>>> 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?
MP: No, my belief in God is based on evidence. >>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? MP: None. They are not based on evidence or arguments. That's my point. Please note; I am agreeing with your original statement. Only pointing out that your use of the word "evidence" presumes a rational foundation in which faith is but a component as opposed to them being on relatively equal terms, just different languages. But faith does not reside in the rational foundation of science where something like evidence is relevant. Not in any rational way anyway. Arlo and I see the exact same world but take from it a completely different understanding where we come from very different points of view. Neither, I would argue is "right' (they are both ultimately inadequate) its just that they approach reality from different vantage points and with different rules and methodologies. The difference however between skepticism and faith is that where faith has plenty of room for skepticism (its called "doubt" and is in many ways the foundation of faith) skepticism has absolutely no room for faith. That IMO is the difference between the two; open vs. closed. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
