherwise, faith can NOT always be validated. As in the case of a relationship. I hate to belabor the point, but I find it necessary.

If faith, AND those convictions based in evidence and valid logic, are BOTH validated or invalidated by evidence or valid logic, I assert that it is patently more sensible to simply hold beliefs based on evidence and/or valid logic without the intermediary step of faith; that faith is entirely superfulous in the light of the agreed upon fact that evidence and/or valid logic is the ultimate criterion upon which its validity rests anyway.

They act as such only when faith is irresponsibly employed.

I think you're contradicting yourself here. I may be misunderstanding, but it appears that you are insisting that irresponsible use of faith is the application of faith that has not been validated in evidence or valid logic. If such an instance of faith is validated in evidence or valid logic, we have already established betweeen us, it no longer can be called faith in a meaningful manner. The upshot here is that you seem to be saying that ANY application of faith, by your own apparent usage of "irresponsibe application of faith", is irresponsible.

Of course, I agree! But I won't take advantage now, as I'm sure you'd like to restate your position.

Observational confidence? I'm not sure I have a neat and tidy word for it, but understand the distinctions.

I have certain misgivings, but if we can keep ourselves intellectually disciplined, I might offer "reason." Or perhaps, with my same misgivings in play, what about "rationality" and "rational."

I may require we modify our definition to include the word "conclusive":<blockquote>FAITH:
"Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in conclusive evidence, or valid logic, has been established."</blockquote>To render future predictions only based on prior experiences as belief but not faith is disingenuous, in my opinion. At the very least, a difference of opinion. Apparently but I deem "responsible application of faith" you deem simply "belief." This is a semantics issue after all.

Unless we can estabish perfect accord on what constitutes "conclusive" and that any evidence can satisfactorily meet the requirements of "conclusive" we will erase all distinction between belief and faith except that validated by valid logic.

Let me put it to you this way:<blockquote>Consider holding upon faith that the sky is blue. The evidence points to a colorless sky that appears blue because of selective wavelength absorbtion/transmission.

Does this evidence that the sky is colorless, rather than blue, diminish the value of the conviction that the sky is blue?</blockquote>As I asserted earlier, I say it does. I predict you do too.

I think I'm following now, so I will timidly agree, but reserve the right to modify in case I am indeed not understanding.

If evidence and valid logic are standards by which the vailidity of ant belief, including faith, are judged, why not just base one's beliefs on evidence and valid logic and dispense with faith? Why, exactly is it required? In all the ways human beings who apply faith apply it, what is the common denominator? What are they satisfying by applying faith?

That sounds reasonable to me. I would also add that irresponsible application of faith also lies in the level of faith you place. That is, responsible application of faith is trusting your spouse deeply after years of being together. Placing the same level of faith on a random individal in a 7-11 is not. As an example, lets say the clerk at the 7-11 accuses your spouse or random guy of stealing a candy bar. Your spouse has never stolen anything, and in fact has actually run a small business and understands what its like to be stolen from. Random guy you don't know. It is responsible application of faith to believe your spouse is innocent, and irresponsible application of faith to believe random guy is innocent. I might also argue it's irresponsible application to believe random guy is guilty, but that would also depend more on the details of the situation. I'm hoping this makes sense.

Your logic follows from your premise, but as you know, I'll argue the resposibility of applying faith at all.

So you would question your spouse in that situation? What would your actions be in that situation?

No. I question the faith. I question the nature, and basis of such faith, if indeed I was applying faith.

In the situation at hand, I would assert that it is not faith, but rather evidence that I am using to assert my spouse's innocence. It is logical to presume that this clerk does not posess the same evidience that I have, and according to my premises should not take on faith that she is innocent, and certainly "random guy" gets no benefit of the evidence from past experience from either myself or "7-11 clerk." Yet we all must be satisfied. Yes? And that satisfaction can be faith based, or evidence based. Can we all agree upon each other's faith? Not likely. But what of evidence? Let's say my spouse has no candy bar in her pocket, neither does random guy. Why should I take 7-11 clerk's accusation to be valid? Faith?

I predict you'll ask "What if your spouse had the candy bar in question, in her pocket?" My answer would be "She has some explaining to do."

For some humans, sure.

For some humans, sure.

For some humans, sure.

Yes, yes, yes, and some humans need heroin, but just because herion is a need for some humans, it does not follow that it is a human need. Being human is not contingent upon using heroin. The fact that ONLY some humans need heroin demonstrates that clearly and unambiguously. Similarly, if faith is not a requirement for all humans to be human, it is not a requirement for being human. That is why I am asserting that faith is not necessary to the condition of being human, and the need for faith is not derived from the natural needs of being human, but it is derived elsewhere--or perhaps more precisely put, the need for faith is not a direct condition of being human, but rather satisfies in some manner a direct need of being human. Being human is not contingent upon possessing faith--I think we are agreeing on this. Are we not?

But I certainly am not! I am not of the belief that faith is necessary to 100% of the population, nor is it unnecessary to 100% of the population. You're going to need to convince me otherwise. I disagree that you can summarily chalk faith up as either necessary or unnecessary to humans in general.

If we are agreeing that being human is not contingent upon posessing faith, then we are agreeing that faith is unnecessary to 100% of humanity--that the portion of humanity that uses faith to sastify "something" could also have that "something" satisfied by evidence and valid logic. If you continue to assert you are disagreeing, yet hold to the assertion that belief based in evidence and valid logic is preferable to faith, on what grounds do you assert faith is necessary, and on what grounds is it (obviously) preferable to those who are using it?

And so we're back to my original point, which is: it depends. For some, faith is a part of being human. For others, faith is NOT a part of being human. And for those who faith is a part, there is a wide array of levels of which faith is a part.

Some humans need a cheeseburger, others don't, the reqirement for a chesseburger--specifically a cheeseburger--is not a human requirement, but rather an individual requirement derived from sources other than that condition of being human. Faith satisifies a human requirement, but of itself is not one.

No more talk of cheeseburgers. I'm hungry and unable to focus. Consider it part of my human condition.

See the above discussion regarding human need, only this time feel free to substitute "cheeseburgers" for "heroin."

You wouldn't agree that faith can bring closure, bring healing?

I do, but I also agree that cotton candy can satisfy hunger.

Or do you feel it's better for a child, for example, to not believe their recently deceased dog is in doggy heaven and instead just accept that the dog is dead. The dog is gone.

I think it is of imminently greater benefit to a child that they realize that the dog is gone, and that they accept that fact. If they wish to believe in doggy heaven, I cannot positively assert it doesn't exist, but I see little value to them in pushing the proposition upon them--regardless of how well it works to stop the water works.

And what if you personally believe in such a doggy heaven? Is it appropriate then to suggest such a thing? You're dabbling into the land of whether or not it is appropriate to instill your own beliefs/faiths/etc. onto your child. Yes?

Of course it is appropriate for me to instill my own beliefs/faiths/etc. onto my child. My child will fail or succeed upon that foundation I lay. If we judge such appropriateness, is the criteria we use to judge with evidence? valid logic? or faith? This, I think speaks to responsibility, as you discussed above--are you presenting "doggy heaven" to your grieving child because that grieving makes you uncomfortable, or is this faith you're dishing out really for the benefit of the child? I certainly can't answer that for everybody, but I can always question, and most importantly question myself, about such motives. If I am really concerned about the child, I am obligated both intellectually, and morally, to present the best truth without regard for my own comfort level--it is imperative that I carefully take measures to get over my discomfort and help the child, rather than place priority upon my own discomfort at the expense of the child's necessary life lesson in grieving, loss, and death.

 

[no1tovote4]

Equating conciseness with simplicity is also disingenuous.

I have made no such distinction. However you have made a point of saying that short is better which is not necessarily true when more than one point is being made and the conversation has progressed. This thread is an interesting read actually. That it isn't bumper sticker short may make it less than appealing to you, but more interesting to another. Thankfully there are more than one type of person in this world.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have made no such distinction. However you have made a point of saying that short is better which is not necessarily true when more than one point is being made and the conversation has progressed. This thread is an interesting read actually. That it isn't bumper sticker short may make it less than appealing to you, but more interesting to another. Thankfully there are more than one type of person in this world.

I said concise is better. Concise is generally shorter; perhaps that's your confusion.

This thread seems like people mostly bickering over word definitions.

Can you tell me what this thread is about? I mean REALLY about?

Tubal Cain!

 

[no1tovote4]

I said concise is better. Concise is generally shorter; perhaps that's your confusion.

This thread seems like people mostly bickering over word definitions.

Can you tell me what this thread is about? I mean REALLY about?

Tubal Cain!

LOL. Yes, it is a philosophical discussion about the significance of faith and reason...

I would say it is more important to be precise than concise...

The attempt to shorten their discussion because you are too lazy to read doesn't make it less precise.

Like I said, just saying "Faith is important" when the question was "Why is faith important?" isn't participation, even though it is short. It is simply restating the question as an absolute. You too can participate if you wish. Tell us why you think faith is important. Don't forget to make it fit on a bumpersticker as you place far more importance on shortness over precision.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

LOL. Yes, it is a philosophical discussion about the significance of faith and reason...

I would say it is more important to be precise than concise...

The attempt to shorten their discussion because you are too lazy to read doesn't make it less precise.

Like I said, just saying "Faith is important" when the question was "Why is faith important?" isn't participation, even though it is short. It is simply restating the question as an absolute. You too can participate if you wish. Tell us why you think faith is important. Don't forget to make it fit on a bumpersticker as you place far more importance on shortness over precision.

Precision and concision are not mutually exclusive, that's what I'm trying to pound through your heavy grade skull.:teeth:

Faith is important because based on observable evidence sometimes the world is a bad place. We need faith to make it through the day. Too concise?

 

[no1tovote4]

Precision and concision are not mutually exclusive, that's what I'm trying to pound through your heavy grade skull.:teeth:

Faith is important because based on observable evidence sometimes the world is a bad place. We need faith to make it through the day. Too concise?

No, just your first actual participation in the conversation! Other than this it has so far been, "You talk too much!"

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, just your first actual participation in the conversation! Other than this it has so far been, "You talk too much!"

And I still stand by that assessment!:teeth:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The whole realm of academic philosophy is infected with this maturbatory attitude. The handlers like that, it mires our intellects down in endless word bickering.

 

[Eightball]

Please stop the pissing match of intellects, and just get back to the subject of reason versus faith.......

Actually it's very unintellectual when it goes on and on and on and on and on.......................................

Even the Floyd's and McCoy's knew when it was time to stop fueding over stuff, and they were just a bunch of uneducated hillbillies.
...
I'll try to get it back on track.

Faith should not be a blind shot in the dark IMO. It should be based on objective reasoning........I'm referring to faith in God/Christ based on biblical scripture, as well as things of everyday life too.

Now faith can also be based on hope that may not be based on sound reasoning too. Like hoping that Islam and the Jews will one day embrace and be friends. Right now there isn't any sound objective support for faith in that happening.

Actually doesn't James(brother of Jesus) state in his book in the bible that faith isn't anything unless it has some kind of action attached to it?

In fact many Christians have justified their actions by referring to this quote from James; that faith has works attached to it. In other words, faith isn't faith if it's just a belief. Faith has feet. It is a belief carried out into action.

Doesn't the New Age philosophy/religion exhibit faith by it's adherents by their trust in their own logic, wisdom, and destiny, aside from any higher power's influence?
.....
The old chair example again:

If I'm afraid to sit in a particular chair for fear of it collapsing, am I exhibiting faith in the chair builder's ability? No.

Now, if I visit the chair builder's place of work, and see how he/she chooses certain hardwoods, and how these pieces of hardwood are assembled(screws, dowls, glues), maybe this will instill a faith in me to take a chance and sit in this chair builder's product. Maybe if I even get some insight into how this chair builder lives, that might give me some reason to have faith too. If this chair builder goes on a drunken binge every evening after work or drinks while on the job, maybe the chair builder's product is not safe to sit in. Maybe a few screws are missing. Maybe a bad piece of wood is used for the legs of the chair.

Christian faith is built upon the character and the acts of God as revealed in scripture. Christian faith does have "feet" as it stimulates a trusting in things beyond the comprehension, and solving of the human being. It resolves to allow that the one that created all things must be the more knowledgeable of their workings, and can control, move, manipulate, things according to His will, and nature as revealed in Scripture.

So how has God revealed Himself? His only begotten Son, is God's very revelation of Himself, yet in the flesh, as He identifies with mankind yet maintains the majesty of His divinity. How perfect, how incredible, how compassionate, to this "mule-brained" race of creatures called, man.

Reasoning can be faulty from the very start,,,,,and then the faith that spawns from it will be erroneous, and possibly hazardous to one's self.

Often faith is a result of man's desire to control his surroundings, and make order out of chaos. Man will often create his own definitions or parameters to base faith upon, and there is the beginning of false religions/belief systems.

Faith in the scriptural God does not change the chaos, but raises the adherent above it. Chaos will reign a little longer and then it will come to an end.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Please stop the pissing match of intellects, and just get back to the subject of reason versus faith.......

Actually it's very unintellectual when it goes on and on and on and on and on.......................................

Even the Floyd's and McCoy's knew when it was time to stop fueding over stuff, and they were just a bunch of uneducated hillbillies.
...
I'll try to get it back on track.

Faith should not be a blind shot in the dark IMO. It should be based on objective reasoning........I'm referring to faith in God/Christ based on biblical scripture, as well as things of everyday life too.

Now faith can also be based on hope that may not be based on sound reasoning too. Like hoping that Islam and the Jews will one day embrace and be friends. Right now there isn't any sound objective support for faith in that happening.

Actually doesn't James(brother of Jesus) state in his book in the bible that faith isn't anything unless it has some kind of action attached to it?

In fact many Christians have justified their actions by referring to this quote from James; that faith has works attached to it. In other words, faith isn't faith if it's just a belief. Faith has feet. It is a belief carried out into action.

Doesn't the New Age philosophy/religion exhibit faith by it's adherents by their trust in their own logic, wisdom, and destiny, aside from any higher power's influence?
.....
The old chair example again:

If I'm afraid to sit in a particular chair for fear of it collapsing, am I exhibiting faith in the chair builder's ability? No.

Now, if I visit the chair builder's place of work, and see how he/she chooses certain hardwoods, and how these pieces of hardwood are assembled(screws, dowls, glues), maybe this will instill a faith in me to take a chance and sit in this chair builder's product. Maybe if I even get some insight into how this chair builder lives, that might give me some reason to have faith too. If this chair builder goes on a drunken binge every evening after work or drinks while on the job, maybe the chair builder's product is not safe to sit in. Maybe a few screws are missing. Maybe a bad piece of wood is used for the legs of the chair.

Christian faith is built upon the character and the acts of God as revealed in scripture. Christian faith does have "feet" as it stimulates a trusting in things beyond the comprehension, and solving of the human being. It resolves to allow that the one that created all things must be the more knowledgeable of their workings, and can control, move, manipulate, things according to His will, and nature as revealed in Scripture.

So how has God revealed Himself? His only begotten Son, is God's very revelation of Himself, yet in the flesh, as He identifies with mankind yet maintains the majesty of His divinity. How perfect, how incredible, how compassionate, to this "mule-brained" race of creatures called, man.

Reasoning can be faulty from the very start,,,,,and then the faith that spawns from it will be erroneous, and possibly hazardous to one's self.

Often faith is a result of man's desire to control his surroundings, and make order out of chaos. Man will often create his own definitions or parameters to base faith upon, and there is the beginning of false religions/belief systems.

Faith in the scriptural God does not change the chaos, but raises the adherent above it. Chaos will reign a little longer and then it will come to an end.

There is no pissing match of intellects. If you're unhappy with the direction/style this thread has taken, you're more than welcome to go and start your own and lay some ground rules.


Loki: I'll respond when I have the time.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Faith should not be a blind shot in the dark IMO..

Then you're redifining what faith is.

 

[dilloduck]

The whole realm of academic philosophy is infected with this maturbatory attitude. The handlers like that, it mires our intellects down in endless word bickering.

Handlers? I thought they were controllers

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Handlers? I thought they were controllers

whatever. A turd by any other name contains just as many peanuts.

 

[dilloduck]

whatever. A turd by any other name contains just as many peanuts.

I just need a universal word to call the detainees in my basement.:teeth:

 

[Eightball]

Then you're redifining what faith is.

When you think about it, faith is puting your trust in something. Whether that "something" is valid or not, you're still making an effort to trust in it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

When you think about it, faith is puting your trust in something. Whether that "something" is valid or not, you're still making an effort to trust in it.

Not necessarily. Some faith is automatic, just because we never thought to question it.

 

[Eightball]

Your missing my point.

I'm not dissecting types of faith.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your missing my point.

I'm not dissecting types of faith.

Are you dissecting ways of arriving at faith?