LCD2YOU wrote:JAK wrote:LCD2YOU wrote:Let me tiptoe through the landmines figuring out Celestial vs Terrestial vs Telestial again.
The answer is faith can't broaden reason.
The very idea behind faith, ie believing in something when there is no reason to, is the antithesis of reason.
Reason denotes affirmable, tactile and for lack of a better word, "solid" evidence. Faith relies on none of that. Faith is a belief when there is no reason to feel the way you do other than the emotional "feelings" one has.
LCD2YOU,
While I agree with your answer in the context of people who write on this board, a definition of “faith” might be required.
One might well argue that the Wright brothers had
faith that their flying machines would or could work, it required evidence.
Many skeptics at that time thought these guys were crazy. Some religious folks said:
If God intended man to fly, God would have given man wings.So the religious folks who said that had
no faith in the Wright brothers.
Therefore, one could argue that the
kind of faith which the Wright brothers had spurred on their reason.
If we can just make this and that work, we can fly this thing. (A paraphrase to be sure)
Again, I agree with your analysis (and it comports with my comment earlier) in the context of a religious driven bb such as this.
I am only sorry I was unable to see the post which apparently is now removed that was yours.
JAK
Gag, you're right.
I guess if one has "faith" that is testable in a known and real process, while many call it "faith", it is not the blind, unknowable
faith that is a belief in something that requires an miraculous fiat to come about.
Just like the common use of the word "theory" vs the scientific use of the same word. To too many, "theory" means "guess". In scientific terminology, "theory" means "testable and verifiable proposal that explains a great deal and has built in mechanisms that make it falsifiable".
Good catch.
Getting back to the Wright brothers, they "had faith". But their version of faith wasn't blind. They has good reason to believe in their own intellect, the ability to discern what was needed to fly and in the machines they designed to do just that." Their "faith" was an extension of study, logic and deductive reasoning.
Compare that to the blind "faith" that some have as they wait for "rapture" and for themselves to be taken bodily, flying into the sky, when Jesus comes to get them.
Something like that JAK?
Absolutely correct analysis, LCD2YOU!
Not to duplicate you, but it’s distressing to hear people use the word “theory” as if it were false each time they use that word.
Creationists do it as they intend to be pejorative in reference to evolution.
They generally have no awareness that an hypothesis preceded a theory in math/science. And, like a theory, the hypothesis was also subjected to testing, peer review, and transparent observation of evidence.
I also echo your observation that “faith” as it is exercised in science or scientific research is present with eyes wide open that some favorable result may emerge from testing for all to see and to
re-test.
The Wright brothers
wanted to get it right. They did not
declare it was right absent extensive and what some would have called obsessive
testing. And they made mistakes. Things went wrong. What was that first
Kitty Hawk flight on December 17, 1903? --a mere
12 seconds.
And clearly, their confidence was not
blind. They had accumulated a large amount of evidence for all to see.
Now tell me, just how is “rapture” anything other than emotion. It may be strong emotion, but it appears to be emotion, a feeling.
------
You make excellent contribution to discussion!
------
Perhaps you could PM me the post you made which was deleted or moved. I never saw it and wonder how it was so offensive as to be removed.
JAK