Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage0070
The problem is that there is no way to determine a situation where faith *should* be applied, ostensibly because there isn't one.
|
I disagree.
Quote:
Faith-based people and proof-based people start out thinking in similar methods. They observe the present (lets say we are looking at a bird), and both attempt to determine the reason for its existance.
A faith-based person concludes that God made it,
|
No, I say that bird evolved from a dinosaur, because that's the way God set the system up.
Quote:
|
while a proof-based person attempts to deduce a chain of events which would bring about such an end result. The proof-based person requires that this chain of events have clear causation between them, while the faith-based person requires no evidence.
|
No, I require evidence that the bird evolved from the dinosaur, and not a platypus, but that doesn't affect my faith.
Quote:
|
At this point the problem with the faith-based approach becomes painfully clear. If proof is not required to conclude God is responsible for the bird, it is equally valid to conclude that the bird was brought into being by a cinder block. A faith-based approach is in essence the decision that answers do not matter, and fantasy is as equally valid as reality.
|
The only thing that is "painfully clear", is you are trying to pigeon hole billions of people into the constricts that you've formed in your head, on how anyone with faith should think.
Quote:
|
What astonishes me the most is that society functions as well as it does with large swaths of the population choosing to be selectively bat-shit crazy.
|
Then by your own reasoning, maybe it's you that's "bat-shit crazy, for assuming you know what that large swath of the population thinks.