Comments on: God’s great plan? Here’s a checklist…

By: espian2

espian2 — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:36:53 +0000

Thank you for your comments and your openness to further dialogue. Please understand my response as one of excitement rather than argumentative. Faith is confidence in things unseen, but has to appeal to reason so, no, I do not believe that faith is contingent upon evidence. But neither do believe that it is the opposite of science. Both religion and science are looking for meaning and understanding, and they can be very compatible. Spiritual scientists such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ( a mid-20th century Jesuit paleontologist) Holy Cross priest Julius Newman (developed synthetic rubber) are but two examples. Reason (science) lays the basis of faith; Faith builds on reason. It’s symbiotic. Neither has the sole answer to the eternal question of meaning and purpose in the universe, but both together can approach an answer more profound than either alone.

By: Jumile

Jumile — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:22:06 +0000

Thanks for your reply, espian2. I’m glad you took the time to respond, and that you feel comfortable doing so. (I do worry that this site may feel antagonistic to people of faith, when in reality I don’t want it to be one that preaches to the choir — if you’ll excuse the analogy). Just to clarify a point that may be unclear: I am not the person who made this video, rather I’m simply sharing it here. I have linked to the original video and the maker’s profile page in the original post.

Your viewpoint is as refreshing as it is diverse from the viewpoints one sees on the Internet. If I understand you correctly, you seem to have the opinion that faith does not and should not require evidence? I have always been astonished at the modern Christian fundamentalist movement that keeps trying to merge faith with science — like hammering a square peg into a round hole — as the two are by definition opposing positions. I have always been told that if you have evidence, faith becomes pointless; and if you have faith, evidence becomes unnecessary.

While I don’t necessarily agree, I can appreciate such position for its honesty and idealism. Particularly when set in contrast to the fundagelical position.

By: espian2

espian2 — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 05:47:04 +0000

Sorry. I am a Christian and do not believe any of those things you mention in the first minute, which seem to be the basis for your check list. Nor is there any evidence that he after whom Christianity is named believed any of them. You are demythologizing Christianity, which is a wonderful thing to do. But that exercise is irrelevant to my belief in God as the being or power before whom there was no other and in some unknown (at least to me) manner, brought all that is into being, whether directly or indirectly, that that power is love (aka God) and that my reason for existence is to be in communion with God/love.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:35:15 +0000

I love Scott’s videos. I’ve seen them all. This is one of my favs!