Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 3:23:33
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2002, at 21:59:37
>
> What I meant was, faith at some point comes down to, well, faith, right? As opposed to evidence?
>
> > faith
> > 2 b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
> > http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?faith
>
> Would you say it was evidence of some sort that made the one belief more credible than the other?
>
> BobChuckle. :) I had understood there would be no math. (Sorry, old Saturday Night Live joke). You do ask tough questions.
I think IsoM explained it much better than I could. Absolute proof? No, I suppose not. How about the preponderance of the evidence as a standard? I think I summed up how I came to find one idea more credible than the other in this post.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/416.html
But if we were going to use absolute proof as a standard, then perhaps the meds board should be merged with this one. There is no proof that the current theories of how the brain works or how psych meds work is true. But that doesn't mean that the theories are irrational or lack evidence.
Now, admittedly, if you start thinking about the specifics of any given religion, there is less evidence than in there is in a guiding force or power. And I'm sad to say I'm not nearly as good at belief in the specifics. I'm open to seeing biblical truths as more profound than merely history. I guess I choose to believe in the more logical parts, and I choose not to believe in the more far-fetched ones. But I'm open to changing my mind should new evidence appear. I tell you, it leads to some dissent in sunday school, and I spend a fair amount of time there studying my nails and keeping my mouth shut. I admire those who *can* make a leap of faith. I find it easier to build a bridge of logic.
poster:Dinah
thread:1086
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20021001/msgs/1113.html