|
|
|
|
|
|
by SauciestGNU
3156 days ago
|
|
|
No, belief and reason are orthogonal. But you're playing an equivocation game, redefining the words I used to suit your purpose. As I understand it, the "faith" Christians refer to is a deeply held belief in religious principles regardless of the presence or absence of empirical evidence to support that belief. Contrast that with a "rationalist" it skeptic's practice of rejecting beliefs not supported by evidence, and only tentatively adopting beliefs as true until they are disproven. I'm am really trying not to moralize religious belief. That is difficult for me to do and perhaps explains gaps in my perception here. My point was a religious person will continue to hold religious beliefs despite observable phenomena that directly contradict scripture and dogma. |
|
|
The Greek root word for both "faith" and "belief" in the Bible is "pistis".
"In Greek mythology, Pistis was the personification of good faith, trust and reliability"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistis
There's no reason one couldn't be skeptical, find satisfying answers to questions, then have a lot of faith (trust) in something.
> My point was a religious person will continue to hold religious beliefs despite observable phenomena that directly contradict scripture and dogma.
I'm not sure what scientific evidence would disprove that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God exists. Any real objection to a god's existence would have to be predicated on some metaphysical assumptions (like, God wouldn't design evolution or create fossil records). What looks like misplaced trust might actually be a disagreement or misunderstanding about metaphysical axioms.