Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 4, 2011 21:18:43 GMT -5
Because this is a bit preachy.
You know all the fundies that claim that "They have faith" as their argument for belief in God, that essentially use the "God did it" argument, and claim that "God works in mysterious ways", as well as say that anyone who sees inconsistencies is "being fooled by Satan"?
Let me make a bold claim. They have no faith whatsoever.
Their faith is so little that, in order to cling to their religion, they have to deny EVERYTHING that opposes it, and EVERYTHING that doesn't make sense. Their faith literally cannot be tested because it isn't there.
Instead, they are following a delusion. A delusion which they cling to as if it was the only hope they had for surviving.
And these, IMO, are the fundies.
The ones that have faith in their god are the ones that allow logic to enter the equation. The ones who trust their god so much that they will enter unfamiliar territory, knowing everything will work out.
(The fact that it doesn't is a point in and of itself)
Maybe they'll believe anyways. Maybe they'll stop believing. Maybe they never believed that a silly book could contain the majesty of God anyways.
While faith is often used to refer to "blind belief", I much prefer its usage in the sense of "trust". As in, "I have faith in you."
Whereas, ironically, the fundies while trying to use the "I have faith in you" meaning, end up distorting it into a blind trust that isn't even trust, it's denial.
Did that make sense?
If you see me typing in "quotes", that's because I'm remembering what it was like to be a fundie and then typing as if I was one :3 "Please. Understand that I only want to share God's love with you. I mean you no harm, really. You need to stop sinning."
Part of it is that they believe scientists are "doing it wrong" whenever science disagrees with their religion, or that scientists are somehow actively conspiring against them. It's still batshit crazy, but I don't think it's a lack of faith in the sense that they're afraid they're actually wrong. Not all of them, anyways.
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 5, 2011 19:26:17 GMT -5
I'm also not so sure that "trust" can apply to the state of nature. Something either exists or it doesn't exist. I don't "trust" that gravity exists, it's acting on me right now. I also don't "trust" that it'll keep going, I know how it works, so I know it won't just stop. As no one has ever demonstrated any kind of "faith," which one would think would be a pretty significant force, I'm forced to conclude that all faiths do not objectively exist, & if there is a divine, its nature has not been discovered yet.
In summary, the proposed "second definition," while not as douchey, is no more rational.