Religulous

Out of context: Reply #29

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 72 Responses
  • gramme0

    You've misunderstood me, and jumped to some unwarranted conclusions, haven't you?

    Faith, at its core, involves belief in something intangible. But faith is often informed by history, and by facts anyone can observe. The point I was making is that I didn't have to leave my brain at the door when I became a Christian. There are questions science can answer, and questions it cannot. Science is rooted in the study of tangible things. Science cannot produce physical evidence and say "we've peered through the looking glass, gathered proof, and lo/behond: there is no metaphysical realm."

    So, there is actually content in my statement, simple though it may be: science is incapable of dismissing the possibility of the supernatural. I'm acutely aware that I can't argue very strongly FOR the spiritual world from a scientific perspective. And that's as it should be; we would be naive to assume that science can answer all of our questions.

    Another way of stating my original point is that it requires a leap of faith—faith in a misunderstanding of what science can actually prove—to say that faith and logic may not coexist without contradicting one another.

    gramme 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread