(September 27, 2013 at 6:17 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Okay, John, let's skip the Internet definitions of faith. Here's one I found in a book that sounds good to me:Er, no, I'll stick with mainstream sources for definitions of common words, thank you.
"...though it is wholly arbitrary and this does nothing to ensure that you are more correct than anyone else."
Quote:That's sounds about right to me, and doesn't deal with "material evidence." There is just no way to prove that faith is more true, although I can go take a chemistry class and learn a few hundred ways that chemicals react with each other. I can take a psychology class and learn how humans react to mental influences. That would be discovering truths. Faith does not. That's why science is closer to the truth. It can be tested and verified again and again. Faith is only verified by random chance, and even then saying it is "verified" is a stretch of the facts, since answers to prayers and unexplainable blessings are completely unpredictable and cannot be repeated, no matter how much you pray or believe in God.You've set up a false dichotomy of science v. faith. I have no problem incorporating both repeatable testable science and faith in my life.