In another thread, I described my impression of theistic faith:
Libertarian asked in response:
I’ll give it a go, Libertarian, even though I have a sneaky suspicion Gaudere has probably already done this better in the “Reverse” thread. Picture the “I” in the following as the theist (even though it is quite clearly not I):
===============
How aimless seems the life of the faithless skeptic, questioning all he sees. I wonder sometimes how you maintain your bearings without the light of God to guide you. Yet I see that you do maintain a strong moral code, and your ethics can be better than many who would claim to honor the same God I love.
I am frustrated by your confidence, your apparent willful ignorance of God, which I sometimes too easily misinterpret as arrogance. Yet I am forced to acknowledge your ability to make your own decisions, and respect them though I think you misguided.
I find myself reaching for metaphor, wanting for a higher form of expression, so that I could share with you more completely my experience of God, and so help you to understand, and find His truth as your own. Yet I am constrained by words far too small in magnitude to properly express Him, and am once more frustrated. If only you could understand the clarity of vision one gains with faith, the absolute comfort of His love!
But we find ourselves at an impasse, each aware and respectful of the other’s beliefs, though perhaps never fully understanding.
===============
Of course, the last paragraph is applicable to both points of view. Comments? Questions? (Flames?)
I found that statement somewhat analogous to How can you stand having to go through life without having my point of view? I admire the fact that you can make it through life with such obvious shortcomings!
Now, I realize that I may have interpreted that a bit harshly, but to tell the truth, that was my first impression.
After studing religous teaching for a long time, I concluded that most of it, especially the supernatural part was unblieveable. But, I not “Faithless”! I believe, but can not prove, evolution, the “Big Bang”, etc. And my belief in these things is certainly as strong as thoes who buy the supernatural.
Does science not provide clarity of vision? It seems to me that science is better fitted to this task than unquestioning faith.
To me that religious faith is little more than peeping through rose colored spectacles. You get blurry glimpses of truth clouded often by irrational contradictions. Faith, to me, is little more than bias, and a close cousin to prejudice. Once faith is attained it becomes unquestioning belief in mere dogma.
Science provides a rigorous method for investigating that dogma and reveals quantifiable truths.
But, UncleBeer, weren’t there a whole passle of physicists that died calling Einstein an idiot and rejecting his ideas without thought? Science don’t necessarilly make people better like that.
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.
There were doubltessly scientists who died before confirming a theory of Einsteins (which theory btw?)- but I doubt many were as emotional as you suggest. Incidentally, its not like Einstein was always right. His special theory of relativity included a bogus constant to force the universe into the stead state that everyone ‘knew’ it existed in. It was not until Hubble proved that the universe was expanding that he removed this cheat.
Science also requires faith. Einstein said, by way of example, that that if you found a watch on the beach, you could construct a consistent and logical theory explaining how it worked. But you could never open the watch. So it is with scientific theories.
A theory that withstands scrutinity has our confidence, but we can’t open the watch to see if it’s true. We have to be content with a theory’s utility. Truth plays no part in science.
Having said that, there are degrees of faith, and science requires the least amount of it.
I think. Maybe.
When the pin is pulled, Mr.Grenade is no longer our friend.
To be fair, Einstein’s Cosmological Constant was the only time that his intellectual courage failed him. He wouldn’t believe his own theory. He called it the biggest blunder of his life.
When the pin is pulled, Mr.Grenade is no longer our friend.
If you will, please stay in the role just a bit longer, and let me ask a couple of questions. What exactly is your faith? I mean, is it synaptic activity of some kind, or is the faith itself supernatural? And second, how do you deal with the fact that, if God does not exist, you are wasting your life away? Well, not your whole life, but whatever time out of your life that you spend in faith mode.
I gotta tell ya, Lib, I don’t know how to answer. slythe, with characteristic bluntness, has come very close to my own opinion of the way skeptics are seen by people of faith. I was genuinely trying not to make my hypothetical theist sound condescending, but I guess it’s sometimes all too common an interpretation.
Now, as to faith, specifically faith as belief in the unknowable - sorry, ain’t got any, don’t know where it comes from, frankly don’t wany any. See UncleBeer’s post for further info.
I’m not trying to be flip. I honestly do not know how to define faith other than as an evolutionary mechanism useful for dealing with big questions for which one does not have answers. Beyond that, there is simply no way my own sense of intellectual honesty will allow me to believe in the unknowable.
With all due deference, the above statement seems to settle pretty high on the dogmatism scale, doesn’t it?
Before I respond to that, are you saying that all truths are quantifiable, or simply that quantifiable truths are the only kind that science can reveal?
Quixotic:
Thanks for the effort. I know it’s hard.
The unknowable? Hmmm. Maybe you’ve given me some insight into the atheist mindset after all. I’ll chew on that a while.
I enjoy discussing things with people who agree with me. I enjoy more discussing things with intelligent people who disagree, and who are willing to take “I think you’re wrong on that because…” as a rhetorical assertion rather than a personal slam.
