Facts vs Faith? -- it's more like Faith vs Faith!

[WhatsHisNuts]

Buddy: With all due respect, you can't point to the Bible as the word of God (which explains creation) then ask the question "What makes man think he's entitled to an explanation?" of those that don't buy it. That is hypocritical.

To answer your question, from my perspective, I don't believe I am entitled to an explanation. This question simply arises out of self-defense when Christian beliefs are challenged. It's hypocritical.

 

[Terryray]

That Turner piece addressed some of the point of my posting, but I was afraid the other stuff would detract from it.....


What Hume showed is that reason, a powerful tool for analyzing beliefs, when turned on itself produces an equal amount of skepticism. We should be as agnostic toward reason's conclusions as the systems it has aided or debunked--- reason itself demands that.


The Leo Strauss excerpt (and your unreasoned response, one of just ridicule) shows that even the most infantile and antediluvian literal reading of the Bible can't be refuted by scientists---because the scientist can only do so my making assumptions the believer explicity rejects. Thus, to use scientific arguments against a believer is to foolishly put on display---for everyone to notice---one's own lack of reason.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

What Hume showed is that reason, a powerful tool for analyzing beliefs, when turned on itself produces an equal amount of skepticism. We should be as agnostic toward reason's conclusions as the systems it has aided or debunked--- reason itself demands that.

Terry: The problem I have with this paragraph is that it assumes believing in the supernatural is a valid alternative. Science has proven a lot of which we couldn't understand beforehand, while religion has proven nothing. If you want to say that science can't prove certain theories, that's fine....but don't use that as the rationale to prove religious beliefs in the supernatural are correct.

 

[Terryray]

I'm not trying to "prove" religious beliefs. Nor am I assuming either alternative is valid.

I am saying the reasoned, scientific side, by it's own criteria of reason, cannot put forth any argument to the believer, and should be skeptical of it's own conclusions and methods, as reason itself demands. The supernatural or religious faithful make no contribution to that conclusion--it is a conclusion made only by the reason science itself employs.


The two sides have no common ground to argue and the scientific critic can only "prove" things to himself and his own system (by that system's rationale) as the religious person at the outset rejects the assumptions the scientist must make.

 

[djv]

Fact's vs Faith through the years have had many changes to both. In WWII it was Hitlers God vs American/Britain's God. Since it was same God for both sides I guess we could say he was mad at everyone. One fact I know for sure and you see it everyday. When someone is faced with a crises or death in there family. The praying and promises to God come at fast pace. Just help us God through this tough spot and we will be so good the rest of our lives. Maybe it should be faith/fact.