Submitted by LordHorace98 t3_12532wi in philosophy
dellamatta t1_je2clst wrote
With all due respect this article is quite poorly written. There's a number of grammatical errors and typos which make it difficult to follow, and it's very "rambly" in its discourse.
I'd invite you to consider something very simple - is it better to have faith in something or to be convinced of it? The former could be considered a subset of the latter. Faith is blindly believing in something without necessarily being thoroughly convinced by it. In my opinion, this is a weaker position than rigorous scientific evidence or even intuition. Faith is not the same as intuition - it relies on surrendering to another perspective completely without any reservations, and has led to a great deal of evil for humanity at large (the Catholic Church has been a source of some of this evil).
LordHorace98 OP t1_je2e2ce wrote
I appreciate your comment. I will take it into consideration. I didn't really notice the typos or grammatical errors. For the rambly style it's kind of deliberate. I want it to feel kind of conversational. I know a lot of people don't like it but it's what I enjoy reading so it's what I enjoy writing.
For the rest I will think about it
dr_funny t1_je318p5 wrote
> Faith is blindly believing in something without necessarily being thoroughly convinced by it.
A hard definition. Faith could also imply trust in a promise, in which case is life not pervaded by it, and not in an evil way?
palebluedot74656 t1_je2tc8b wrote
What a mind-blowing question. "Is it better to have faith in something or to be convinced of it?" Please, you write an essay.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments