The Philosophy Forums
Tips? admin [at] philosophy-forums.com

The philosophy forums is a small community involved in discussing issues of philosophical significance. If you wish to participate in the discussion, you can register (it only takes about a minute) and start posting your ideas.


 
Thread Tools Display Modes
April 20th, 10:53 PM   #1
Spud Sabre
A Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 426
Default Words of Wisdom

I think it would be a neat idea to have a QFT database.
__________________
Don't take what I say seriously.
 
April 21st, 10:02 AM   #2
Lomax
Philosopher-King
 
Lomax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Nuneaton, UK
Posts: 1,707
Default

Hello SpudSabre,

Good idea. I'll start with my favourite theological quotations:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hfuhruhurr
That said, there are, of course, the numerous evils done because of religious belief. Most often, physical harm, and discrimination. Does the good outweigh the bad? Not in my book. No one should have to suffer because of the needs of belief of someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin
But now let me play the devil's advocate:
1. We are not omniscient.
2. We want (believe in, desire) what is the best for us (including not suffering), let us call this as the state S.
3. God is merciful and wants the best for us and also, he is omniscient.
4. Given 3, he knows the means to achieve S.
5. To have S implies that god does what actually does (i.e., he is justified to do what actually does in order to achieve S).
C. God is justified to do whatever he does.
And I believe that such reasoning is the one behind the lemma "god's way is mysterious". However, premise 1 maybe true, but we are not idiots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by makeshiftwings
I'm going to return to the original premise of this thread, because after thinking about this some more, I think a lot of this comes down to linguistics. Words like "faith" or "evidence" have certain connotations and meanings that make them awkward to use out of their normal context. "Faith" tends to have heavy religious connotations, and even without religion, it tends to mean belief in something that lacks "evidence". "Evidence" has heavy empirical connotations, and in common usage people usually consider experience of a material event "evidence". In normal usage:

If a person is eating a sandwich, they would not say that it requires "faith" to believe that they are eating a sandwich, even though there is no way to know for sure that the world is not an illusion, etc. Similarly, a person would generally take the sandwich as "evidence" that the sandwich exists.

Trying to flip the definitions around does not work for me, because I don't think materialism and spirituality are linguistically symmetrical. It doesn't sound right to say that a belief in the common definition of "evidence" requires faith, since the definition of faith is to believe in something that lacks evidence. If evidence itself is not evident, then the words "faith" and "evidence" lose their meaning.
Lomax
__________________
"War does not determine who is right, only who is left" - Bertrand Russell
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.