On the contrary, that is the precise dictionary definition. You may think
faith is somewhat different from delusion, as I do not, but it _is_ belief
without evidence.
>The religious faithful have a great deal of supporting evidence
>only it is experiential.
>John Crooks
As do abductees, astral travelers, psychics, etc., etc. Since I am firmly
rooted in the natural universe and the observations of calibrated
instruments, (read science), I still say 'so what?' I do not for a second
think there is something in the human frame which is superior to sensitive
instruments or removed from the physical. The religious do, without
evidence. Whoopee.
Science can and does put value upon these experiences, whereas religion
cannot, and in fact, religious 'experience' is a class system in and of
itself, so much so that little girls will see The Blessed Virgin to gain
attention in Catholic communities....
The insistence that religious experience has _any_ validity beyond the
subjective is foolishness, IMHO. But evidence will convince me otherwise.
Is the question 'How do we measure the religious experience?' I think
science has done a rather nice job, bio-chemically, of doing just that.
More research is needed, but there it is. Only science can point to
something and say that. I think that is important, and I want to see.
*****************************************************
Wade T. Smith | 'There ain't nuthin' you
wade_smith@harvard.edu | shouldn't do to a god.'
****** http://www.channel1.com/users/morbius/ *******