Hi. Thank you for stopping by, professor.

Definition of "blind faith"

I expanded on that 'faith' in the next sentence, that having faith (with zero evidence to upkeep that faith) in an invisible, all-powerful God being the arbiter of the metaphysical realm inherently requires total blindness, but this definition is in the much smaller context of God. In a wider context, such as religion wholly, I describe blind faith as not having sufficient information to determine whether or not the beliefs espoused by religion are valid, but since these beliefs seem to be outsourced towards a positive step in the direction of some ultimate goal of which people have become personally enamored by, then faith in that religion becomes compelling.

What I find very interesting is the number of so-called 'scientific' truth claims ... I am merely stating that the contemporary view for the origin of life requires FAITH for its starting point.

But see, the core trait that distinguishes those 'scientific' claims is that they are very much open to falsification, whereas outmoded concepts like God are not. Who knows, a publication could come out tomorrow saying that a bunch of atoms just so happened to have coincidentally aligned itself into a configuration that supports life, therefore falsifying the claim that 'Life always springs from Life.' The starting point of having FAITH, in the context of the empirical world, could be quickly turned into incontrovertible TRUTH.

That is why I think that the two disciplines that complement each other are 'science' and 'faith'. We need to know where the empirically observable world begins and where the unobservable ends. We do not want to just be 'scientists' or just 'believers', but we must be well informed 'scientists' and well informed 'believers.' And I think being the 'scientifically religious' is the best way to go.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta