Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="2old4this" data-source="post: 18019" data-attributes="member: 174998">At the risk of sounding cynical, I'd say that religious faith is the act of believing in something even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The point being that faith is not a passive state, something that will be supplanted on the production of evidence - it is more profound that that. It is something that by its very definition must be actively maintained independently of the evidence. CH's quote from Life of Brian captures this beautifully. The only being that would carry sufficient credence to divest the faithful of their faith would be the object of their faith, the supreme being itself. But for such a being to thruthfully deny its own divinity would be a logical impossibility.Where many religious people err is in trying to justify their faith based on &quot;evidence&quot; of the existence of a supreme being. For example, in citing the scriptures as evidence for the existence of Jesus, or of the complexity of the eye as evidence for creation. If any evidence is to be admitted to support any particular view then ALL evidence should be admitted to potentially support ANY view. Evidence is not something one can pick and choose from as a means simply to support some preconceived premise. In any event, each time a person of faith seeks recourse to evidence, s/he is effectively debasing the very concept of faith.2old</blockquote>

[QUOTE="2old4this, post: 18019, member: 174998"] At the risk of sounding cynical, I'd say that religious faith is the act of believing in something even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The point being that faith is not a passive state, something that will be supplanted on the production of evidence - it is more profound that that. It is something that by its very definition must be actively maintained independently of the evidence. CH's quote from Life of Brian captures this beautifully. The only being that would carry sufficient credence to divest the faithful of their faith would be the object of their faith, the supreme being itself. But for such a being to thruthfully deny its own divinity would be a logical impossibility. Where many religious people err is in trying to justify their faith based on "evidence" of the existence of a supreme being. For example, in citing the scriptures as evidence for the existence of Jesus, or of the complexity of the eye as evidence for creation. If any evidence is to be admitted to support any particular view then ALL evidence should be admitted to potentially support ANY view. Evidence is not something one can pick and choose from as a means simply to support some preconceived premise. In any event, each time a person of faith seeks recourse to evidence, s/he is effectively debasing the very concept of faith. 2old [/QUOTE]

Verification