Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

God’s best gift to intelligent design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

You’ve got to wonder what the staffers at the NCSE are thinking when they go to such lengths to assure the public that there’s no problem reconciling evolution and religious faith, only to have Richard Dawkins come along and utter the following (taken from his BBC program “The Root of All Evil?”):

The suicide bomber is convinced that in killing for his God he will be fast tracked to a special martyr’s heaven. This isn’t just a problem of Islam. In this program I want to examine that dangerous thing that’s common to Judaism and Christianity as well. The process of non-thinking called faith. I’m a scientist [well, actually, I just talk about science these days] and I believe there is a profound contradiction between science and religious belief. There is no well demonstrated reason to believe in God. And I think the idea of a divine creator belittles the elegant reality of the universe. The 21st Century should be an age of reason, yet irrational militant faith is back on the march. Religious extremism is implicated in the world’s most bitter and unending conflicts. America too has its own fundamentalists. And in Britain, even as we live in the shadow of Holy Terror, our government wants to restrict our freedom to criticize religion. Science we are told should not tread on the toes of theology. But why should scientists tip toe respectfully away? The time has come for people of reason should say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it’s divisive and it’s dangerous. . . .

People like to say that faith and science can live together side by side, but I don’t think they can. They’re deeply opposed. Science is a discipline of investigation and constructive doubt, questioning with logic, evidence, and reason to draw conclusions. Faith, by stark contrast, demands a positive suspension of critical faculties. Science proceeds by setting up hypotheses, ideas, or models, and then attempts to disprove them. So a scientist is constantly asking questions, being skeptical. Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakeable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.

Dawkins refers to religious faith as a “delusion,” “superstition,” “backward belief system,” “shallow pretense,” “parasite,” and “supporting Bronze Age myths.” He refers to evangelicalism as “an American Taliban.” He contends that “the abundance and variety of life on earth may seem improbable, but it’s self-evidently futile to invent an improbable god to explain that very improbability.” Later, when contrasting evolution with creationism, he announces, “Evolution by natural selection is supported by mountains of evidence, while creation contradicts the evidence and is only backed by some ancient scribblings.”

Anyone who hasn’t seen this two-part program by Dawkins needs to see it. I understand it is not available in this country (and for good reason — given the sensibilities of Americans, it would be a public relations disaster for evolution this side of the Atlantic). I’ve got the two-part program as two 260Mbyte wmv files. If someone has unlimited bandwidth and is willing to upload the files (perhaps at lower resolution) on, say, a Cayman server (where there may be fewer worries about copyrights), let me know.

Comments
"Readers can rely on the writings of the scientists in this volume." - John Brockman Using their status as scientists to support their statements?Mung
May 24, 2006
May
05
May
24
24
2006
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Sorry, the 2nd bittorrent link I gave was bad. this one should work: http://www.mininova.org/get/208466diggnate
May 24, 2006
May
05
May
24
24
2006
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Jack Krebs wrote:
I’d just like to point out that Dawkins doesn’t speak for science, and isn’t talking about science when he writes this stuff.
And:
I am certainly not calling Dawkins a liar, nor a deceiver. I am calling him wrong. Nor did I say people were mischaracterizing Dawkins intent: he does invoke his status as a scientist to support his statements, and I think he is wrong about that also.
Perhaps Dawkins is just deluded then. He certainly seems to think that science supports his statements. So, Jack, what do you say about the latest anti-ID book? Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement? These guys certainly seem to think they are speaking for science. Where have you spoken out against these authors? Shouldn't the title be "Scientists Versus the Intelligent Design Movement?" But then, wouldn't they be using their status as scientists, the very thing Dawkins is doing which you disagree with.Mung
May 24, 2006
May
05
May
24
24
2006
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
Lutepisc I am so confused. As far as I can see I define "faith" in much the same way as you and there is little disagreement in our positions - except the psychology of why people become atheists - which is what Huxley was talking about. I think we should agree to agree :-) CheersMark Frank
May 23, 2006
May
05
May
23
23
2006
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
There are torrent files for both these videos in very high quality divx avi. http://files.nrcharles.com/The.Root.of.All.Evil.The.Virus.of.faith.pt2.Xvid.avi.torrent http://files.nrcharles.com/TheRootofAllEvil RichardDawkins pt1 ^mininova.org^'.torrent You will need the divx plugin and a bittorrent client to download the files, but the more people that start downloading, the faster the download will get.diggnate
May 23, 2006
May
05
May
23
23
2006
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Mark, you wrote, “An atheist who explained his position by saying the absence of a God [had been revealed to him] and that he was committing himself to this absence and trusting it would be a laughing stock.” Perhaps so; perhaps not. I’m not sure about the “revealed to him” part...but what do you make of this Aldous Huxley quotation? "I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves…For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political." Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 f. I’m simply saying that, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, the words “faith” and “belief” have an affective component, and mean something different than “ascribe to something in the absence of any evidence for it.” Avocationist wrote, helpfully: “In Russian, the word for faith and trust are the very same word.” The same goes for the Latin word “fiducia,” which means both “faith” and “trust.” That’s where “fiduciary” and its cognates originate. From my perspective, then, atheism can be a kind of “faith.” You are entitled, of course, to define “belief” and “faith” as you wish. I’m afraid we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.Lutepisc
May 23, 2006
May
05
May
23
23
2006
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Dawkins should know better than to rely on the "slippery slope" argument. If there are similarities between Catholicism and Talibanism, for example, that does not mean that acceptance of one requires acceptance of the other. Having said that, I offer this to the forum: is there any more evidence for the healing powers of the waters of Lourdes than there is for the paradise awaiting Islamic martyrs?mgarelick
May 23, 2006
May
05
May
23
23
2006
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT

Lutepisc

My point is a logical one, not a pyschological one. In practice people have all sorts of reasons for holding various beliefs. Scientists are quite evangelical for example about such things as best model of the immune system, the link between MMR and autism or the possibility of cold fusion with net energy gain. They may, as a matter of psychology, have arrived at their position to show loyalty to colleagues who think the same. But, however committed they might be to their position, they don't use that committment as one of the reasons for holding that position. They have to quote mutually observable evidence or they are considered absurd and illogical. Atheism has the same relationship to evidence. An atheist who explained his position by saying the absence of a God had been revealed to him and that he was committing himself to this absence and trusting it would be a laughing stock.

However, in the case of religious faith it is not absurd to say I have faith because I trust Jesus Christ and have committed myself to his cause.

Incidentally, in case you are interested, I found I was so deeply into this that I tried writing it all up here http://mark_frank.blogspot.com/2006/05/atheism-and-faith-revised.html. It is not a proper blog - just a place I occasionally put things. All comments welcome - no moderation.

Mark, I took you off the moderation list. Your comments will now show up immediately. -ds Mark Frank
May 23, 2006
May
05
May
23
23
2006
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
"My point is that atheism cannot be like that. You can’t have committment, trust and loyalty to nothing." Well of course you can, Mark! Maybe you don't, but there are plenty of "evangelical atheists" who organize clubs and wish to spread their--uhhh--religion. Do I need to point you to some web sites or will you "stipulate to that" as the lawyers say? Dawkins is a shining example of an "evangelical atheist" who would like the rest of the world to join the club. Dennett is another one, who has deemed faithful followers to be "brights."Lutepisc
May 23, 2006
May
05
May
23
23
2006
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Re #34 and #37. What you both say about faith is absolutely what I was trying to say as well. I just didn't extend it to include the word "belief" as well. Everything I have read about religious faith (including your posts above) describe it as something quite different from the usual types of belief that something is the case. It is much more to do with committment, trust and loyalty than with evidence. My point is that atheism cannot be like that. You can't have committment, trust and loyalty to nothing. Atheism is based on the same processes that we come to believe that there are moles in our garden or CO2 on Venus. It is based on rejecting committment, trust and loyalty as reasons for believing and relying purely on mutually observable, preferably repeatable, evidence. This is the difference that Dawkins was referring to when he, unfairly, described religion as "non-thinking". I just want to knock on the head this idea that atheism is just another faith.Mark Frank
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
Lutepisc, what a good point you make that faith is more about trust than belief, esp. blind belief. In Russian, the word for faith and trust are the very same word. And I think this also supports what I said above, that faith is really a form of inner recognition. If one feels that recognition running strong within, then there is trust. A person cannot trust that of which is has no experience. It is the experience of God that leads to real faith and trust. I must concur with Tina. It is true that people are responsible and that they often use their religions to justify bad actions. At one era, completely different lessons are emphasized than in another one. Many teachings in the Bible are all but ignored or downplayed and others emphasized. But it is hard to deny that what people are taught from their spiritual leaders will have a big impact. Just as belief that life has no meaning or purpose might have an impact on teenage gunners, or the belief that others are all infidels and it is holy to kill them, resulting in immediate paradise if one dies in the attempt, leads to suicide bombers. So then, are we going to deny that Christianity has ever had that sort of teaching?avocationist
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
In USA our whole money system is based on nothing but faith. There nothing backing the dollar but people faith it will be worth something tomorrow. But in reality we could all wake up and find all that paper money and bank numbers are totally worthless which is reality. Paper money is in reality worthless yet it's back by a promise (Words) which is the same with scriptures. Faith is the substance of things hope for, the evidence of things not seen.Smidlee
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
joseph: I think it is dishonest to say "religions are harmless, people are harmful" simply because it ignores the very real relationship between people and the religions to which they adhere. I agree that truth is harmless and people are harmful, but to conflate religion with truth is impossible. Otherwise, there would be but one religion. Religion is an outward form which humans place around their conceptions about truth. Depending upon the inner maturity of the people who contribute to the religion, the form is either uplifiting or degrading. In its more degraded forms, religion has been responsible for terrible atrocities. Yes, people committed these atrocities. THey did so, in many cases, because they were absolutely convinced that they were justified, by their religion, in these acts. It is no more honest for believers to distance themselves from the acts of their philosophical ancestors by such semantic tricks than it is for atheists like Dawkins to distance himself from the atrocities of nihilistic doctrines. The trick is the same, and springs from the same inability to look in the proverbial mirror...tinabrewer
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Hi again, Mark. You wrote: “I think maybe I do see what you are getting at. It rather supports the point I am most concerned to make. Religious faith (or in this case belief) does not rely on evidence in the same manner as common or garden belief.” Mark, you’re not far from the kingdom. You can see, I reckon, that the biblical understanding of “faith” is primarily “trusting; having confidence in.” The question, then, is, “If you do not place your trust in God, then where do you place it? On what or whom do you rely?” Communism places its trust in the inexorable process of dialectical materialism. Darwinsim places its trust in the evolving play of random mutations and natural selection. These are faith systems; adherents “believe in” them as sheep “believe in” shepherds. There is nothing necessarily irrational or blind about any of these belief systems. Adherents have confidence that their system shows them the way forward. Of course, you can use any definition of “faith” or “belief” you wish, Mark. I’m only trying to show that a Judeo–Christian perspective does have a particular understanding of these words, and it’s not the one you were using.Lutepisc
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Tina Brewer: It certainly is true that religions are responsible for tremendous harms throughout history, and this fact cannot be glossed over or dismissed just because materialism is responsible for MORE harms. That is false. While it may be true that tremendous harms throughout history have been done in the name of religion, the common factor is they were all done by humans. IOW religions are harmless, PEOPLE are harmful. We are clever and can shirk responsibilty also...Joseph
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Lutepisc - I think maybe I do see what you are getting at. It rather supports the point I am most concerned to make. Religious faith (or in this case belief) does not rely on evidence in the same manner as common or garden belief. Therefore, to say that atheism is just an alternative faith is wrong. I should emphasis - I am not knocking faith. I see many people whom I admire and like who openly admit to a faith based on personal revelation. Fine - and I expect they are happier and better people for it. I am just opposed to the argument that atheism is another faith to be lined up along side Islam, Christianity and Hinduism - but one that leads to immorality and evil. RgdsMark Frank
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Mark Frank writes: “I am not sure what you are getting at?” Well evidently no one else is, either, Mark. And I’m not sure I can make the point effectively in this forum. I’ll give it a try, and try to stay brief. When John, as a biblical example, uses the word “faith,” its meaning is akin to the quality of the relationship between a sheep and its shepherd. The sheep has confidence in the shepherd, who (in John’s day) has lived with the sheep and earned the sheep’s trust. The sheep recognizes the voice of the shepherd, and responds to it. There is a resonance there. The sheep will go where the shepherd leads. In this way, the sheep “has faith in” the shepherd. It doesn’t mean “the sheep believes a shepherd exists, even though the sheep has never seen or heard a shepherd.” What would be the point of that? As James points out (James 2:19), the demons also believe that God exists. That’s not what faith is, in the biblical sense. Faith isn’t just a function of the intellect. It also has an emotional component. I would propose, for example, that Darwin lost his faith in the shepherd after his daughter died. I’m guessing that the emotional “loss of faith” for him preceded any intellectual “loss of faith.” The amount of vitriol which Dawkins demonstrates toward religion makes me suspect that something is going on in the emotional realm for him, too. But I don’t know enough about his biography or family heritage to guess what that might be.Lutepisc
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
Lutepisc, in responce to 22, the idea of a securely grounded and questioned faith (what is called for biblicaly) is not what is being questioned here. I, and I am sure others who have similar views, have no problems with people who are sound in their faith and understand the questions of their religion. People who actualy use the bible as their source on Christianity, and insist on discovering the source for teachings themselfs. However, that is shockingly uncommon today. It is the system of religion, and peoples blind faith in that that is the problem. People unquestioningly follow a religious teacher who speaks from the bible, even when he wanders from that original source, teaching his own beliefs as those of the religion. The Taliban are the ultimate example of this. Their teachings have strayed so far from the Koran that they are guilty of the sins (within Islam) that they are preaching against, but people still follow. Their faith is truely blind, and given to the religion rather than the religious teachings or texts. As churches get more powerful, the temptations to consolidate and secure that power is strong, as is the temptation to use it. Most churches do a good job, and use the power to the ends of furthering the faith and the good works in its name. Some abuse the power to achieve financial or social ends. In both cases, the process involves taking peoples attention from the faith they have in their religion, and bringing that faith towards the church itself, so they will follow the teachings of the leader rather than the bible. People who look blindly to a church for their morality and direction in life are the problem. It isn't faith that is the dilema. It is where faith can lead, to that blind faith in other people being right and a source of morality/Truth, that gives you disastrous results.TANSTAAFL
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Alister McGrath's book "Dawkin's God" is highly recommended as an analysis of Dawkins' theological ignorance (particularly Dawkins' idiosyncratic and ill-informed definition of the word "faith"). One interesting feature of McGrath's book is that McGrath clearly admires Dawkins on a scientific level, but takes exception to Dawkins' *metaphysical* views - which McGrath argues are not actually derived from Dawkins' scientific views at all (despite Dawkins' own belief to the contrary). (For more information about McGrath's book, I did a short series of posts on my blog about it. To read this, start from the last post which then has links to the previous posts in the series.) [Note to moderator, for removal if/when comment cleared for posting: I know you took exception to some of my previous posts, but I hope this can be seen as a constructive contribution to the discussion.]John H
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT
Re #19. Lutepisc. I don't have any special meaning for the world "believe" in the excerpt from John. Most dictionaries define it as something like "accept as true" and that seems fine by me. I am not sure what you are getting at?Mark Frank
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT

It is just a bunch of liberal bs that Dawkins is assuming. He puts himself above all religious "thinking" people and claims he is a "free thinker" that does not need any faith,any believe. As far as I can think, I have not seen nor met one Naturalist that required less faith than believing in say Christianity or any other believe system. Naturalism is another religion not more not less. What Dawkins does is mere libaral propaganda - compare to Michael Moore. Playing with the "non thinking" watchers emotions to obtain the right results ("Yeah he is right - lets burn some churches!!!") Idiolic bs mixed with linguistic fallcies aiming at an emotional weak point - (and by the way the Holocaust also never happend) My 2 cent on Dawkins

tb
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
I have long agreed that the atheist and the materialist are coming from a metaphysical position which is a kind of faith. But I think that faith is somewhat underestimated by Christians. There is a tendency to praise blind faith. But what is faith? To a materialist, faith is just gullibility and cannot be anything else. If, however, there is a God, then what can faith be, and why is it praised? It would make absolutely no sense if faith were based upon nothing real. We could believe in anything at all if faith were some sort of quality that when someone comes along and says something, we believe it. Why would that be a good thing, and how could such people have any inner compass for truth? That is why we have all the idiotic jokes about belief in a flying spaghetti monster. The only way to have an inner compass for truth is if that truth is in some way verifiable to us, and the only way I can see for that to work is if that truth is in some way part of us or connected with us inwardly. There must be an actual, unbroken link between the soul and God in order for our faith in God's existence to be reasonable. We can look at the world logically and decide that there must be a God, but most people believe in God by intuition. That intuition is either nonsense, based upon nothing at all, or it is a flicker of knowledge of what is true. For this reason, I consider faith a weak form of knowledge. Knowledge of God, that is. In other words, in the same way that you can say "I know I exist because I experience myself" you should also be able to say "I know God exists." Looking at it this way, I don't consider atheism a faith, except in the sense of believing an unprovable metaphysical position. Instead, if the prayer I was taught as a child is true, that the Holy Spirit is "everywhere present and fills all things" then God's spirit lives inside us and is knowable that way. Thus, our intuition. The atheist is simply a person whose perception of that inner reality is weak.avocationist
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
I think it's Puff Daddy.avocationist
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
Question: What's the name of the hip hop group that does the Lord's Prayer on the first of the Dawkins videos?William Dembski
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
Mung, in response to my comment #6 above, writes, "Jack, are you speaking for science when you claim that Dawkins is not speaking for science? How does science determine who is speaking for it and who is not?" Of course I am not speaking for science, for both the reasons Dawkins isn't: we are talking much more about religion here than science, and no one person can be a spokesperson for science. I should be clearer here: no one person can represent the question of how science intersects with metaphysics, because that is outside the domain of science and is a question each person has to answer for himself. Dawkins, and any other prestigious person or body might be able to make a somewhat definitive statement about an aspect of scientific knowledge because they would be thoroughly conversant with the consensus view around the world. But, again, that is not what Dawkins is doing here. He speaks for himself about religion, he does not speak about science for science; and I disagree strongly with much of what he says. Mung writes, "The claim that Dawkins is not talking about science is patently absurd. Dawkins claims he’s a scientist who just talks about science these days. Are you calling him a liar or a deceiver? What indication does Dawkins provide to his listeners in this particular “talk about science” that would lead his listeners to believe that he’s not really talking about science in this particular talk?" I am certainly not calling Dawkins a liar, nor a deceiver. I am calling him wrong. Nor did I say people were mischaracterizing Dawkins intent: he does invoke his status as a scientist to support his statements, and I think he is wrong about that also.Jack Krebs
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
TANSTAAFL, you speak repeatedly of "blind faith." I'm wondering if my point from John's gospel is too obscure. "Faith" in the biblical sense of the word, is orthogonal to being "blind." Defining "faith" as counter—empirical and counter—logical is a "straw man" definition, I believe.Lutepisc
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
I gave links above for Part 1. It appears that Part 2 is available here with BitTorrent: http://www.mininova.org/tor/201337GilDodgen
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Would anyone mind taking a look at how Dawkins has come to his viewpoint? Firstly, let us start with Marx and his viewpoint, of religion being 'the opium of the masses'. He saw that organised religion was a system in which the few elite (genericaly the priests) could control the masses without being challenged, because they hid behind dogma. He saw that such religions often disolved into groups that held their power through pure blind obedience, because people would not or could not question their faith. The power of such a system is massive. If you want another, more acceptable example of such a system, look to the fruit of Marx; Stalin and Marx imposed his concepts on their nations, but then imposed their own unquestionable state religion - themselfs. People were, for want of a better word, religiously indoctrinated into following the unquestionable leader. The Roman Catholic church is normaly quoted as the ultimate example of such a power system stemming from unquestionable religious beliefs. American superchurches, where one man can have the ears of hundreds or even thousands of people who hold his words above all else (and so often they do, often defining their own beliefs by what their preacher has told them) give the chance for a smaller, but just as controling system, in this case controled by one man with next to no checks on his teachings. You can't deny that at times such power is abused. I don't need to give the obvious example, as I am sure that everyone has seen the new stories or websites. Extremist groups do crop up from time to time. Now, most of us see this problem as caused by those who take control; the people who corrupt the religion to their own end. This gives you a major headache when trying to work out how to control such systems. Religion is such a taboo area that to try to put any controls on it is impossible, as well it should be. But that doesn't mean that it can't be dangerous. Dawkins takes the things one step further and says that blame lies in the very system of belief. In the blind faith that followers have in their systems; the way they willingly give up ever increasing degrees of control over their own life to the priests and preachers. It is quite obvious to me that this is what he is talking about when he talks about faith. Having blind faith in anything destroys your ability to make any probes deeper into that area. To some degree, I do agree with him, but not in taking it to the extremes. He says that any religion will eventualy end up as a system of control, and lead to extreme 'we are right and they are wrong, so should die' views. I personaly think that if every follower has a strong faith, not in the church, but in the teachings, then there should be no problems whatsoever. But then, my views are biased.TANSTAAFL
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
I asked, "What do you suppose the word 'believe' means as it’s used here, Mark?" Would you be so kind as to take a stab at my question? You say you are addressing faith "in a religious context." The gospel of John would qualify, right? So how is the author of that gospel using the word "believe" here? Yes, those who have not seen are called "blessed," but there's no reason to suppose that they're any more blessed than Thomas, who saw. One can believe with or without seeing, according to John. (But what do you suppose he means by "believe," please? Does it match the definition you're proposing?)Lutepisc
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
Lutepisc - of course any word as generic as "faith" can be used in many different ways. However, don't you agree that faith in a religious context is usually used to mean believing unconditionally or similar? What would you say someone had faith if they said "I have weighed the evidence and I think God exists, but if contrary evidence arises I will revise my belief". Actually your example seems to support this definition. "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have come to believe." i.e. the ones that have really shown faith are those who believe without evidence. Looking specifically at BarryA's post - he talks about a faith committment. A belief based on evidence alone is not a committment. In fact one should be ready revise it in the face of contrary evidence.Mark Frank
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply