by cofty 144 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Stephen J Gould suggested the idea he called "non-overlapping magisteria" in his book "Rock of Ages".
It sounds like a good idea in principle but seems to be impossible in practice.
Every time somebody claims Jesus rose from the dead they are making a scientific statement which deserves to be scrutinised like any other claim.
Karen Armstrong also advocates a separation of faith from logic, and blames the mixing of the two for much of the problems with fundamentalism. It leads to untenable, ridiculous positions.
Is loyalty "scientific"?
Is loyalty "scientific"?
The mechanism for loyalty is known precisely at the level of the genes.
Unlike most mammals including montaine voles, prairie voles are monogamous because they respond more to oxytocin and vasopressin.
Scientists can tamper with their DNA which affects the expression of genes and gene promoters which will alter their social behaviour.
So is faith. My point is that people demonstrate loyalty past the point of logic. It's a virtue, but it might be logically argued to fail to be in the person's best interest at times.
Karen Armstrong also advocates a separation of faith from logic, and blames the mixing of the two for much of the problems with fundamentalism. It leads to untenable, ridiculous positions.
Thanks jgnat. That is thought provoking. When I get through my current reading backlog, I may read some of her books.
My point is that people demonstrate loyalty past the point of logic.
I agree. In fact I made this point earlier...
Faith in the sense of trust in another person or object, based on experience is a virtue. It is the opposite of cynicism that cripples relationships. Expecting the best of others and overlooking their faults is a good thing.
Loyalty to a real person is a good thing until it begins to cause us harm.
When somebody asks us to assent to a set of facts despite evidence to the contrary, and then to tell us that our ability to believe impossible things is an admirable thing, we are being misled.
My point is that even virtues can be harmful if misused. That doesn't invalidate the virtue. It means it has it's place.
I agree in principle jgnat but I would be intersted to know how that translates into religious faith in practice.
A "faith" that is compatible with reality would not have a lot of content.
I see Mr Home is already diving for cover with the last resort of the god-apologist
Can you show me were my statements where inconsistent with past statements? If you could prove the existance of God, it would not be called "faith."
My position is consistent. The scientific body of knowledge is a small island in a vast sea of the unknown. I subscribe to a traditional set of beliefs about what lies in the unknown, because it has proven to work in my life. Having said that, I also recognize that it is good to periodically question your beliefs.
To re-iterate my answer to the original OP. No, I do not believe that unquestioning faith is a virtue. Quite the opposite, I believe that it can be dangerous and make one vulnerable to manipulative people.
