Posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 13:28:10
In reply to Re: Agreement or Confutation, posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2002, at 11:25:38
> Wouldn't eyes-open, damn-the-evidence faith be the most "pure"?
I think you're talking about something completely different here. There's the leap of faith, that Kierkegard describes, which is the one that Abraham took, but that's not what you're talking about, as there was really no evidence to the contrary.
Regarding "damn-the-evidence" faith, think of this. Are those who believe the emperor is not naked (which he clearly is) but is instead wearing clothing made of a special cloth exhibiting pure faith? Or are they misguided?
Then what about the thing that many try without success? Say, traveling around the world in the hot air balloon or swimming across the English Channel (before folks actually started doing it). Are they exhibiting pure faith? Or are they misguided?
Wouldn't it seem somewhat foolish to believe that two plus two is three, even thought we know it's four?
I guess I'm asking you to help me understand what you mean by "damn the evidence" kind of faith. Because as far as I'm concerned, no one can prove there is NO god. And that means religion is not "damn the evidence" faith.
I even think you can believe in a god and still believe in evolution.
> > I'm not American, but I'll use the States as most posters are from there. Almost everyone in the States knows that the country's in debt to more than 6 billion dollars. If the president was to tell the public that in one year, there'd be no more debt, how many would believe him?
You'd be surprised. How do you think he got to be president? (I am joking, of course.)
beardy : )>
poster:BeardedLady
thread:1086
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20021001/msgs/1133.html