From: posting-system@google.com Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 7:49 PM To: brian@holtz.org Subject: Re: On Perception of Reality From: brian@holtz.org (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: On Perception of Reality References: <20011127232822.22639.00002141@mb-mj.aol.com> <29c16047.0112122206.566c667e@posting.google.com> <29c16047.0201071515.1eba77e5@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.236.1.8 Message-ID: <29c16047.0201171948.1750f59c@posting.google.com> "Gurnemanz" wrote > I may have faith in some tenet or other of the church > since I may be convinced by some rational argument of > natural theology that it is true. Under what definition of "faith"? Please be precise. Faith is not simply an absence of doubt, because tautologies are beyond doubt and yet are recognized not revealed. Faith is not simply any confident reliance on authority, because an authority can be relied upon even confidently without being held exempt from all doubt. Faith is not simply any provisional hypothesis believed without complete evidence, because a proposition can be provisionally believed without being held exempt from all doubt. Faith is belief based on revelation and exempt from doubt. > > I would define > > religion as any system of belief based on faith or mysticism, > > or involving worship of or reverence for a deity. > > Your definition would exclude polytheism, No, my use of the indefinite article "a" in "a deity" makes it mean more like "some deity" than "precisely one deity". I'll henceforth use "some" so you don't get confused. > certain forms of Buddhism, What form of Buddhism involves no mystical beliefs? The simple belief that e.g. Buddha's ethics are admirable does not constitute a religion, any more than does the belief that *my* ethics are admirable. > and many other things. Yes -- things that are not religion. :-) > > I didn't say that people who have faith never have any doubts. > > What I said is that people who have faith have an authority > > (text, deity, etc.) whose statements are exempt from doubt. > > > By no means- many theologians question the veracity > of certain religious doctrines and texts: a well-known example > (in the uk at least) would be the former Bishop of Durham's > questioning of the literalness of the Resurrection. Again: I didn't say that people who have faith never have any doubts. Are you claiming that this Bishop has no authority (text, deity, mystical revelation, etc.) whose statements he exempt from doubt? For example, does this Bishop hold subject to doubt the statement of John 3:16 that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"? (I already asked if you can name any Christian who holds this statement subject to doubt, and I note that you gave no answer.) An even more interesting question is: would you agree that it is inadvisable to hold any belief based on revelation and exempt from doubt? And: do you hold any such beliefs? (I've asked you this before, again with no response.) -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net