A Response
To answer the original question: yes. It's important to seek out the truth in all ways and manners possible... and justly judge accordingly...
Now to ask a few questions of my own!
People with enough faith really don't care what "evidence" accumulates going against their belief, since faith is not about drawing conclusions but rather about believing despite lack or accumulation of evidence. They'll figure simply that your evidence is wrong or that ultimately they'll be shown to be right even if evidence now points otherwise. "Evidence" is irrelevant and, really, it only gets dragged in by believers so that they can defend their faith against antagonists or to use as a lever to "force" someone else to believe.
It doesn't surprise me anymore, but I spent a lifetime in that environment. I think the first time I got that response, though, it blew my mind.
I'd want to know... but like I said, there is no possibility of someone giving "definitive for all-time proof," so it's hard to even process the question.
What do you mean by "people with enough faith" don't listen? Are we talking the how's of life or the why's? I truly believe there's a difference there. Faith and Science (Reason) don't necessarily have that far a distance apart in my mind.
Faith without Reason is dead (Middle Ages[!!!]), and Reason without Faith is lost (The French Revolution, anyone??).
We must stop thinking of science being antithetical to an informed faith. The two spheres are not seperate worlds, have not entirely been, nor should they be.
I don't understand how, being a Christian and a searcher of Truth, it would be okay to answer "no" to the original question. But, then there's the thought that it is/will always be impossible to prove that God is not real.
Agreed, but is not an open world view give an allowance to conjecture on the Unknown? What would be better, an "open world" view of the world or a "closed world" view? Cannot being a "searcher of Truth" fall into this open world view...a consistant and methodical questioning of
both the
how's and the
why's of life? Is this not science and faith within their respective realms?
Nietzsche would have answered "no!". It's a question of intellectual freedom.
Ah, Nietzsche!! The lightning rod name for theists everywhere!
Intellectual freedom and religious freedom, in fact,
do go hand in hand. So much so, the lever Jennifer calls for by those of "enough" faith need not apply. For which I say: "To each their own... (and
free will for all!)"
And what of free will? Let's get to that now...
You first define the object in question. Then you look to see if that definition is self-contradictory. If it is, that object can't exist.
For example, an object that is both a circle and a square cannot exist because it's definition is self-contradictory. However, a flying pink space unicorn CAN exist because it's definition is not self-contradictory.
It so happens that the most common definition of god is self-contradictory. Omnipotence and omniscience cannot coexist, therefore a god who supposedly possesses both attributes cannot exist.
Meatbot, could you explain how omnipotence and omniscience cannot coexist? Is this the "grounding" exception?
Is this a point to where we can even answer whether time's outcomes can be changed or new truths be discovered? Can we disprove time travel while we're at it, then? Is everything a static world?
No...it's an
evolving one. This is why the open world assumption is far superior to the all-or-nothing of the closed world view.
I'm trying to wrap my head around your point here...this is no challenge, just a query. Thanks.
Jennifer, I hope that wasn't a lever to "force" anything on you (or anyone else for that matter)...I'm merely trying to get to the bottom of this with everyone...together.
Might be closed minded. I just call it faith. I nice little paradox to you, that really isn't one to me. Life's full of things like that. Things that seemingly don't work together on face value, but do under the surface.
