Posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2002, at 22:21:40
In reply to pure faith v. damn-the-evidence faith + Iso » Dr. Bob, posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 13:28:10
> > Wouldn't eyes-open, damn-the-evidence faith be the most "pure"?
> I think you're talking about something completely different here. There's the leap of faith, that Kierkegard describes, which is the one that Abraham took, but that's not what you're talking about, as there was really no evidence to the contrary.
Yes, I suppose we have 3 subtypes so far: (1) eyes-closed faith, (2) faith with no evidence either way, or with conflicting evidence, and (3) faith with evidence to the contrary. :-)
> Regarding "damn-the-evidence" faith, think of this. Are those who believe the emperor is not naked (which he clearly is) but is instead wearing clothing made of a special cloth exhibiting pure faith? Or are they misguided?
"Pure" faith that others consider misguided?
> as far as I'm concerned, no one can prove there is NO god. And that means religion is not "damn the evidence" faith.
So the question is whether there's evidence that there's no god? Beats me, now you're out of my area of expertise. :-)