|
Ouch! That's a hard definition of faith when you follow the reasoning trail it supports; if you need to believe in something badly enough whatever comes along when you most need it and feel like accepting it shapes your world view, whether its rational or not?
Somehow I don't think the statement you were trying to express should be that open ended. Mind you accepting it helps explain why we have over 5,000 active faith systems in the world today; all pretty convinced their world view is the only right one. Doesn't that leave everyone feeling all the more comforted to know that!
I think faith has to operate in the areas science can't go. Faith and science don't play well in each others domain. Science can't give you a motivation behind god and god's actions; science only answers what where the mechanics of god's actions. Give you an example of faith colliding badly with science. Noah and the rain. Most folk picking on the Bible ponder where'd all the water come from and go. Simple observation, instead ask what it weighed, how far it was displaced in 40 days and how much energy that would have expended. Anwser to the energy question: same force as the Nagaski bomb, for every square kilometer of the Earth's surface, every 14 seconds for 40 days!
That's a more then a smidgeon of energy to move that much water in that time period. An energy signature like that should leave some lasting evidence somewhere. And the tribes that were living 300 miles to the South with an unbroken history didn't record any major storms at all around the decade when the global flood occured.
So you have to take it that the scribes did their best, regardless if you take the mainstream bible or one with the extra prophets that some major religions like and some prune, but folks were faliable and limited, now and then!
|