100% confidence is knowing, which is faith. Faith is not synonymous with that level of confidence.
I just want you to know that The Orthodox Church does not understand this description of faith in Hebrews to be a definition of faith, so much as a description of how faith works.
100% confidence is knowing, which is faith. Faith is not synonymous with that level of confidence.I am only 100% confident in logical tautologies. Your religious beliefs are not tautological.Your "faith" is not the same as my instrumental beliefs.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You are ignoring your epistemological limits.'Less you fancy yourself a god, I suppose you'll disregard your epistemological limits in order to act reasonably upon sound evidence.
I'm asking you to convince me that there's a practical difference between "atheist" and "agnostic".
If you want someone to believe you, you must first be able to explain what you are talking about.Yet if I insist you do not understand, you arrogantly persist in the delusion that you know better.
One definition that I like is "something that is believed especially with strong conviction.", because strong conviction certainly can come from evidence, and the godless prefer to use the definition, "firm belief in something for which there is no proof.", which is actually a definition we would find offensive, because we have faith in what we know and witness.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that people are misusing the word to be subversively offensive. One must be fooled to think otherwise. An aspect I find most appropriate from citing Hebrews is that their faith is not a self-righteous conception of belief.
I would say you can have a confident attitude independent of faith.
You simply claim "special knowledge". This is not an explanation.I have always been very thorough at explaining myself when the opportunity arises.
This is part of why what we teach becomes harder and harder to understand. Language is being perverted in such a way as to create a disconnect between the present and the past.
Ok,Just to be clear, when someone says "you have faith in science" they are not using the word "faith" in the same way that religious people use it.When a religious person says "I have faith that Jesus will usher me to heaven when I die" this is not the same as someone saying "I have faith that the cathode will collect hydrogen bubbles and the anode will collect oxygen bubbles".One is a verifiable, evidence-based belief and the other is pure imagination.
They are not the same.I assume you mean by faith in science you are essentially referring to the idea that without having done so, you will be able to duplicate the scientific methodology, and you are going to take a leap of faith in order to test the theory. Just because you are imagining a cathode collecting hydrogen bubbles and an anode collecting oxygen bubbles doesn't make the faith itself distinguishable from faith in anything else.
These limitations mitigate the confidence of the results. This confidence is Quantifiable. It's called "Sigma" and it NEVER REACHES 100%.
I assume you mean by faith in science you are essentially referring to the idea that without having done so, you will be able to duplicate the scientific methodology, and you are going to take a leap of faith in order to test the theory. Just because you are imagining a cathode collecting hydrogen bubbles and an anode collecting oxygen bubbles doesn't make the faith itself distinguishable from faith in anything else.They are not the same.One has perfectly logical explanations of how electricity can split oxygen from hydrogen. It is part of a coherent theory of chemistry.There is ample evidence from multiple sources and can be explained without an in-person demonstration.The other very important point is that science, based on inductive reasoning, has very specific limitations.These limitations mitigate the confidence of the results. This confidence is Quantifiable. It's called "Sigma" and it NEVER REACHES 100%.Now, if I read in some old book that I could turn lead into gold with some unicorn tears and a squirt of dragon blood, and I went around teaching this to people because I 100% believed it, that would be much more similar to a religious belief.The other point I'd like to make is that the cathode collecting hydrogen bubbles IS TESTABLE (FALSIFIABLE).The tenents of religion taken "by faith" are NOT TESTABLE (UNFALSIFIABLE).
