Very well said.

- Warren

 

now I see why you don't mix government and religion(sp) blah... good thread... makes you think

 

Hmm,

I've really been enjoying reading all of this.

Warren, the way I read magician's take on your last statement is that whereas you state that your faith can be disproven, you mean that the results of your faith can be disproven. These results being theories, axia (axioms?, oh hell postulates!), statements such as 1+1=2, etc.

However, the reality is that your "faith" is that whatever the problem/situation/hypothesis, there is indeed a way to logically think it through, and then test that thought in order to prove or disprove it.

Now, this last bit has nothing to do with all of the previous discussion. I read a couple of books recently that I think those who've made it to page 5 here might find interesting. They are "The Hiram Key" and "The Second Messiah" by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas.

Clark

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]

How is my faith better than yours?

 

In that case I'd ask exactly what you mean when you say that your faith can be disproved. And how mine (my faith in God, that is) cannot be disproved.

No treatise here, just a few sentences explaining how they're different.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]I think it's the one I meant to make.

 

In a visceral sense, I mean that the object of my faith (scientific understanding) may be disproved.

In a more humanistic and personal sense, I mean that my faith itself is tenuous -- in disproving my faith's object, you have disproved my faith itself.

Religious faith is different -- its object may not be disproved.

- Warren

 

They're in there -- they're the ones without answers. In addition, I don't consider an appeal to the Dead Sea Scrolls to be much of answer.

In other cases, the "explanations" require such contortions of language and reasonability as to call themselves into question. Where you choose to draw your line in the sand, is, of course, a personal decision.

- Warren

 

Interesting; that's the point I was trying to make above.

I'm not sure about this one; this is what I was saying requires some thought.

No argument here.

So with what are we left?

The object of your faith can (possibly) be disproven; the object of religious faith cannot.

You say that your faith itself can be disproven by disproving its object (we may disagree on that point)--whether it can be disproven any other way hasn't been discussed. Religious faith cannot be disproven by disproving its object--whether it can be disproven any other way hasn't been discussed.

It sounds like we're left with more questions than answers--at the very least, more territory yes unexplored--and the memory of a lively discourse.

Not bad for a Friday.



(And, of course, the occasional spelling/typographical error!)

 

Depending, ever so slightly, on one's proximity to sand.

(Sorry, I get goofy on Friday afternoons!)