1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
MrPedanticIf we were to consider our everyday actions, wouldn't we find that most of them were based on acts of faith, of one kind or another?
Possibly. But they tend to be of the "I did this yesterday and it worked so if I do it today I should be all right" type. Or else we make reasoned judgments based on past experience. Asserting that something must exist because we feel it inside is something quite different.
I'm not myself a religious person; but I don't quite see how faith can equal intellectual failure. Faith by definition begins where reasoning and knowledge end: if something is a fact, or logically necessary, there's no need to have "faith" in it.

You might as well castigate Wayne Rooney for failing to hit a six against Northern Ireland last week. (Well, maybe we should.)

We might also say that there's no (rational) basis for a belief that rationality is superior to irrationality. To believe that "intellect" is superior to "faith" is itself an act of faith.

As for the dubiousness of "asserting that something must exist because we feel it inside": does nothing that we "feel inside" exist? What then are we feeling?

MrP
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
MrPedanticI'm not myself a religious person; but I don't quite see how faith can equal intellectual failure. Faith by definition begins where reasoning and knowledge end: if something is a fact, or logically necessary, there's no need to have "faith" in it.

I think you make my point for me. If you want to believe something, but cannot rationalise it, you "make a leap of faith". Who would make a leap of faith to believe in something they do not want to believe in?
MrPedanticWe might also say that there's no (rational) basis for a belief that rationality is superior to irrationality. To believe that "intellect" is superior to "faith" is itself an act of faith.
I agree. It's just that people start off arguing from what they percieve to be an intellectually sound basis, but when you point out the flaws in their thinking, they fall back on the faith thing.
MrPedanticAs for the dubiousness of "asserting that something must exist because we feel it inside": does nothing that we "feel inside" exist? What then are we feeling?
I am just saying that because you feel something that does not prove its truth. You can of course feel something that happens to be true. I may feel that the man next door thinks I am wonderful. He may in fact think the opposite. What I feel has no bearing on the truth.

ForbesWho would make a leap of faith to believe in something they do not want to believe in?

That is an intriguing thought. Also, "Who could..."


You can of course feel something that happens to be true. I may feel that the man next door thinks I am wonderful. He may in fact think the opposite. What I feel has no bearing on the truth.

Yes...my comment was a little loosely worded...

If we've called X "an act of faith", we've already accepted that objective verification isn't possible. But is the term "truth" still viable, in a context of "acts of faith"?

To put it another way, are there no circumstances in which this statement is not objectively verifiable, but true: "It is true because I feel it inside"?

MrP
We can't verify the thought, process, or agent that produced this sentence, but the sentence unquestionably is. We don't know whether the thought, process or agent, let's call it 'G', was correct or true, but the sentence now exists.
It doesn't necessarily follow, to my mind, that if something exists we can have faith that some 'G' created it, but neither does it follow that having faith that a creation was caused by some 'G', whether 'G' is verifyable or not, make faith in 'G' nonsense, or does it?

Oops* ... no commas left :-(
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Try as I might I just can't see all this complex organization coming into existence via blind chance. There is just too much evidence of forethought and planning. The only conclusion I can reach is that a creator was involved.
blind faith, wow what a concept! We must always question everything. Blind faith is what keeped the world flat for hundereds of years/
RadrookTry as I might I just can't see all this complex organization coming into existence via blind chance. There is just too much evidence of forethought and planning. The only conclusion I can reach is that a creator was involved.

You are using the "argument from design". Even if the argument is valid, which I would not accept, it only proves a designer, not a creator.

From the human point of view the world as it exists looks incredibly complicated, but this is because we cannot begin to understand the time scale over which life has evolved. If the whole of evolution is condensed into a year man does appear until just before midnight on 31st December.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
There is just too much evidence of forethought and planning.
And yet, human beings are very strange shapes, when you think about it. We have a suspiciously ad hoc appearance.

I would have preferred to be spherical.

MrP
Show more