Adrian and I disagree on faith.

[tackattack]

---

Yes, but he's arguing that there is a limit to our knowledge therefore we need faith to plug those gaps, that's not an effect method to resolve our lack of understanding. I'm not prepared to forfeit relevant information for blind hope or halt our on-going learning process just because someone states "But you can't know for sure".

---

Here you're clearly stating a comparitive definition of faith as blind hope.

---

Yes human constructs are subjectively true and certainly arguable this much I already know, but concepts based on reality play their role in reflecting and demonstrating to us a *better understanding* of how reality works. Would you rather us simply have no predictive theories to rely upon at all? To the best of our knowledge, they redefine themselves only when current explanations are found to be invalid or unreliable at explaining reality. That's why the scientific method, while not perfect in the context of absolute certainty, is still one of the most powerful tools for analysing our universe we have today. Faith on the other hand can't even hope to provide us with any answers to discern what is probable from the improbable (bad pun no?).

---

So then how do we have a "better understaning" of mental illnessses or criminal tendencies. Why is having a basis in reality the only way to constructively contribute to the betterment of society? And what's your definition of reality?

---

I fail to see how confidence in something improbable or unlikely being true (faith) is the answer to philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge.

---

Here's is another wild definition of faith. What do you really define as faith? Ok you guys ahave had some seriously good stuff on here but could each of you do a short recap of things so far? Maybe we can get definitons straight.