> Yes, up to a point.
> But Eduardo, don't forget that Jesus went on to say,
> "Because you have seen, you have believed. Blessed are
> they who have not seen, yet have believed. He didn't
> commend Thomas for taking the position he did.
>
> Compare Hebrews 11:1-3:
> Now faith is being sure of what we hope for,
Isn't that just "wishful thinking"?
> and CERTAIN OF WHAT WE DO NOT SEE.
There are a large number of claims concerning phenomena that
we do not see and cannot verify. We can't be certain of all
of these claims, since some are mutually contradictory. Is
there a reliable method for choosing the claims of which we
can be certain?
> This is what the ancients were commended for.
I'm not surprised they were commended. Such gullibility
would have made them easy to control.
> By faith, we understand that the universe was formed at
> God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of
> what is visible.
On the contrary, by faith we believe what we're told to
believe while understanding very little of the processes
involved. If you disagree, then can you please share with me
your understanding of HOW "the universe was formed at God's
command" with references to the evidence that supports your
understanding?
> It will always be possible to offer alternative
> explanations; for if we could "prove" God, in a scientific
> sense, then "believing" in him would cease to be an act of
> faith, and "without faith, it is impossible to please
> God..."
That's one view. An alternative view is that, without faith,
it is impossible to please the leaders and other members of
your religion, who have a vested interest in the strength
and continuity of your belief. I argue that religious faith
is no more than institutionalised gullibility, encouraged to
prevent the faithful from enquiring too deeply into claims
that would have a great deal of difficulty standing up to
sceptical scrutiny.
I would argue that humanity has passed the point where we
need believe anything that cannot stand up to sceptical
scrutiny.
You may disagree with this position but, if you do, I would
like a careful explanation of the difference between faith
and gullibility, particularly as it applies to belief in the
occurrence of specific scientifically improbable/impossible
phenomena claimed by texts and people of various religious
persuasions.
Some examples: Why would I be described as having faith if I
believed that Jesus were alive today, but be described as
gullible if I believed that Elvis Presley were alive today?
Why would I be described as having faith if I believed in
the power of prayer, but be described as gullible if I
believed in the power of crystals?
Is the difference between faith and gullibility hinge on no
more than whether we share the same belief system?
--RegardsDerek
-----------------------------------------------------| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au || Melba ACT | derek.mclarnen@telstra.com.au || Australia | | -----------------------------------------------------