Not Prince Hamlet

critical thinking made ez,

I'm intrigued by your post, but could you clarify a bit more? I'm still not seeing the difference between belief and faith as you see it.

Jeff

Kenny

Don't forget those of us who are science majors.

Zar

Nice try, but the wave-particle theory of light is different for many reasons, including:

1) It deals with something the effects of which any sighted person can easily observe, and that we control and deal with every single day in a very matter of fact way -- light. Although on some level, light is a extraordinary phenomenon, it is utterly commonplace, and quite comprehensible to accept that it exists. Another commonplace experience we have is that of both "waves" and "particles." Simple experiences to relate to each other...don't you think?
2) The wave-particle theory stems from specific, direct observation that anyone can see. You can easily repeat the experiments that lead to the theory in a high school classroom using cards with slits in them and light shining through them. You can reproduce various aspects of these phenomenon without recourse to a supernatural deity.
3) I'm not sure if even scientists think it "makes sense," but that it is as attempt at explanation in lieu of a better theory.
4) The implications of this theory are not used to rule men's souls unquestioningly on pain of torture, excommunication or death. There is no religion of light that attempts to snuff the life out of everyone who doubts it, which tries to cram insane, Attorney Generals into public life that like to burst into song about how "Only God and no kings" rule America.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Zar ]</p>

Theli

99Percent...
Why would she say - I "BELIEVE" the baby is a boy?
That doesn't make any sense at all.
However... I "THINK" the baby is a boy, would be somewhat better. Although her guess would be taken out of the blue, and being a mere quess.

Faith doesn't need free will. You might think that a person need free will prior to choosing what to believe/have faith in, but I seriously doubt that. If someone, as a child, tends to church (for example) every week, the chance for him to become a christian is MUCH bigger than for someone that only have been to church a few times.

Free will is relative.

Terrcel...
Trust in who?
Your god?
Their god?
Your idea of god?
Them?
Who do you trust (have faith in)?
How do you know they really speak for god?
How do you know the bible speak for god?

I hope you don't mean the alledged creator-god who's existance you defend. The god who plauges mankind. Gives them hope and joy, only to take it away, and leave them emptier than before. I would NEVER trust that god. Why would he let ME live, while milion others dies?
Why would he let YOU live?


xoc...
"Righteous"? What does that mean?


Albert...
Metaphysical. Is that "philosophical", or does it have something to do with physics?

[quote]Being willing to believe in God is Act One in the drama of participating in God's being.[QUOTE]

So you are saying is that "god" is in some ways dependent on our beliefs in order to exist?

You lost me here again, "steals inward"?
So what you are saying is that, because you assent your relationship with god (being a theist and all) you ARE divine?
Alitle narcissistic, don't you think?

Ok, that's just creapy.

I've heard something like this before. It was in South Park. Ot was this cult that convinced their soon-to-become members that they were misserable in their current way of life and that the only way their full potentials would be reached was if they joined the cult. I think the episode was called "superbest friends".

99Percent

Theli: Why would she say - I "BELIEVE" the baby is a boy?
That doesn't make any sense at all.
However... I "THINK" the baby is a boy, would be somewhat better. Although her guess would be taken out of the blue, and being a mere quess.

Again, I regret I used such a simplistic example. I guess believe also involves an element of wishful thinking, or as Albert would say "Hope".

Faith doesn't need free will. You might think that a person need free will prior to choosing what to believe/have faith in, but I seriously doubt that. If someone, as a child, tends to church (for example) every week, the chance for him to become a christian is MUCH bigger than for someone that only have been to church a few times.

Going to church out of inertia does not really qualify as a "believer". That is why you have to be "born again" in order to be "saved". This is when you purposefully and with conscience choose to believe in God, going againts all your common sense and with the false hope of an afterlife.

theophilus: Correction. Doubt is not a "luxury" for free thinkers. It is unavoidable as knowledge is impossible. You're stuck with skepticism.

False dichotomy. Absolute knowledge is certainly impossible, but we can have quite sufficient practical knowledge to lead healthy and fulfilled lives Lets put reality in perspective!

critical thinking made ez

In what way do you not see the difference?

Theli

Why would a nonbeliever frequently atend to church? The only reason I see is the idea of feeling spiritual, whatever the hell that means...

Not Prince Hamlet

critical thinking made ez:

Well, if I knew that, I'd see the difference. I was just hoping you could explain a little more.

Jeff

Tercel

That is the part that is analogous with the Trinity. I'm not sure if even theologians think it "makes sense," but it is an attempt at an explanation of the available data in lieu of a better theory.

Tercel

So I've noticed. I think the Protestant position is that it's quality not quantity that matters. No doubt you'd agree with this too?

Why? All information about my nose comes from empirical observation. My nose might not really exist - as all empirical observation could be false to fact. Now although I'm not a solipsist, it's certainly something we must take into consideration. Hence I can only believe my nose exists not know it. However it seems customary to use the word "know" in general when belief reaches a certain level. Hence I say "I know my nose exists" even though I cannot know it truly and absolutely. However, in contrast, God is not an empirical observation. While it is true that a great deal of what I know about God comes through empirical observation (generally by reading the scriptures) God can also be known by the testimony of the Spirit in our hearts. Thus the Spirit can reveal to us the truth about God in a way surpassing understanding, without us relying on the not-fully-reliable empirical observation. Hence, not only can I be said to "know" that God exists because my belief has reached a certain level like in the case of my nose, but I can truely know that God exists through the faith he has placed in my heart.

Not true, it is entirely possible to wilfully deny and decieve oneself as to the information one has.

Nope: I'm not going to "admit that". The demons no doubt have direct empirical evidence for God's existence to a degree which very few humans have ever had. (Save possibly the apostles and the prophets)
However I still hold that we can really know God through the testimony of our "hearts". Perhaps this is where you get your "non-intellectual, irrational Protestant tradition" garbage from. Yes, I agree that such knowledge is not directly rationally derived. However the reason must recognise the force of arguments that are superior to it, and thus though this sure knowledge of God was not intellectually derived, it can still be reasonably and rationally recognised and accepted by the intellect for what it is. Hence it would be wrong to say it is "irrational". At worst it is "non-rational", but I would argue that if anything it is "super-rational" or even simply "rational" for it is a rational exercise which reveals to us the boudaries and limits of rationality itself and hence the intellect can recognise and accept rationally those things from beyond itself.

Certainly, belief in God's existence is necessary before faith can take place, however I hold that: it is not faith to believe, faith is not involved in belief, and that belief avails nothing in itself.

Okay, everyone who reads this will probably be utterly confused by it...
Tercel

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>