Faith vs science

Khaos wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Faith and wonder - I hope I never explain them away.

So then you suscribe to ignorance being bliss?

I myself have never found that because you can explain something it reduces wonder.

Everyime i am on a plane i am struck by wonder when looking out the window either up, or down. Even though i understand how they have done it. Hmm. .. Your concept of wonder is rather shallow.

That's actually a very good point! If your sense of wonder is so weak as to break upon your gaining something like an actually useful understanding, is it really that much of a loss anyway? How much of a wonder could that have ever been, if it was that fragile all along? If opposing learning is what it takes to retain it, is it really worth keeping?

Don't think its the confusion, ignorance or faith about flying but the dynamic of freedom afforded by it... ie opportunity to be a type of 'more', which relates back to how spirituality can empower the subjective experience beyond the limits of objective reality IMO. And any sense of awe about how its possible is the impact of fear due to its foreign nature of what it affords.

Gisteron wrote:

Khaos wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Faith and wonder - I hope I never explain them away.

So then you suscribe to ignorance being bliss?

I myself have never found that because you can explain something it reduces wonder.

Everyime i am on a plane i am struck by wonder when looking out the window either up, or down. Even though i understand how they have done it. Hmm. .. Your concept of wonder is rather shallow.

That's actually a very good point! If your sense of wonder is so weak as to break upon your gaining something like an actually useful understanding, is it really that much of a loss anyway? How much of a wonder could that have ever been, if it was that fragile all along? If opposing learning is what it takes to retain it, is it really worth keeping?

My exact point with the child birth thing. If you lose wonder because you have discovered the process then it was never a wonder to begin with. And if you fear losing all wonder through knowledge then your experience of life was a shallow one to begin with and you need to dig deeper, not shy away.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

My exact point with the child birth thing. If you lose wonder because you have discovered the process then it was never a wonder to begin with. And if you fear losing all wonder through knowledge then your experience of life was a shallow one to begin with and you need to dig deeper, not shy away.

There many beliefs and subcultures that would disagree with this. Some find bliss in the simplicity, not necessarily the ignorance. The pursuit of knowledge arises out of necessity for survival, but hardly further. By keeping everything simple they avoid extra-stress and enjoy a less cluttered mind.
I think that it may have benefits but I'm not condoning it or tempted for a change of scenery. I like asking questions and taking things apart.

@Gisteron

Any particular reason you apparently didn't fully read what I said? That's where your premise starts off wrong..

It does say what faith is based on. It is based in knowledge. Whether as substance of what's hoped for, or evidence of what's unseen. Faith has been explained as blind. However, that is the modern interpretation. Not how it is used in the scripture..

Example, I can relate to you my experience of The Force. You may not have seen it for yourself. Yet it sounds plausible. So you meditate on it. At this point, your faith hopes to experience what you learned. My faith is evidence of what was learned through the experience..

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Ask the average person, "how do you know the earth is round?" and you'll see where faith and science exist together..

Because I have seen and examined evidence that it is round. No faith required.

The average person doesn't consider the actual evidence. Only what they were told in school. So you wouldn't qualify as the average person..

They have faith that what they were told was correct.. without understanding the evidence.. blind faith..

Uzima Moto wrote: It does say what faith is based on. It is based in knowledge.

Well none of the rest of that chapter does, let alone the snippets you quoted. In fact, if I go to verse 6, where it says that it be impossible to please God without faith, and then elaborates on belief being a requirement, it confirms exactly what I've been saying all along. Faith is belief, and Hebrews 11:1 says that it is its own justifier.

Faith has been explained as blind. However, that is the modern interpretation. Not how it is used in the scripture..

Then we must be reading different scriptures, because the ones you are quoting and pretty much all of the translations of them that I am able to read use it exactly in that way and in no other, as does every dictionary, as do we all colloquially. Call me closed-minded if you must, but I don't see myself one day understanding how one can quote one thing and then just insist that it says the opposite of what it says in the same breath.

Example, I can relate to you my experience of The Force. You may not have seen it for yourself. Yet it sounds plausible. So you meditate on it. At this point, your faith hopes to experience what you learned. My faith is evidence of what was learned through the experience..

Well, at least you are in agreement with your scripture. Instead of doing anything to test your experience for reproducibility at all, instead of checking with anyone else whether they experienced anything like what you did under those same conditions, you go inward and meditate. You have your deep feel and lo and behold, now your faith is the evidence of what ever "sounded plausible" earlier. No intellect required, no critical examination, no thinking, no effort, just free confidence based on literally nothing but fuzzy feels. Congratulations. I rest my case.

Uzima Moto wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Ask the average person, "how do you know the earth is round?" and you'll see where faith and science exist together..

Because I have seen and examined evidence that it is round. No faith required.

The average person doesn't consider the actual evidence. Only what they were told in school. So you wouldn't qualify as the average person..

They have faith that what they were told was correct.. without understanding the evidence.. blind faith..

Yes, they do. And your claim was that this is how we see faith and science exist together. Where exactly, pray tell, do you see any sort of scientific approach spawn from or result in this blind faith?

I love the letter Carl Sagan’s wife wrote when he died. It show how wonder and the appreciation of life and beauty are not at all hindered by a lack of faith.