Comments on: Defining “faith” http://targuman.org/blog/2008/05/31/defining-faith/ Translating my thoughts into words. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:49:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris Brady http://targuman.org/blog/2008/05/31/defining-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-28722 Chris Brady Sat, 31 May 2008 14:37:44 +0000 http://targuman.org/blog/?p=1554#comment-28722 Thank you Looney! I agree that there is no reason for their to be a conflict between faith and science, as it is so often set out. There can be conflicts between <i>what</i> scientists and people of faith believe, but there is nothing inherent in either that excludes the other. Thank you Looney! I agree that there is no reason for their to be a conflict between faith and science, as it is so often set out. There can be conflicts between what scientists and people of faith believe, but there is nothing inherent in either that excludes the other.

]]> By: Looney http://targuman.org/blog/2008/05/31/defining-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-28721 Looney Sat, 31 May 2008 14:30:45 +0000 http://targuman.org/blog/?p=1554#comment-28721 I like that definition, especially in that it de-mystifies faith in a practical way. One thing I have taken to trying to undo one step of the time is the 19th century modernist attempt to decouple faith from science and create an artificial conflict, along with transforming faith firmly into the superstition category. Working in high tech, I sometimes spend days working on equations and then programming them up before finally running a simulation and comparing with experiment. Belief in things that aren't seen (Hebrews 11:1) goes into action. In fact, if someone asserts there is a conflict between faith and science, it is a good bet that they have never used science to solve a problem, or never understood what they did. Then there is the Jimmy Carter version of faith, where he announced that his belief was pro-life, but his action was pro-choice. What a muddle, but I doubt president Obama will be so incoherent. Why is it that we expect our leaders to decouple beliefs from actions? Yes, it is a good definition. I like that definition, especially in that it de-mystifies faith in a practical way. One thing I have taken to trying to undo one step of the time is the 19th century modernist attempt to decouple faith from science and create an artificial conflict, along with transforming faith firmly into the superstition category. Working in high tech, I sometimes spend days working on equations and then programming them up before finally running a simulation and comparing with experiment. Belief in things that aren’t seen (Hebrews 11:1) goes into action. In fact, if someone asserts there is a conflict between faith and science, it is a good bet that they have never used science to solve a problem, or never understood what they did.

Then there is the Jimmy Carter version of faith, where he announced that his belief was pro-life, but his action was pro-choice. What a muddle, but I doubt president Obama will be so incoherent. Why is it that we expect our leaders to decouple beliefs from actions?

Yes, it is a good definition.

]]>