Blind faith

[lunamoth]

I wouldn't say it was easy at all. In each case of a recipient of direct revelation in the OT a relationship with God was only established after a complete rejection of either the religion or social conventions they'd been born into;

(according to the OT)
Abraham took his family out of Ur and rejected the Sumarian religious cosmology leaving him with his own, personal perception of God stripped of any preset dogma or mythology.

Moses did the same with the Egytian pantheon that he'd been raised in.

Noah, being the only righteous man on the predeluvian earth, obviously rejected the social mores of his own time.

Samuel was dedicated to the temple at a very young age, which would have meant foregoing a conventional childhood or adolecence.

In each case we see an example of God choosing to reveal Himself to a man who was allready dedicated to following something (maybe just his own conscience), and usually at great personal sacrifice, in direct opposition to whatever religious or social atmosphere he'd been born into.

I think the real contrast between this and "blind faith" is that the latter involves unquestioning acceptence of the prevaling religious or philosophical atmosphere of your social stratum whereas the former involves submitting to something much more personal; your conscience, the "logos", the "still small voice", or, as Justyn Martyr said, reason.

Good post Quag...I've been thinking the same thing (once I got past the idea that Abraham was a Christian :areyoucra ). Why else would Abraham and Noah be held up as examples of not just good faith, but the epitome of faith. Mary as well. God did not ask just a little of them...but everything.

 

[Popeyesays]

If you say so . . .

Empiricism to the extent it is taxonomically related to phenomenalism, lives on in modern science. But phenomenalism is spiritual. The observed and observer become one.

Exactly, the cat is neither dead nor alive, until you open the box.

regards,

Scott

 

[Jeremiah]

Faith acknowledges and addresses doubts and opposing viewpoints and, as a result, creates in the believer a better understanding of his or her spirituality who is closer to his or her God. .

Are you sure this is not reason?

 

[Runt]

Are you sure this is not reason?

Reason does as well, only more completely.

The faithful, when faced with doubt, will either ignore doubt, acknowledge paradox or address the contradiction. Ignoring it is blind faith; acknowledging it is faith; addressing it may lead to conversion (possibly even to atheism) or broader understanding.

Those who value reason above faith will acknowledge contradictions and follow logic where it leads... even if it leads away from God and the comfort of spiritual belief.

 

[Jeremiah]

Reason does as well, only more completely.

The faithful, when faced with doubt, will either ignore doubt, acknowledge paradox or address the contradiction. Ignoring it is blind faith; acknowledging it is faith; addressing it may lead to conversion (possibly even to atheism) or broader understanding.

Those who value reason above faith will acknowledge contradictions and follow logic where it leads... even if it leads away from God and the comfort of spiritual belief.

Faith is not flawed reasoning. Nor is it divergent from reason.

&#8220;Who is also aware of the tremendous risk involved in faith &#8211; when he nevertheless makes the leap of faith &#8211; this [is] subjectivity &#8230; at its height.&#8221; &#8211; Søren Kierkegaard (1813 &#8211; 1855) (<-- still working on this one)

Pure logic will lead to this:

&#8220;There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.&#8221; &#8211; Albert Camus (1913 &#8211; 1960) (<-- understand this one more than I wish)

So how does one avoid suicide? By embracing life&#8217;s absurdity; by "virtue of the absurd".(faith?)

 

[Runt]

Faith is not flawed reasoning. Nor is it divergent from reason.

&#8220;Who is also aware of the tremendous risk involved in faith &#8211; when he nevertheless makes the leap of faith &#8211; this [is] subjectivity &#8230; at its height.&#8221; &#8211; Søren Kierkegaard (1813 &#8211; 1855) (<-- still working on this one)

Pure logic will lead to this:

&#8220;There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.&#8221; &#8211; Albert Camus (1913 &#8211; 1960) (<-- understand this one more than I wish)

So how does one avoid suicide? By embracing life&#8217;s absurdity; by "virtue of the absurd".

I wouldn't say that faith is flawed reasoning. It may, however, be perfectly sound---but incomplete---reasoning. I think with people of faith (and I speak now from personal experience, for I once was one), there comes a point when you turn away from reason as the sole way way of knowning and instead turn to intuition. Theists often speak of "knowing in their heart"/"knowing deep inside" that God exists.

 

[Jeremiah]

I wouldn't say that faith is flawed reasoning. It may, however, be perfectly sound---but incomplete---reasoning. I think with people of faith (and I speak now from personal experience, for I once was one), there comes a point when you turn away from reason as the sole way way of knowning and instead turn to intuition. Theists often speak of "knowing in their heart"/"knowing deep inside" that God exists.

Sorry I have to disagree.

 

[Jeremiah]

Both science and religion both see the universe spiritually. It's when would-be adherents to either or both imagine they see the infinite materially that the trouble begins.

What do you mean by "spiritually"?

 

[Runt]

If you say so . . .

Empiricism to the extent it is taxonomically related to phenomenalism, lives on in modern science. But phenomenalism is spiritual. The observed and observer become one.

Phenomenalism can tell us plenty about how things appear to us, but it tells us nothing useful about how things are because it doesn't trust our ability to perceive reality as it is. Furthermore, it's not science or spirituality, but a philosophical school that occassionally masquerades as science but can never aspire to anything more than pseudo-science because it fails to adhere to the rigorous process of rational inquiry that is the scientific method. All it does is sit around all day, contemplating how things seem to be and comparing them to one another, rather than determining how things are, and why, and how they came to be that way. It places far too much of an emphasis on form and not enough on causality. It ignores objective data in favor of subjective experience.

Furthermore, it's useless. Even if we want to believe that everything we encounter in our lives are merely sense-experiences, we have to deal with the world we perceive as though it were real, just as would a materialist. Because guess what? If you place your hands on a burner and try to say "There may not be a burner here but only the sensation of something burning me", you're still going to get burned and have to pull your hand away! :sarcastic

 

[McBell]

Exactly, the cat is neither dead nor alive, until you open the box.

Assuming there even is a cat...

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm sorry, I'm finding it difficult to concentrate on anything else after that.

Are you offended?

 

[doppelganger]

Phenomenalism can tell us plenty about how things appear to us, but it tells us nothing useful about how things are because it doesn't trust our ability to perceive reality as it is.

So now you're arguing for religious faith?

Furthermore, it's not science or spirituality, but a philosophical school that occassionally masquerades as science but can never aspire to anything more than pseudo-science because it fails to adhere to the rigorous process of rational inquiry that is the scientific method.

Some people just really like their illusions of certainty.

All it does is sit around all day, contemplating how things seem to be and comparing them to one another, rather than determining how things are, and why, and how they came to be that way.

Sounds cute, but when you sit around all day and "determine how things are, and why, and how they came to be that way" all you're doing is contemplating how things seem and comparing them to one another. You're just being exceptionally sloppy about the philosophy of science here.

It places far too much of an emphasis on form and not enough on causality. It ignores objective data in favor of subjective experience.

You're arguing for 19th Century science. Quantum mechanics reveals that we live in a non-causal, non-local universe. Seriously, check it out. Einstein couldn't bring himself to accept it, but Niels Bohr won the day - non-locality appears to be a feature of the "things" in the Universe. This may sound odd, but you actually are arguing for faith in objectivity. Think about this: science doesn't study "reality" - it studies what we say and think about "reality." Now stop and walk yourself through the steps of the "scientific method" . . .

Furthermore, it's useless. Even if we want to believe that everything we encounter in our lives are merely sense-experiences, we have to deal with the world we perceive as though it were real, just as would a materialist. Because guess what? If you place your hands on a burner and try to say "There may not be a burner here but only the sensation of something burning me", you're still going to get burned and have to pull your hand away! :sarcastic

No doubt. But usefulness isn't truth. And models of reality that aren't recognized as models aren't very useful as models. Luckily, many real scientists understand that principle.

 

[doppelganger]

What do you mean by "spiritually"?

Composed of thought and words. Breathed out in language.

 

[Jeremiah]

Composed of thought and words. Breathed out in language.

Then what after you apply faith? Mabye it is faith's role to link the two. (subjectivity / objectivity)

Just a guess.