When I watch this video I have to laugh to myself because it is beautifully written as a confirmation for the audience’s beliefs. A confirmation for all of the audience’s beliefs. What I mean is that depending on whether or not the individuals in the audience accept or reject faith as a means to believe in something this scene works either way.
The “believer” is going to listen to the Shepherd and nod their head when he says “It’s not about making sense. It’s about believing in something and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It’s about faith. You don’t fix faith, River. It fixes you.” That is considered profound by a lot of people.
The non-believer simply hears “It’s broken. It doesn’t make sense.” This is a factual statement. The Bible doesn’t make sense. It’s broken. What’s to get?
Additionally, the non-believer also hears the Shepherd’s words but instead of nodding in agreement we wonder: “What the hell does that even mean? That is an awful way to operate!”
And then there is the fanboy that says “OMG Summer Glau!”
When it comes to challenging faith there is really no way to get through that shield. When you consider that faith is willful belief and acceptance without a shred of evidence and the rejection of which is considered foolish…well…good luck getting through or even trying to make a point. It is a very effective firewall of ignorance.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, of course.
By what method does faith operate that it can be claimed to be correct in one instance and incorrect in another? Each set of believers via faith can claim the other wrong—and they do—however, you will never see them clamor to reject or criticize the concept of belief or the mechanism by which they believe. They cannot. That would undermine one’s own modus operandi. This is the true firewall. I think it is suspicious that disparate religions stick up for each other. Do they all know its bullshit or do they subconsciously realize that no matter the differences they still have exactly the same level of evidence for all of the claims? Better to stick together against the horrible rationalists.
Two disparate beliefs based on faith can never logically claim the other to be incorrect. Regardless of differences or contradictions, one belief may reject the premise and conclusions of the other belief; but it can never reject the mechanism by which they believe. The method of all faith-based beliefs is, of course, faith.
I would like someone to explain how their faith operates differently from the faith of Fred Phelps, Rick Santorum, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Pope Benedict XVI?