RE: Is 'faith' really a 'great cop-out'?
November 2, 2008 at 5:59 pm
(This post was last modified: November 2, 2008 at 6:11 pm by Daystar.)
(October 29, 2008 at 5:35 pm)CoxRox Wrote: I don't think faith need always be negative as Dawkins asserts. Yes, it can mean you have blindly accepted something without trying to understand it, (which would make you a fool) but it can also be because you are not capable of understanding the whole picture but you understand and 'see' how other related stuff works.
Faith doesn't imply blindness or lack of knowledge. You get to know your parents, your friends, your mate - and have faith in them based upon what you have come to know about them, not what you feel or are blind to.
Dawkins was faithful, perhaps, in a traditional or cultural perspective which is more of a social need. Tribal. He couldn't make any sense out of science or evolution at first but he needed it to replace his old philosophy. Alot of Atheists are like that. They knew their faith only as the myths they were spoonfed without bothering to investigate the reality behind that and so they grasp firmly hold of something else with the emotional attachment of the zealot.
Notice that if these people were as gifted intellectually as they like to present themselves they could provide some rational defense of their sudden enlightenment other than the obvious drama of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire - and I ain't talkin' 'bout hell.
(October 30, 2008 at 4:36 am)CoxRox Wrote: Ok, to take it a bit further, I've been looking at the definition of 'theory' (scientifically speaking) to see if that was similar to 'faith' and I found this definition: 'In science a theory is a testable model.....' (Wikipedia) so that can't be anything like faith but then I thought of 'string theory' and with my smidgen of understanding, I thought it was an unproven 'theory' and as I read further along the definition I found this: 'The term theory is regularly stretched to refer to speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything.' So maybe my speculation about an intelligent designer isn't such a cop out after all.
Whooo!!! Careful, you tread dangerously close to blasphemy of the almighty science! I sense the caution in your words - will it be enough!
Remember, evolution only deals with what happened after we got here. Not how we got here.
Lets look at it this way. Science has no explanation of how we got here. They will admit that no one knows. Most armchair scientists (blind faithful) won't but the priests who depend upon it will because they know better. There is only one theory of how we got here and that is creation. What do you know about the only one.
(October 31, 2008 at 5:07 pm)bozo Wrote: In religious terms, I think claiming faith is the lazy choice for the masses who can't be bothered asking questions. Simple as that.
Yeah, right. And you could enlighten my lazy ass?! Ha! If you knew a fraction of what I know about the Bible and Jehovah God your own lazy choice I might take far more seriously. But you don't and so your point is moot.
