faith
(fāth)
n.
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
- often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs.
^^Taken from dictionary.com. Please note definition 2.
Please note definition 1.
"faith" is an English word with common usage markings tied to it from the modern period of human culture. Just blanket identifying that with the ancient Greek term "pistis" is not a valid means of determining what this word meant.
That's not what the word meant. Referencing an English dictionary prior to the writing of Kierkegaard's "Either/Or", you find that's not what the English word meant even a few hundred years ago.
Evolution is directed for the purpose of survival, in a nutshell.
It's not. The
result of evolution within seriously limited parameters, is simply the survival of what survives. When nothing survives, nothing survives. Were the purpose of evolution survival, something would survive.
Evolution is simply an explanation that what's survived, has survived due to variations. It's a statistical observation.
Although I understand the concepts, unfortunately I am not wordy enough to explain it properly (alas, for I am not a scientist). The best advice I could give if you wish to understand these things would to read the works of Richard Dawkins, his chapter on evolution in 'The God Delusion' is simple, straightforward, consise and easy to understand. In fact, for a pretty decent understanding of the atheistic postition I would recommend you read the whole book. It is pretty much my own personal beliefs on religion written up and published by someone much more articulate.
I'm sorry, the book is mostly rhetorical hubris. State what you would like to discuss. Quote excerpts if you'd like.
some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.
Anyone who bases truth on
his view of how sensible a thought is, how logical, how consistent with what he knows or believes to be true -- such a person as Dawkins has self-expressed his view of truth to be, has to admit his attack is an engagement in some form of megalomania. Let's say I applied Dawkins' principle to, say, Dawkins' most unpleasant opposition. If fundamentalist Christians find their positions "
survive the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact." So applying Dawkins' own rule, Christians more closely approach fact.
Are you appealing to the 'you cannot disprove' argument? Well...you cannot disprove any number of things (fairies, goblins, greek gods, roman gods, celestial teapots, etc), that doesn't mean we should give them the benifit of the doubt.
No. As Yancey's "Rumors of Another World" points out, there're plenty of things we can't prove, that nevertheless have evidence for their existence. MacIntyre's "After Virtue" makes the same point for the phenomenon of ethics -- in one of the better scholarly books on ethics produced in modern times.
No your words are not evidence that you exist, you may be someone else for all I know.
Underestimated scope. My
existence -- no matter who or what I am -- my words are not evidence for that. If they were, well, you'd know the continuation of the reasoning.
But for now the evidence in front of me suggests that you do exist.
Why? With no proof, you're saying there's evidence,
non-proof types of evidence, that would lead you to accept the fact of my existence.
What's the problem with non-proof types of evidence for other forms of existence?
Or we could get all Cartesian and say well, you show evidence of intelligent thought and free will, therefore I can only assume you are a separate entity and not a figment of my imagination (I think therefore I am). For the record though, I never stated that you did exist.
Thinking isn't proof of existence. In point of fact, phenomenology has not revealed "thinking" exists. No one can tell if an AI program "thinks", for instance. There's no principle here. Again, "thinking" is an inference for existence, not a proof.
And if we're talking about inferences, that widens the field of discussion remarkably regarding spirituality, existence, God.
Speaking of philosophy...go to your library or book store and pick up any text on basic philosophy that adresses the question of the existance of god. I have yet to find one that says god can be proved by philosophical logic. For mor info please refer to these books. If you would like suggestions I can give you a list.
ROFL! Your deprecation doesn't reflect well on your position. Philosophy can't prove
your existence by deductive reasoning. It has trouble even defining
you.
I took philosophy. Patronizing is not a very good method of argumentation. It reflects Dawkins, though. He's patronizing on issues he really has no clue about. If that's your position, I can tell you right now -- the experts in these fields snicker at his shallow flailing. He's dancing on thin ice. The cold reality hits anyone who breaks through that thin outer crust.
Would I expect you to suddenly jump to my opinions? Nothing of the sort. I'm simply warning ya, Dawkins is not really well-considered. He's the New York Post of philosophy and religion. After 2000 years, Christianity has addressed much of the New York Times of philosophy and religion. But the New York Post is just a belligerent.
I'd suggest you grab a copy of Hayakawa's "Language in Thought & Action", and analyze Dawkins' book. Then you'll at least see the point. Dawkins has violated his own advocated rules of rational value, scientific principle, and observational phenomenology. To do so essentially condemns his view as inconsistent. If Dawkins requires marginalization, tarring & feathering, connotations of evildoing for his opponents -- then Dawkins has rejected science and rationalism on its own principles, and his position collapses under its own weight.
And that's why Dawkins is so often subjected to this consistency test. Because he fails, his position also fails.
If not, feel free to delete this post guys.
