| Zonder, faith is not (and cannot be) the result of irrefutable, unavoidable, inescapable, scientific or philosophic proof. If so it would be taught next to math. That's true of all faiths, or they would not be called faith. In any case, a more important distinction is that faith requires a commitment of a person, personally addressed (at least Jews & Christians say) by the claim of God, rather than a fact. A fact is appropriately related to by comprehension and acknowledgement, and correlation to other facts. It does not call for a commitment of a person in the sense, say, that Jesus called for from people, or that God calls for from people. To use this language is foolishness to those who choose to live by their grasp of empiricism. Or else the claim is refuted on the basis that there is a variety of claims in the market place of faith views. That is why Jesus was eventually killed, because those in power were not willing to give up their commitments to, for example, their interpretation of the 10 Commandments. When faced with that choice they chose that Jesus must be driven outside their community of faith, and they used the means of Roman crucifixion. Those were faith decisions, with brutal consequences. Those were not factual. But try marrying someone on the basis of factual and empirical evidence. What is required in love and relationship is exactly a personal commitment, called forth by another person. Anything less only brings heartbreak. Sometimes people suffer and even die for their belief in facts and sciences, but it seems to me they are rarely called upon by the facts to do so. It is, rather, their commitment, or faith if you will, which calls them to that behavior. |
