> Steve said: > You don't like beliefs based on faith being defined in contrast to > beliefs based on evidence > because you think evidence is a loaded word. MP: Uh... I didn't say the former. I like them being defined in contrast because they *are* in contrast. What I don't like is one being defined in the terms of the other as a means of asserting some sort of invalidity of the former in the face of the latter. Just as I don't think it at all relevant to say reason is wrong because it has not way to understand God, it is equally irrelevant to say faith is wrong because God cannot be proven through reason.
Its like when Alex Trebec dings a contestant's answer, however correct, because they didn't start with "What is..." They got it right, but are "wrong" because they formatted it incorrectly. > Steve said: > What definition of the word "faith" would you prefer to use for this > discussion? I think "faith" works fine. But it does seem to have negative connotations to some here that preclude them from approaching the discussion without an underlying bias that irretrievably skews the discussion. In a post to dmb I just posited "personal conviction of truth absent rational objective evidence" a nice non-denominational reason-speak alternative. A bit clunky, but less culturally loaded than the far simpler "faith." But "faith" works fine for me. 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/
