Many believers have told me that they believe because they have faith. In fact, they will believe in spite of a lack of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
If I told you that I believed the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor in December of 1942, but rather they had attacked Los Angeles, you would expect me to back up my claim with evidence. If I told you I believed it through "faith," you would rightly think I was a nut case.
But when someone makes claims about a religious issue, and they say they believe it because they have faith, we are supposed to take that as a legitimate claim?
I used to think that "faith" was something like "hope" or "wishful thinking." Now, I'm beginning to see it is not something as rational as either of those. It seems a lot more like denial with a different name.
2007-09-01
15:41:43
·
19 answers
·
asked by
skeptic
6
in
Religion & Spirituality