@Iznogoodh
Weet je waarom dat is? Ingekort:
Debates about the nature and value of faith occupy a great deal of time in conversations between Christians and atheists How can christians insist on the importance of "faith" unless they can reliably distinguish between faith and non-faith?
One problem I keep seeing is how religious believers try to apply the label "faith" where it clearly doesn't belong.
A belief that is founded upon a compelling theory and that is consistently supported by plenty of empirical evidence is not properly described as "faith."
Faith means: Belief in something for
no rational reason and without sufficient supporting empirical evidence, even evidence against it.
Modern sciences, whether the natural sciences or social sciences, rely upon facts and eschew faith as a matter of principle. It doesn't always work that way in reality, especially in the social sciences,
Despite imperfections, though, the principle remains the same: facts, reason, and reality are the basis arriving at conclusions and making decisions. Faith isn't supposed to enter into it at all.
Why, then, is there such are huge industry of Christian apologists trying to prove that their beliefs are supported by reason and evidence? This is definitely the case for those who try to prove that the gospel records are historically accurate and that Jesus was definitely the Son of God.
There are large numbers of political, social, and personal beliefs that people hold with what can only be described as "faith." People may think that facts and reason are on their side, at least in some cases, but in reality "faith" is the only really significant factor. This is something that both atheists and theists can fall victim to.
In the case of religion, though, we get the conflict described above.
People say that they have "faith" in the tenets of their religions, but at the same time they also think that their religious beliefs are amply supported by reason, logic, and evidence. Today we live in an era where science and reason have acquired tremendous importance and authority — and for good reason, tool As a consequence, people are accustomed to measuring all of their ideas against those standards — even religion.
Unfortunately for them, traditional religion doesn't really measure up to the standards of science, reason, and logic. Traditional religion wasn't developed in a context where modern science set the standards, though, so that's hardly a surprise. As a result, people have abandoned the "real" faith that is supposed to exist in the absence of evidence or rationality. Indeed, it seems unlikely that many believers today will even try to reclaim such a faith, much less value it as anything more than a distant ideal.
http://atheism.about.com/od/sciencereli ... -Faith.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Wat Karssenberg dus doet is een
non-faith verdedigen.
Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. Zulks is om moverende reden evident!
Einstein/Mick
Been there, seen it, done that!
Heel herkenbaar.
Ben er na al deze studie nog niet uit of ik voor het christendom, islam, hindoeisme, Jaïnisme, rastafari of VSM-geloof moet gaan kiezen. Welke heeft de beste papieren?