Re: virus: Faith, Logic and Purpose

Marie L. Foster (mfos@ieway.com)
Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:10:16 -0800

At 01:01 AM 11/15/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Marie Foster wrote:
>>
>> OK... so after all of this it is understood that David defines faith as
>> belief in something without proof. This is progress.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what would you accept as proof that what we see
>> was created in some way? I am not talking about 'creationism'. Life
>> from non-living matter, a universe from a singularity seems pretty
>> creative to me.
>>
>> What proof do you have that love exists?
>>
>> Marie
>
>That's backwards, we use the word "love" to describe a feeling that most
>of us agree is pleasant. The FMRI can image the part of the brain that
>is active, and we know the neurotransmitters involved. So that part of
>the emotion is not in question. I would guess this question could apply
>to any emotion, right?
>
>I must admit that the early part of the Universe's history is difficult
>to conceive of, for me anyways. I don't have trouble with "life from
>none living matter though". Why do you have trouble with that?
>
>Sodom
>

I do not have any problem with it. It is creation at work. We are the
best creators that we know of. I contend this is why we have defined God
in our own image. Ironic.

We can image the brain and see what portions are active. The problem we
have is being able to pin down someone actually feeling a particular
emotion like love. We have done some studies on how the brain functions in
a meditative or prayerful state. Hmmmm that may be worth while to look up.

I do not go along with David in this area. Love and faith for that matter
are as real 'objects' as any other. Nature does not elevate belief in
rational atheism over irrational religious ferver. While I appreciate his
motives I wish he would apply his own standard of skepticism to his own
belief system that he expects of the rest of us.

Marie
Marie

Marie L. Foster

<http://www.geocities.com/~mfos/>