Main | Fables of the Deconstruction »




Even granting that your senses do not product accurate percepts of reality, arguendo, it's still not an exercise of faith. We're simply going with the best we have and using reason to make our way.

Faith is an explicit subordination of reason. It's an explicit disregard or even rejection of what are considered "facts of reality," arrived at via reason applied to our senses.

Mr Bob

Great Post and Blog, found you today through B.E.

I disagree with Doug's assumption that Faith is disregard or even rejection of what are considered "facts of reality,"
Lets say for arguments sake that I believe Jesus Christ is a divine being, a great teacher or even the son of God.
1. We know he actually existed. There is historical (including eyewitness) and archological proof he existed. However, one must take on faith that the "evidence" is good. Some choose not to.
2. Many of those eyewitnesses said he did miracles. You can choose to not believe that, or take "on faith" that the eyewitnesses are telling the truth and some interesting things did happen. There is no rejection of reality, only that "faith is added."
As to the existence of God, there is not enough space here, there are a good number (though the minority to be sure) of scientists from every discipline who add faith to what they see in nature and believe in a creator or designer. They do not disregard known facts. I know several men of higher scientific learning that believe there is a designer. Those who say such things about faith really have no understanding about how scholars, religionists of reason and believing scientists actually reason and add that faith to what they see in science.
I personally believe not only because of some very unexplainable Anecdotal evidence, but also because of archological, scientific and historical facts known to be true (in those disciplines.)

Mr Bob

I meant to address Rich, not Doug. Sorry about that.

Doug Wolf


Perhaps our disagreement comes from our using different definitions of "faith".

The definition I'm using is very simple. Things taken on "faith" are those things I believe to be true even though I cannot test for them or otherwise demonstrate via rational means. Note that anything taken on faith is not allowed to contradict anything I know through rational means.

I believe when you use the word "faith" you are using it in the religious sense of accepting as fact that which rational thought would otherwise reject as either logical contradiction (i.e., "The Invisible Pink Unicorn must be god because it is both invisible and pink!") or a contradiction of demonstrable fact. (i.e., "The earth is 6000 years old because the Bible tells me so!") That's not faith... that's an inability to think in straight lines.

-- DW

The comments to this entry are closed.