Okay, I lied - I forgot to make a point in that last paragraph.
Quote:
Originally posted by Alchemy
I think it's important to ascribe a scale to faith - from rational assumptions based on repeated observation all the way to the blind faith of doomsday cults. There is a matter of how much evidence one needs and how credible that evidence is, as well as how likely or unlikely the truth ascribed to that evidence is, for a person to draw an opinion on the truth or untruth of an event. I take it on faith when someone tells me he was late to an appointment because he had a flat tire simply because the truth or falsity of the event has little bearing on me, for example.
|
Thus, my concern with religion and the religious only comes up with certain types of Christians, such as those following Tertullian (and oftentimes misunderstanding him) - "It is true because it is impossible," or those quite vehemently arguing I Corinthians 1:21 or others - God makes "foolish the wisdom of the world." Though I respect the Bible, as I do all great works, it seems a cop-out to me to use these things as tools of argument - I'd go so far to call it absurd, for one cannot persuade without logic - shysters and snake-oil dealers excepted - , and using an argument that arguments are not arguments is an internally inconsistant means of debate.
Further, wiring ones' mind to accept arguments on blind faith seems to me like the opening of port 21 in the mind - even on the hypothesis that everything regarding ones' faith is true, to use blind faith as a mechanism makes one vunderable to exploit.
Okay. Done now. Serious.
Alchemy