Actually, I don't think the word "faith" should ever be used in by either side in theist-atheist discussion unless it is backed up with a definition, and then you have to see if your debate opponent is willing to use it in the same sense.
Otherwise, you just waste a lot of time talking past one another.
5 comments:
Just *who* is it who is forever introducing the word 'faith' into "theist-atheist discussion"?
"Otherwise, you just waste a lot of time talking past one another."
Perhaps that's the whole point of introducing the word.
I posted the following below, but I think it's worth re-posting here:
"Faith is a way of knowing some "truth" about reality" (Skep)
No, no, no, no, and again NO !
Faith is not a way of knowing something - it is a way of acting upon what you do know by other means. Are you going to abandon your convictions if they are inconvenient? Then you have no (or little) faith. Will you choose to act contrary to what you know to be ethical, moral, or just, because doing so might subject you to lost opportunities, discrimination, or even persecution? Then your faith is weak. Do you remain silent in the face of injustice, or do you look the other way when faced by another person's need? Then your faith is worthless.
That is what Faith is all about.
Exact.
'Faith' isn't about how one comes to know/believe something; it's how one's behavior conforms to that knowledge/belief once aquired. To be 'faithful' is to consistently conform one's behavior to the knowledge/belief, even if it would be convenient to not do so.
For you, faith seems to be believing whatever you please. I showed you the Stanford article. You reject what it says?
I see great employment opportunities for Dawkins' Parrot in the theatre. As a projectionist.
Post a Comment