> > I suggest on this one we refer back to St. Dennis, who concluded
that faith
> and reason really don't have anything to say to each other that the
other can
> accept. (?)
This can become a bizarre situation. Consider this not uncommon event; a
reigious denomination's doctrine teaches faith in belief "a". This
doctrine also considers belief "b" to be diametricaly opposed to what is
true. A scientist then comes along with physical proof of the truth of
belief b. The problem is that there are now a large number of religious
people that feel threatened by the "heathen society" that they live in,
and a large number of scientist wondering how people can close their
eyes to the facts. Then there are controversies in schools over whether
or not the heretical fact b should be taught to the impressionable young
children. Then all hell breaks loose and science and religion are so
angry with each other that there is hardly a hope of reconciliation.
I agree with St. Dennis. I think that reason and faith have quite alot
to say to each other, but it is mostly slander. As far as faith goes, I
think that anyone who closes their eyes to proven facts without some
logical proof is ignorant. In matters that science has no proof, fine,
believe that a square is a circle if you want to but do not act as
though you have undisputed logical proof.
All "proven facts" should be questioned; Science has been wrong before.
I would say that this questioning is the job of faith, but it really is
not because people do not dare question their own faith. Science
questions itself and adapts itself, while faith tends to put it's head
in the sand.
-- John Aten jwa@inx.net