Wendy Wright and Richard Dawkins

[TLK Valentine]

Faith = believing in something, even when science says otherwise.

You mean believing in what you want to, even when everything else says otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean believing in what you want to, even when everything else says otherwise.

No, I mean believing in something, even when science says otherwise.

Science ≠ "everything else".

But I do like your paraphrase ...

 

[Mr Strawberry]

No, I mean believing in something, even when science says otherwise.

Science ≠ "everything else".

Just to be clear, what doesn't it include?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just to be clear, what doesn't it include?

Well, like I said, I like how he paraphrased it; but for the record, I like to stipulate where my faith stands vis-a-vis science, so I prefer using the word "science" in my definition.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Well, like I said, I like how he paraphrased it; but for the record, I like to stipulate where my faith stands vis-a-vis science, so I prefer using the word "science" in my definition.

Dragging you back to the question, as you said science does not equal everything else, what does everything else also include?

 

[AV1611VET]

Dragging you back to the question, as you said science does not equal everything else, what does everything else also include?

I meant that semantically.

I'm not going to go through a John 9 inquisition on my definition of "faith," just because you guys don't like it.

Faith = believing in something, even when science says otherwise.

Perhaps a better definition would be: believing in something, even if science says otherwise; but in any event, it makes my point that faith trumps science -- as it should.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I meant that semantically.

I'm not going to go through a John 9 inquisition on my definition of "faith," just because you guys don't like it.

Faith = believing in something, even when science says otherwise.

Perhaps a better definition would be: believing in something, even if science says otherwise; but in any event, it makes my point that faith trumps science -- as it should.

You prefer saying 'science' rather than 'everything else' because you can happily think of science as something you can put in a box and demonise or ignore at your own whim, but 'everything else' is rather less easy to dismiss with a label.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Perhaps a better definition would be: believing in something, even if science says otherwise; but in any event, it makes my point that faith trumps science -- as it should.

I have faith that this stuff I ordered online will help me drop 3 dress sizes in. Two days as advertised.

Faith is fine. We all take some things on faith, but if better knowledge is available I can't see how relying on the lesser is a good thing.

In the case of religious concepts faith is all there is left since humanity's millenia of looking for a real hint of diety has wound up with countless, often mutually exclusive, opposing views of what it would look like.

When faith is the only route then there is a more fundamental question in play.

 

[AV1611VET]

You prefer saying 'science' rather than 'everything else' because you can happily think of science as something you can put in a box and demonise or ignore at your own whim, but 'everything else' is rather less easy to dismiss with a label.

How do you like this definition:

Faith = believing in something, even when everything else says otherwise ... especially science.

How's that?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

How do you like this definition:

Faith = believing in something, even when everything else says otherwise ... especially science.

How's that?

Yes, that works, although "even" and "especially science" are redundant.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have faith that this stuff I ordered online will help me drop 3 dress sizes in. Two days as advertised.

Faith is fine. We all take some things on faith, but if better knowledge is available I can't see how relying on the lesser is a good thing.

In the case of religious concepts faith is all there is left since humanity's millenia of looking for a real hint of diety has wound up with countless, often mutually exclusive, opposing views of what it would look like.

When faith is the only route then there is a more fundamental question in play.

I have no idea what you just said ... none whatsoever.

Reading comprehension isn't one of my better-known traits.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, that works, although the "even" and "especially science" is redundant.

Good ... then you use it.

I'll go with my own.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Good ... then you use it.

I'll go with my own.

...which is that science does not equal everything else, presumably, although you refuse to say what everything else includes that science doesn't, which means you are either hiding something or lying to yourself.

 

[Lost Angel]

What is there to faith that is not science?
What else is there that you do not follow?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

I have no idea what you just said ... none whatsoever.

Reading comprehension isn't one of my better-known traits.

No problem. Cliffs notes version: faith doesn't trump science if science is available.

And

People have tried for millenia to "prove" God is real...which means most people WANT a scientific proof of God. When that fails they are forced to make a virtue of believing in that which defies proof.

To the point that some will claim they devalue proof. But they still use proof in their everyday lives.

 

[AV1611VET]

People have tried for millenia to "prove" God is real...

Prove it to whom? themselves? or people like you?

... which means most people WANT a scientific proof of God.

They must not want it too badly.

Even scientists will tell you that science isn't in the business of "proving."

 

[Lost Angel]

Prove it to whom? themselves? or people like you?

They must not want it too badly.

Even scientists will tell you that science isn't in the business of "proving."

They want too prove it to themselves. The want scientific evidence for Yahweh. That is why they try to claim that science process the Bible on these suggestions

 

[bhsmte]

Well, if that is how you want to live your life, you are fully entitled. But I would guess, that everyday of your life, you have personally been impacted (in a very positive way in which you would not want to give up) the many advances in science you so disdain.

You also say the answer to Wendy Wright's stance with Richard Dawkins is "faith"? I would have no problem if you said; "Wendy Wright has faith in the existence of God", but using faith in terms of her denial of evolution and or the age of man is ignorance. If an abundance of objective evidence is available, you don't need a leap of faith to get at the truth, all you need to do is open your eyes.

There is a difference between faith and blind faith and Wendy is exhibiting the "blind" type when she refuses to accept objective evidence that even many renowned Christian scholars have now had to recently accept as fact, or risk their credibility being undermined. IMO, a society moves forward when blind faith is exceeded by the truth that science can provide.

Yes, science has slowly debunked much of which is stated in the bible as fact and that will likely continue to progress as science progresses.

 

[Lost Angel]

Prove it to whom? themselves? or people like you?

They must not want it too badly.

Even scientists will tell you that science isn't in the business of "proving."

They want too prove it to themselves. The want scientific evidence for Yahweh. That is why they try to claim that science process the Bible on these suggestions

 

[bhsmte]

There are certain things that science can prove and others that are still lingering out there, waiting for further advances.

No, science can not prove that God does not exist, just as science can not prove that a tooth fairy put $10 under my pillow last night if I say this is what happened.

What science has done (and will continue to do) is give us an objective fact based understanding of the universe we live in, how old it is and how it likely became into existence. Christians have had to slowly adapt and admit that science has proven the contents of the bible (age of universe, earth and man, etc) were wrong and they have come up with ways to make that work and still believing in the existence of the Christian God. As long as their are still unknown questions, the Christian will typically state; "see that must be God", but in the last 100 years with the advancement of science, those unknowns have been reduced and will likely continue to dwindle as science has further discoveries.

To me, there are far too many contradictory facts of the world and universe we live in that can not be reconciled in my mind to allow a belief in the Christianity story. If others want to make that leap and it helps them in their life, I say that is wonderful for them. I have a desire to understand the truth and to think critically and to keep learning on these grounds.