Hi MP,
>> Steve wrote: >> Faith has many meanings that are easy to conflate, but faith in this >> context means belief that is not based on evidence. If there is no >> evidence that could ever be viewed as inconsistent with a belief, then >> that belief is held on faith. > > MP: I would agree but note that "evidence" is a very rationally loaded term. I > see "evidence" of a loving God every day, but forget about trying to translate > that "evidence" into rational language. Steve: But would you say that your belief in a loving God is *based* on evidence? If so, it should be possible to imagine evidence that would be inconsistent with that belief. If it is impossible to imagine what experiences would convince you that your belief is false, what could it mean for your belief to be true? >Steve: >> I think that one huge difference between the >> so-called religion of scientists and that of Christians is that >> scientists can always tell you exactly what sort of evidence would be >> inconsistent with their hypotheses, which can be revised based on new >> experience, while for religious people, there is no evidence that >> could ever be viewed as contrary to their faith in certain tenets. > > MP: I don't know about that. I think both go about adjusting to contrary > "evidence", they just do it in entirely different ways. Doubt is a major > component > of maintaining faith. how one deals with doubt in one's faith, in essence > defines > one's faith. Faith without doubt is either a rare enlightenment or a more > commonly a blind faith. Steve: What religious beliefs do you hold that could be revised as new evidence or arguments become available? Regards, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
