Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

HIggs-Boson scientist attacks Dawkins for fundamentalism about religion.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 683 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 15:43:44 GMT
See the Oxford English Dictionary which is truly a reflection of popular usage, not just compiled by a few editors-- that is why it is authoritative including in British courts.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 15:44:34 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 26 Jan 2013 15:55:49 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 16:36:36 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
T. Woodman,

You wrote, "of course faith depends on evidence". You then denied the accuracy of the definition in Collins and followed with "see the Oxford English Dictionary which is truly a reflection of popular usage".

So I did.

faith, n.

I. Belief, trust, confidence.

I.1.a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, †of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.
I.1.b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.

I.2. Phrases. to give faith: to yield belief to. to pin one's faith to or upon: to believe implicitly.

I.3. Theol. in various specific applications.
I.3.a. Belief in the truths of religion; belief in the authenticity of divine revelation (whether viewed as contained in Holy Scripture or in the teaching of the Church), and acceptance of the revealed doctrines.
I.3.b. That kind of faith (distinctively called saving faith or justifying faith) by which, in the teaching of the N.T., a sinner is justified in the sight of God. This is very variously defined by theologians (see quots.), but there is general agreement in regarding it as a conviction practically operative on the character and will, and thus opposed to the mere intellectual assent to religious truth (sometimes called speculative faith).
I.3.c. The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof. By Christian writers often identified with the preceding; but not exclusively confined to Christian use. Often viewed as the exercise of a special faculty in the soul of man, or as the result of supernatural illumination.

I.4 That which is or should be believed.
I.4.a. A system of religious belief, e.g. the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., faith. Also, confession, rule of faith, for which see those words.
I.4.b. the faith: the true religion; usually = the Christian faith. Also, without article in certain phrases, as contrary to faith, etc. of faith: part and parcel of the faith.
I.4.c. What is believed, or required to be believed, on a particular subject. †Also pl. points of faith, tenets.

†I.5. act of (the) faith: = auto da fé. Obs.

II. Inducement to belief or trust.

†II.6. Power to produce belief, credit, convincing authority. Obs.

†II.7. Attestation, confirmation, assurance. Obs.

†II.8
II.8.a. Assurance given, formal declaration, pledge, promise. In phrases, to do faith, make faith (= L. fidem facere): to affirm, promise, give surety. to give (one's) faith (= L. fidem dare): to give assurance, pledge one's word. on his faith: on parole. Obs.
II.8.b. on the faith of: in reliance on the security of.

III. The obligation imposed by a trust.

III.9.a. The duty of fulfilling one's trust; allegiance owed to a superior, fealty; the obligation of a promise or engagement.
III.9.b. In many phrases, in which the sense approaches that of 8: to engage, pledge, plight (one's) faith; †to swear, perjure one's faith; to keep (†hold), break, violate (one's) faith; so breach of faith.

III.10. The quality of fulfilling one's trust; faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty. †to bear faith: to be loyal to.

III.11. good faith, bad faith: = L. bona, mala fides, in which the primary notion seems to have been the objective aspect of confidence well or ill bestowed. The Eng. uses closely follow those of L.
III.11.a. good faith: fidelity, loyalty (= sense 10); esp. honesty of intention in entering into engagements, sincerity in professions, bona fides.
III.11.b. bad faith: faithlessness, treachery; intent to deceive. Punic (rarely Carthaginian) faith (= L. fides Punica): faithlessness.

III.12. In asseverative phrases.
III.12.a. in (good) faith: in truth, really, `sooth to say'.
III.12.b. in faith, i' faith, faith, good faith: used interjectionally.
III.12.c. In quasi-oaths. by or on my, thy, etc., faith, by the faith of (my body, love, etc.). my faith (= Fr. ma foi!).

¶III.13. An alleged designation for a company of merchants.

IV.14. Comb. Chiefly objective, as faith-breach, faith-breaker, faith-philosophy, faith-state, faith-stretcher, faith-value; faith-definition, faith-reformation, faith-tradition; faith-breaking, faith-keeping n. and adj.; faith-confirming, faith-infringing, faith-shaking, faith-sown, faith-starved, faith-straining, †faith-workful adjs.; faith-wise adv.; faith-cure, a cure wrought by means of `the prayer of faith' (Jas. v. 15); whence faith-curer, -curist, one who believes in or practises faith-cure; faith-fire, fig. the flame of faith; faith-healer = faith-curer; faith-healing, healing by faith-cure; faith-ladder (see quot. a 1910); faith-mark, one of the leading tenets of religion; faith-press, the Inquisition.

Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition. [Citations and etymology removed.]

There is no mention of evidence ("an appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace"). The nearest definition to support your use is I.1.b., but even there it begins "belief" implying a decision to accept the testimony or authority rather than having independent verifiable support.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 16:49:59 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 17:23:06 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
You said "of course faith depends on evidence". What did you mean by that? I read it as a statement that faith must be supported by evidence and cannot exist without it. You were given a definition that directly challenged that assertion, and simply repudiated it. You have failed to cite any definition supporting your view. Your mention of the OED was a red herring since there is nothing in the entry to preclude faith without evidence.

Religious faith is covered directly by I.1.a and I.3 rather than I.1.b. Each is, however, a subdivision of I. Testimony given in court is usually subject to cross-examination or is supported by physical evidence.

If you had intended to say that faith can be supported by some evidence or by none, no one would have quibbled. By stating unequivocally that faith is based on evidence it is incumbent upon you to show that this is a commonly understood definition.

Posted on 26 Jan 2013 20:52:50 GMT
Faith depends on the rejection of evidence in favour of superstition.

Try again Woodman.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 21:43:51 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Jan 2013 21:44:45 GMT
Hi Norm, in one of his replies to me, he wrote.

Permalink: http://tinyurl.com/aa4ukxy

"Bit of a swerve here: I did not say that part of the dictionary definition of faith was that it required evidence only that it was not part of the definition that it did not require it. Since faith is a theological concept you might want to go the the theologians and the various books entitled Faith and the Evidence, the Evidence for Faith etc."

The first sentence is an absolute peach.

The second is even better, he suggests I read one of the books "entitled Faith and the Evidence, the Evidence for Faith etc." as a source for a definition of faith.

Guess who wrote this?

Faith and the Evidence: The Answer to Dawkins

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 21:51:25 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Brilliant!

I wonder how many of the 16 pages are repeated.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 21:58:04 GMT
"since when did pure assertion become evidence and argument."

A question you might well ask yourself, with regard to your definition of faith as depending on evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 22:25:30 GMT
AJ Murray says:
Tom's got book? Well...well...well... might have to take a look at that(!)

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 22:31:12 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Jan 2013 22:31:41 GMT
He done got his own website, too.

If you click on his name, there's a link, or you can cut 'n' paste;

http://www.neitherdawkinsnorfundamentalism.com/

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 23:03:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Jan 2013 23:03:30 GMT
AJ Murray says:
He seems obsessed with Dawkins. I also took note of this post:

-"We read of the great achievements of the physicists at Cerne and of the widely-held theory that there is an invisible field of force that we will never be able to detect directly but can only know through its influence. It is difficult not to think that scientists such as Richard Dawkins who take a reductionist view of theism and describe belief in God as belief in the tooth fairy have double standards. For God is an invisible spiritual field of force known only by His effects."

How easily the apologist draws comparisons between scientific evidence and the not-so-evident pet deity.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Feb 2013 10:54:44 GMT
Last edited by the author on 1 Feb 2013 12:23:10 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"Any sophisticated idea of God includes the belief that God is everywhere-- "
I'm not sure that's enough to be 'sophisticated', there has to be some contrary idea included to add complication and therefore the sophistry such as being here and over there while not being detectable here (shift the claim accordingly and call it sophisticated instead of contradictory).

"... else there are realms that he does not have dominion over, and is not God."
Well a sophisticated view of Hell that is advanced now in some theological quarters is that it's not a place of fire and sulphur but detachment/exclusion from God. How does that hold up with the above?

"Dawkins does not know that God does not come in from outside but is already here."
He does to a point, what you have done is focus on the way he introduced the claims of miracles being clumsy. I think that is a valid point if not altogether how every theologian or believer would like it characterised. What we really have to focus on is the criticism once he gets there because that is meat of the issue; are miracle claims valid?

"I am not discussing the validity of the concepts with you at this point, but Dawkins' ignorance and lack of qualifications on the subject of religion."
What you've done is critique what Dawkins deals with and suggest it is either not believed in or unworthy of dealing with if believed in. Now this is a limited criticism that doesn't establish Dawkins ignorance of theology, only your dissatisfaction with want can be held under the umbrella of belief. I think that approach does lead into a consideration of the validity of what is claiming to supersede Dawkins focus points - if the ideas that you wish Dawkins had focused on are just as invalid (and if I can expose them we could assume Dawkins could) as the ones he did deal with then it's not a great advancement of theology.

Also a lack of qualifications is not bar to discussing or considering theology. There is no test to join a church, if qualifications really were the standard you ask for before you credit a comment or opinion on theology then you have just done away with large swathes of believers and possibly your own.

"Dualism is a philosophical word."
No, it's a word sometimes used in philosophy.

"It does not mean two ideas existing together."
Noting that this is even more basic than my characterisation of it, it's still a sound distillation. That's the basic premise of it. Two opposing concepts. Even if you take it down to body and soul that is dualism and such an idea is in the Bible and throughout theology which is in contrast to your fist claim: "[Dawkins] assumes religion is dualistic, whether the Bible is completely the opposite (as all biblical scholars know)," I think Dawkins is right to assumes religion is dualistic when so much of it is.

"You have shown before a tendency to stretch words beyond their usage."
Even if I have you'd still have to show that this is another of those times not borrow from before.

"Dawkins presents a cruel and crude version of the atonement and then states that that is what Christians believe."
It's hard not to see vicarious redemption brought about by crucifixion as a much less than cruel and crude. Like it or not it is believed in and it is those believers that accept it and promote it your argument is, not those that can show it up. Only if Dawkins expressly claims that *all* Christians believe the same thing and can not muster nicer rhetoric to mask the cruel nature of the act that is a significant focus of their belief do you have a useful complaint but I don't think he states how far the beliefs he criticises goes, he doesn't need to as it's irrelevant.

"Either he is deliberately lying (which I don't think the case) or he is so badly mistaken as to disqualify him."
As I said this is just an exercise in dismissal. You are trying to find/contrive a complaint to have all Dawkins arguments thrown out even if they are valid for the beliefs they do address.

"Is he an expert on religion or not"
He holds no formal qualifications in the area of religion or theology but as a scientist he is well versed in logic, critical thinking, epistemology, biology, evidence and it's application to epistemology. If these things are impotent and irrelevant to thinking about God you may have a case, if you wish to make appeals to reason then you are going to have to credit him and take him on.

"If not why is writing long tomes on the subject."
Well I don't think theology, wish as it might, can make claims that stand alone or are so complex you need formal training in theology to understand.

"I doubt that Tomand Paul believe a penal substition theory of the atonement."
Being Catholic I don't think they would but that would only prove that they are not protestant not that it isn't a believe held. We could ask them though and see how close they get.

Posted on 2 Feb 2013 01:02:59 GMT
James Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 10:31:40 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 2 Feb 2013 10:32:05 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 15:00:53 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 15:01:22 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 15:03:24 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 15:04:37 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 15:17:09 GMT
"I don't deny the popular usages of the word 'faith'."

http://tinyurl.com/b4w7or2

"Where do you get your definition of 'faith' from -- where is it so defined? Of course faith depends on evidence. This is just a mantra you guys repeat endlessly."

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 15:18:17 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Feb 2013 15:18:35 GMT
Point to the part of my post, that misrepresents you.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 15:19:07 GMT
A claim you have asserted.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 15:20:42 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 15:27:57 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  40
Total posts:  683
Initial post:  29 Dec 2012
Latest post:  28 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions