Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:51:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1509 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> >
> > > How is "operating under the assumption" different that "having faith in"?
> > >
> > > This, I think, is what we're stumbling around. I see them as one and the
> > > same. I'm picking up from context that you think the definition of faith
> > > requires a "without evidence whatsoever" clause.
> >
> > Major snippage of worthy discussion, but the really important part is here.
> > Rummaging for a dictionary...
> >
> > faith
> > 1. Complete confidence or trust.
> > 2. Belief in God or the doctrines of religion.
> > 3. A system of religious belief.
> > 4. Loyality or fidelity.
> >
> > There ya go. Probably not the best of dictionaries, but it was what was at
> > hand. Operating under an assumption is not faith since I hardly have
> > complete confidence in it. Some areas of science may infinitely approach
> > complete trust, but since science pretty much holds that you need to be
> > prepared to modify your conclusions, there isn't such a thing as complete
> > trust in science.
>
> Yup. I figured it was a definition thing after the first couple of messages
> back and forth. I don't like the dictionary you're using. :) I have never
> understood faith as "complete confidence or trust", but rather "confidence or
> trust". With that modification, I think we're agreeing here. And FWIW, I
> agree with you, if we're using your defintion. I don't have complete
> confidence or trust in anything. But I do have a large degree of confidence or
> trust in a lot of things.
>
> FWIW:
>
> Dictionary.com:
>
> 1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an
> idea, or a thing.
> 2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See
#2 applies to yourself, and you are stretching #1 to apply to me and then
are making the erroneus conclusion that they are equivalent. You further
listing below does not support your assertation, and the further one I
provided also doesn't.
Synonyms
> at trust.
> 3.Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's
> supporters.
> 4.Often Faith. Theology. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God
> and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
> 5.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
> 6.A set of principles or beliefs.
>
> www.m-w.com:
>
> 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's
> promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
> 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the
> traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which
> there is no proof (2) : complete trust
Seems to agree with me and not you.
> 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially :
> a system of religious beliefs
Note the qualifier.
>
> The definition that runs closest to my own understanding of the word is
> dictionary.com's #1.
>
> James
And www.encarta.com:
faith [fayth ] (plural faiths) noun
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or
something, especially without logical proof
2. RELIGION religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or
the group of people who adhere to it
3. RELIGION trust in God: belief in and devotion to God Her faith is
unwavering.
4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles people of
different political faiths
5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something
[13th century. Via Old French feid from Latin fides "trust, belief" (source
of English confide and fealty). Ultimately from an Indo-European word that
is also the ancestor of English federal.]
keep faith with somebody or something to be loyal or true to a person or promise
on faith without demanding proof
End paste. Note 1, 2 and 3. So no, I don't agree with you definition at
all unless you want to qualify that yours is a faith system without logical
proof and mine is a faith system with logical proof. This is the same as
saying NO, they are NOT equivalent. The whole thing you are trying to imply
is that ultimately evolution is based on faith and not logical proof and
therefore no different than faith in God, or creationism. To clear things
up in the future, lets refer to that which doesn't depend on logical proof
and that which does and avoid the word faith instead of playing this
semantic game.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Ding ding! We have a winner! (although I'd qualify that 'logical proof' as 'proof', not 'logical proof') (...) Logical proof? First off, what's logical proof? And second, prove logically that all perceptions of physical events are more valid (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) <snip a lot> (...) Whoa... where do you draw the conclusion that #2 applies to me? I *really* think you're coming at this with a fairly large prejudice against "faith" in any form. Words can have different meanings in different contexts, and I (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Yup. I figured it was a definition thing after the first couple of messages back and forth. I don't like the dictionary you're using. :) I have never understood faith as "complete confidence or trust", but rather "confidence or trust". With (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
