is religion under attack?

[LibraryLady]

This is interesting reading (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/23/faith.reader.feedback/index.html?eref=rss_topstories).


I have faith that one day there will be a world where children are not told untruths. I have faith that one day the majority of people will realize you cannot talk people out of believing improvable and unreasonable things, when you approach them armed with your own improvable and unreasonable beliefs.
I have faith that one day people will realize that, just because religion MAY be a force for good, that it says nothing about whether there is any truth behind it. I have faith that one day the human race will not have faith in things for which there is no scientific evidence.
I have faith that one day the majority of people will realize that morality can and does exist, independent of religion.

[ImaginalDisc]

I like this guy.

Paul Woodward of Tokyo, Japan
Faith is a wildly overrated virtue. Its results add enormously to the weight of human misery as we humans follow in blind faith, without pause for rational thought, the sacred texts written at a time when we thought we lived on a disc rather than a globe. Faith results, amongst other things, in opposition to stem cell research, the mutilation of the genitalia of infants, the desire to kill homosexuals, the oppression of women, the spread of HIV through religious opposition to the use of condoms and the justification for flying jet planes into skyscrapers. Give me a skeptical enquiring mind any day over one muddled and obscured by faith.

[Fnord]

I have faith that one day there will be a world where children are not told untruths.

I have faith that one day the majority of people will realize you cannot talk people out of believing improvable and unreasonable things, when you approach them armed with your own improvable and unreasonable beliefs.

I have faith that one day people will realize that, just because religion MAY be a force for good, that it says nothing about whether there is any truth behind it.

I have faith that one day the human race will not have faith in things for which there is no scientific evidence.

I have faith that one day the majority of people will realize that morality can and does exist, independent of religion.


The boldened sentence kinda defeats the entire statement, in that there is no scientific evidence for the sentence itself.

But faith requires no proof, so the statement is no more and no less valid than the Nicene creed.

Non issue.

[ImaginalDisc]

The boldened sentence kinda defeats the entire statement, in that there is no scientific evidence for the sentence itself.

But faith requires no proof, so the statement is no more and no less valid than the Nicene creed.

Non issue.

It's using faith in two different meanings for dramatic effect.

Not that I'd expect a theist to get the irony.

[Upchurch]

anyone who sets their faith against fact is going to feel they are under attack, be they faith in the supernatural or historical revisionism.

[tsg]

The boldened sentence kinda defeats the entire statement, in that there is no scientific evidence for the sentence itself.

But faith requires no proof, so the statement is no more and no less valid than the Nicene creed.

Non issue.

Sounds like someone needs the concept of a metaphor explained to them.

[DOC]

I have faith that one day the human race will not have faith in things for which there is no scientific evidence.

But there is Evidence for Christianity. There is historical evidence, there is the concrete evidence of thousands and thousands of changed lives, there is the evidence of how Christianity changed the Roman Empire and the world, there is the fact there is enough evidence that all 43 presidents professed or implied a belief in the principles of Christianity, and there is even logical evidence for the belief in a God.

[fuelair]

You're still just piling up crap on crap Doc. It's funny and dumb but you keep piling it and we'll keep pointing it out. You would do a lot better though to find a group of badgers and try to save them.

[Cosmo]

DOC, I think most everyone here has long since stopped taking you seriously. :)

[dacium2007]

But there is Evidence for Christianity. There is historical evidence, there is the concrete evidence of thousands and thousands of changed lives, there is the evidence of how Christianity changed the Roman Empire and the world, there is the fact there is enough evidence that all 43 presidents professed or implied a belief in the principles of Christianity, and there is even logical evidence for the belief in a God.

Is this quy serious or is this a joke account?

I would love to see that 'logical' evidence.

[bokonon]

Is this quy serious or is this a joke account?

I would love to see that 'logical' evidence.
What, you mean you've never seen the ontological argument? Look, it even has "logical" in the name.

DOC is a troll, as dishonest as he is dimwitted. His favorite debate tactic is digression.

[Ocelot]

But there is Evidence for Christianity. There is historical evidence, there is the concrete evidence of thousands and thousands of changed lives, there is the evidence of how Christianity changed the Roman Empire and the world, there is the fact there is enough evidence that all 43 presidents professed or implied a belief in the principles of Christianity, and there is even logical evidence for the belief in a God.

That proves that christianity exists. Not that it speaks the truth.

[Meadmaker]

But there is Evidence for Christianity. There is historical evidence, there is the concrete evidence of thousands and thousands of changed lives, there is the evidence of how Christianity changed the Roman Empire and the world, there is the fact there is enough evidence that all 43 presidents professed or implied a belief in the principles of Christianity, and there is even logical evidence for the belief in a God.

A lot of people here are former Christians (or a few other faiths) who once said things like the above, and then one day realized that if you strike out Christianity above, and filled in Islam, Hinduism, Zeus worship, etc, it would be just as true. It was often a significant moment in our turning away from the faith of our ancestors.



As for the title question, the answer is yes.

As for the content of the quoted message in the OP, there will never be scientific evidence for certain things, because many philosophical questions are beyond the reach of science, but people will still choose an answer to those questions. I suspect that "faith" as we call it now, will diminish and be less prevalent as time goes on, but there will always be things that people accept without proof. Perhaps they will simply be more aware that they have chosen an answer, while their neighbors have chosen a different one.