FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Morgan Freeman, quite clearly not a man of god

Morgan Freeman, quite clearly not a man of god

The word faith has many nuances but when used in the context of god, it means believing in the existence of something even though there's no evidence for its existence. Morgan Freeman interprets faith differently, strictly speaking inaccurately (faith in religion is unchangeable, 'faith' in science changes with evidence), but his point is as clear as the stars.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2432 days ago)
Sounds like Mr Freeman is saying that he is agnostic.
ReplyVote up (344)down (234)
Original comment
Sounds like Mr Freeman is saying that he is agnostic.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: GDE (2432 days ago)
I haven't heard him said a such thing. He only says he have faith in what (b.e.) scientifics tells us.... He doesn't said he think there could be "something". Sounds like Mr Freeman have a brain et use it wisely.
ReplyVote up (268)down (254)
Original comment
I haven't heard him said a such thing. He only says he have faith in what (b.e.) scientifics tells us.... He doesn't said he think there could be "something". Sounds like Mr Freeman have a brain et use it wisely.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Filmaddict Filmaddict (2432 days ago)
Quantitative science is quite clearly creating hypotheses, creating methodologies, collecting empirical data and analysing such data statistically, graphically etc (without bias). Faith has no place in science, since the hypotheses could be proved or disproved. In addition, the data must fall where it may; so, until that raw data is collected and analysed, one generally does not know what ones conclusion is or if in fact it is significant. It also does not end there, since science must be viable (repeatable) by other scientists many times before 95% of the time the hypothesis is proved to be significant. Therefore, science is objective, whilst faith is purely subjective, in other words, a scientist cannot quantitatively gauge how strong someones faith is compared to another, since it is peculiar to each individual.
ReplyVote up (225)down (175)
Original comment
Quantitative science is quite clearly creating hypotheses, creating methodologies, collecting empirical data and analysing such data statistically, graphically etc (without bias). Faith has no place in science, since the hypotheses could be proved or disproved. In addition, the data must fall where it may; so, until that raw data is collected and analysed, one generally does not know what ones conclusion is or if in fact it is significant. It also does not end there, since science must be viable (repeatable) by other scientists many times before 95% of the time the hypothesis is proved to be significant. Therefore, science is objective, whilst faith is purely subjective, in other words, a scientist cannot quantitatively gauge how strong someones faith is compared to another, since it is peculiar to each individual.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2431 days ago)
But you must have faith in what constitutes evidence. Causality, the reality of sensory impressions, logic these things are not provable in the system called science they must be accepted before science can begin.
ReplyVote up (284)down (248)
Original comment
But you must have faith in what constitutes evidence. Causality, the reality of sensory impressions, logic these things are not provable in the system called science they must be accepted before science can begin.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Filmaddict Filmaddict (2404 days ago)
Yes, of course, in science one must have faith in the hypotheses that has been extrapolated from ones research, otherwise what would be the point collecting data. However, that's as far as faith goes, since one cannot quantify it!
ReplyVote up (254)down (288)
Original comment
Yes, of course, in science one must have faith in the hypotheses that has been extrapolated from ones research, otherwise what would be the point collecting data. However, that's as far as faith goes, since one cannot quantify it!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Stupid American (2432 days ago)
I thought he was God?
ReplyVote up (239)down (217)
Original comment
I thought he was God?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: GDE (2432 days ago)
he WAS
ReplyVote up (180)down (267)
Original comment
he WAS
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2433 days ago)
HA. That shut her up pretty quickly. The show should have done their research instead of making presumptions...
ReplyVote up (239)down (260)
Original comment
HA. That shut her up pretty quickly. The show should have done their research instead of making presumptions...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jack (2433 days ago)
Well, I would say the beauty of science lies in it's lack of faith in it's own knowledge, in its constant questioning of its own findings. As well as proving things, science sets out to disprove itself. When you can't disprove something, then you know it's right.
ReplyVote up (206)down (262)
Original comment
Well, I would say the beauty of science lies in it's lack of faith in it's own knowledge, in its constant questioning of its own findings. As well as proving things, science sets out to disprove itself. When you can't disprove something, then you know it's right.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (2432 days ago)
I think science is about making and testing hypotheses - and then saying something like "98 times out of 100 we expect to see this type of result." I can't disprove there's a death star orbitting the sun exactly opposite us. But I don't think it's right.
ReplyVote up (292)down (247)
Original comment
I think science is about making and testing hypotheses - and then saying something like "98 times out of 100 we expect to see this type of result." I can't disprove there's a death star orbitting the sun exactly opposite us. But I don't think it's right.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Linkblade (2338 days ago)
Latest comment: I agree, that's the beauty of science. The fact that its not afraid to question what is 'true.' Nor is it afraid to say, 'Oops, we were wrong. Lets go back and change that.' Religion, doesn't do that. Religion is so mindlessly devoted to its own beliefs that it's not willing to see any opposing points of view. Now don't get me wrong. I am in no way saying that all religious people are this way. I'm saying religion is. Religion doesn't change its viewpoint. If someone decides to add something, or new 'facts' or whatever. They have to branch off and make an entirely new religion, because the previous one doesn't want to admit it's wrong. Hence, Mormonism and all of the other hundreds of protestant faiths of Christianity that have branched off of Catholicism. Although you are wrong on one point my friend. Science does have faith in its own knowledge. Its just not blinded by it. Science WANTS to be able to say, 'I believe this, now to go out and prove it.' Then, should it find itself wrong, it says 'well, that was preemptive of me, sorry but it appears that I was wrong, I suppose its time to go back and start over.' So it does have faith it its own facts. But it aims to prove it rather than say. 'Its in a book and an elected man whom we shall call a pope/prophet/etc. says it is so, therefore it is correct.'
ReplyVote up (237)down (223)
Original comment
Latest comment: I agree, that's the beauty of science. The fact that its not afraid to question what is 'true.' Nor is it afraid to say, 'Oops, we were wrong. Lets go back and change that.' Religion, doesn't do that. Religion is so mindlessly devoted to its own beliefs that it's not willing to see any opposing points of view. Now don't get me wrong. I am in no way saying that all religious people are this way. I'm saying religion is. Religion doesn't change its viewpoint. If someone decides to add something, or new 'facts' or whatever. They have to branch off and make an entirely new religion, because the previous one doesn't want to admit it's wrong. Hence, Mormonism and all of the other hundreds of protestant faiths of Christianity that have branched off of Catholicism. Although you are wrong on one point my friend. Science does have faith in its own knowledge. Its just not blinded by it. Science WANTS to be able to say, 'I believe this, now to go out and prove it.' Then, should it find itself wrong, it says 'well, that was preemptive of me, sorry but it appears that I was wrong, I suppose its time to go back and start over.' So it does have faith it its own facts. But it aims to prove it rather than say. 'Its in a book and an elected man whom we shall call a pope/prophet/etc. says it is so, therefore it is correct.'
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Drugaddict (2431 days ago)
You really are as dumb as a box of hammers, aren't you? What you mean is like comparing Napoleon and Asterix... you see, one was real and the other one - even though we might want him to be real - wasn't.
ReplyVote up (184)down (233)
Original comment
You really are as dumb as a box of hammers, aren't you? What you mean is like comparing Napoleon and Asterix... you see, one was real and the other one - even though we might want him to be real - wasn't.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2391 days ago)
What?? Napoleon wasn┤t real?? No way!!
ReplyVote up (262)down (228)
Original comment
What?? Napoleon wasn┤t real?? No way!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hammer (2431 days ago)
To have faith until it's unproven? That's the opposite of faith. Faith is believing something without it being proven. Stick with acting driving miss daisy.
ReplyVote up (195)down (278)
Original comment
To have faith until it's unproven? That's the opposite of faith. Faith is believing something without it being proven. Stick with acting driving miss daisy.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Creationism and the Big Bang
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Creationism and the Big Bang
Atheist vs Preacher
Atheist vs Preacher
8-year-old reacts to his mother telling him she is an atheist
8-year-old reacts to his mother telling him she is an atheist
God, heaven and dirt
God, heaven and dirt
The Atheist Experience - Do atheists go to Hell?
The Atheist Experience - Do atheists go to Hell?