tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4491040877840120845.post1951717708048118559..comments2024-03-16T17:47:07.792-04:00Comments on Stationary Waves: In A Word, FaithRP Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15028013805248797978noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4491040877840120845.post-56465454741763860642012-09-13T14:16:31.130-04:002012-09-13T14:16:31.130-04:00Ryan,
I really appreciate your systematic approa...Ryan, <br /><br />I really appreciate your systematic approach and I am realizing that I did the equivalent of eavesdropping on a conversation and then fixating on one word, totally out of context. Oops! Sorry! I can see that this post is a building block to a larger construction project you were working on. I hope I someday can read it all and see how the building turned out!<br /><br />As for the discussion at hand, I thank you for your clarifications. <br /><br />Oddly enough, I can take a lot of what you said and turn it back around on post-modern philosophies like evolution (I know, I'm sorry I keep going to that one. :/ I have studied it a little more comprehensively than others). If you will indulge me, I will give an example:<br /><br />You said,<br />"What we *know* to be true is this: The existence of God can neither be proven nor refuted. So, while many of us feel very stongly that God exists and behaves in accordance with a particular religious text, they do not *know* it, because they cannot know it. "<br /><br />I could substitute evolution for God and change the wording a little, and it could read like this:<br /><br />"What we *know* to be true is this: The theory of evolution cannot be proven. So, while many of us feel very stongly that evolution is true and it behaves in accordance with a particular fossil record, they do not *know* it, because they cannot know it. (It hasn't been proven)"<br /><br />In short, facts (or lack thereof) show that philosophies such as evolution are not science, but a belief system. <br /><br />Thank you for taking time to reply to my request for clarification! I have enjoyed this discussion and will peruse your blog again in the future. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />S<br /><br /><br /><br /> Steph Nelsonhttp://thecivicarena.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4491040877840120845.post-77181589778349177752012-09-13T12:21:50.666-04:002012-09-13T12:21:50.666-04:00Hi Steph,
First of all, let me say thanks for rea...Hi Steph,<br /><br />First of all, let me say thanks for reading, and let me assure you that I welcome all discussion - even if it's harshly critical of what I've written. Rest assured, it's all good. ;)<br /><br />Second, I should point out that in this post, "faith" applies to non-religious faith (as in faith in a particular political idea, or faith in a person) as well as to religious faith. But because you are commenting on religious faith specifically, I'll take up the conversation there.<br /><br />With regard to "what one knows to be true," I can only say that people of faith have repeatedly told me that "faith is believing in something even when one doesn't have evidence." Indeed, to a certain extent, if there were "proof" of God, faith would be no more significant than acknowledging the color of a banana - it would be no more than a banal fact. Faith, at least religious faith, seems to hinge on the notion that "having faith" is something that is often difficult to do.<br /><br />Well, what would make it difficult, other than a dearth of concrete evidence? Faith in something is only difficult when there is either little supporting evidence, or when the conclusions themselves are difficult to swallow, such as the world's being only 12,000 years old, to take a particularly orthodox example.<br /><br />What we *know* to be true is this: The existence of God can neither be proven nor refuted. So, while many of us feel very stongly that God exists and behaves in accordance with a particular religious text, they do not *know* it, because they cannot know it. <br /><br />At least in that sense, faith is the act of wishing that there is such a God, and banking on it. I don't fault someone for being a believer, but their faith is not at all grounded in concrete evidence so much as emotional conviction in excess of the evidence.<br /><br />Having said all that, I must be fair and concede that there are many instances when people have faith for very good reasons, such as having faith in a dear friend. I don't see believers as having "misguided faith," even if I myself am not a believer. I certainly don't think believers' faith is bad! <br /><br />Instead, this post is my attempt to note that many beliefs are mere acts of faith; and that the difference between that kind of belief and a belief in objective facts is personal knowledge of the right answer. Only after establishing that concept could I build toward some of my future posts, which will deal with the problems we face when we lack evidence for the things we believe.<br />RP Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15028013805248797978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4491040877840120845.post-10255679594901495602012-09-13T11:49:06.550-04:002012-09-13T11:49:06.550-04:00Hi Ryan,
I have enjoyed perusing your blog! I j...Hi Ryan, <br /><br />I have enjoyed perusing your blog! I just wanted to toss this thought out there. We very obviously won't agree on this issue, but I wanted to see if you could back up your claims. I find your conclusion to be faulty because your premise is not solid. You say, <br /><br />"Faith is the act of favoring what one wishes to be true over what one knows to be true."<br /><br />You are assuming that everything which doesn't agree with faith/religion is "true." Not so. Evolution is still a theory not a proven fact. That's just one example of the holes in secular reasoning.<br /><br />Second, secular (humanistic) reasoning doesn't have a corner on science. And faith and science are not mutually exclusive. It wasn't until the Enlightenment (thanks a lot, Jean-Jacques Rousseau!) That the two became "enemies." The reason that faith and science don't seem compatible now is because where science "used" to be a search for truth, is now a discipline where we attempt to use human reasoning to make sense of life. And we are content with anything that seems to disprove God, even if it is a theory (evolution), or an unrealistic approach to life (like utopianism). <br /><br />I wonder, if you removed or altered from your definition the part about "against what they know to be true," if your conclusion could stay the same? As you know likely know, a faulty premise can't lead to a solid conclusion. :) <br /><br />I will also acknowledge that moral relativity may cause you to feel defensive, as you state this is your personal definition of faith and here I come, saying it's not solid. I don't mean to step on toes, but I don't accept moral relativity for a lot of reasons and I also don't believe it is logical to support a conclusion that has a faulty premise. <br /><br />Otherwise, I am really usually a nice person and don't make a habit of challenging people I don't know. We probably agree on a whole lot! :)<br /><br />- Steph<br /><br /><br /><br />Steph Nelsonhttp://thecivicarena.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com