> >If you believe what you are told by your priests and leaders, then
> >you can reason that "Faith" is viable.
>
> Viable?
Yes, viable, legitimate etc... i see no evidence to suggest that
"faith" is a tool worth having except in the absence of any better
tools. "Faith", in my opinion is like sucking your thumb. If you were
told that you had to suck your thumb everyday to get to heaven, then the
faithful would do it and see it as a tool to get to heaven.
> >"Reason" is a function and "faith" is a choice.
>
> I don't disagree with that sentence, unless you hold the position that one
> can avoid a choice. As several wise people have independtly
> discovered: even the act of not chosing is itself a choice...this is a
> consequence of consciousness.
agreed
> >Even the most zealous can reason that without water, they will
> >die, regardless of the power of their faith.
>
> Even the most logical have faith in their own senses. Furthermore,
> there is no rule requiring that the person of greatest faith be the
> least rational; The two are not opposites. The opposite of rational
> is irrational. The opposite of faith is non-existence. [ducking! :-) ]
I think not. I do NOT have "faith" in my senses. I "believe" that my
senses are utterly incapabale of being accurate. I do "believe" that my
senses are a good estimate. I would say that if you have faith in your
senses, you are not reasonable or rational about your senses.
I do believe that "faith" and "rational" are in opposition, but can
co-exist. People who have "faith" in a god, are irrational about the
concept of creation. This is not to say that they are not intelligent,
or unreasonable when it comes to other subjects. You can be a genious
and have faith. But in the instance where "faith" prevails, they are
irrational.
> The opposite of rational is irrational.
i think this is right, and i am suggesting that "faith" is a type of
"irrational"
Sodom