|
That was a very well written letter by Penn, though I do disagree.
I think the main problem in discussing matters of faith is the framework in which they are constructed. To me the issue is beautifully simplistic. There is no need to get heated or judgmental.
For starters, atheists/agnostics are asking for the impossible. They are demanding proof or sources or logic in defining or defending a position of faith or belief. I think that is impossible. By the very nature or definition of faith, that is an impossibility. That is why it is called faith. Scientific methodology or critical analysis is not useful here. I believe that is where the main hang up in these discussions get bogged down.
Whether or not one believes is an entirely personal experience and unique so of course people will be sensitive to discussions about their faith.
Politico, I admire your intellectual curiosity but I think you are over thinking and over complicating this particular issue. That is not to say don't debate but rather, I am suggesting you try an alternate approach instead.
For people of faith, they aren't really interested in being persuaded out of it. Maybe the occasional challenge will be seen as a "test of faith" but as a matter of definition, faith is belief without "proof". Pretty powerful stuff and actually admirable to me.
So what occurs in discussion like these is that non-believers attack the faith and try to use all sorts of logic, science etc in arguing against something that is very personal to individuals. The believers then feel attacked and respond accordingly. The non-believer are then left with the impression that the believers freaked out or overly sensitive etc. But what actually happens is that both sides are operating in two entirely different spheres. Debate then becomes impossible.
|