That is such a non-sequitur! Are you saying that all neurological functions are emotions? That makes breathing and pupil dilation emotions, then! Are you saying beliefs are emotions? Then being a Republican is an emotion!
Emotion is defined in Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., as
Words have meaning. If you twist the definition of words to suit your purposes, much like Humpty Dumpty with his “portmanteau” words in * Through The Looking Glass*,
then it is you who makes conversation impossible.
I repeat, faith in God is a philosophical position, arrived at through a combination of reason and intuition, not an emotion.
It comes to this… Atheism and other such skepticisms are simply spiritual and intellectual failings…
And blahbiddy blahbiddy blah…
[/quote]
[/quote]
Fair enough. I stand corrected - I too can now see how my post came off high handed at the start. Please substitute the first four words of my post with "For your consideration…"
as for
I feel that previously you offhandidly dismissed my position not because my understanding of “faith” was incorrect but because my definition of origin of “faith” was in conflict with your beliefs. I believe that we both have the same classical understanding of the meaning of “faith” as defined by M.Webster. We may never reach a similar understanding regarding it’s connection to deity. But ain’t it fun trying…
Egads . . . people are going to such outstanding lengths here to misunderstand each other, I wonder if I’m only imagining that everyone is posting in English.
The fact that all emotions are [the subjective experience of] neurophysiological functions does not imply that all neurophysiological functions are emotions. Where did you get that from?
No, it makes them functions which originate in the brain, just like he said. Again, “all emotions are brain functions” does not imply “all brain functions are emotions.” (And, come to think of it, changes in breathing and pupil dilation are in fact associated in differing ways with various emotions.)
Now this is a non sequitur. To the extent that beliefs and other facets of an individual’s personality manifest in the brain, they are brain functions. That does not mean they are emotions. You’re taking Nen’s argument and trying, deliberately or otherwise, to make it appear that he proposed the converse of what he actually did. He didn’t say that everything that originates in the brain is an emotion; he said that emotions originate in the brain.
Not even a little. I believe what Nen said was, and I quote:
And few things move a person into action as much as religious rightuousness and ferver. Wars are fought on just such emotional swells.
I do not mean to offend but it was you who twisted Nen’s words to suit your purpose thus far. Perhaps it was all in the heat of a neurophysiological response.
If you want to talk about the kind of faith held by some theists, i.e., an intellectual belief (which is analogous to the faith held by the devil), then I grant you that it is a synaptic discharge. But if you want to talk about the kind of faith that God gives to those of us who worship Him in Spirit and in Truth, then you will have to step into a different reference frame (the Spiritual metaphysic) for our discussion to be meaningful.
goboy: “I repeat, faith in God is a philosophical position, arrived at through a combination of reason and intuition, not an emotion.”
This just doesn’t fly man. Faith and reason go together as well as oil and water. Faith, by definition, apprehends what reason cannot, excepting Anselm’s et al.'s pitiful “proofs” of the existence of God. For a select few though, I will agree that faith can be apprehended by dispassionately, but most apprehend faith emotionally. What emotion? Fear, easily, by a mile. Fear is the consequence of a person who percieves that his/her needs are not to be met. These needs being physical, security, emotional, intellectual…And what is God if not the ultimate provider, provider of food, wine, morals, love, hope, salvation…Further, what is the ultimate fear God countermands, death. Obviously I’m coming at this by way of Christianity, but I think the basic idea is applicable across the board, that faith is usually emotionally based, and by its nature can’t be justified by reason.
which seemed to me to be saying that all brain functions were emotions. I repeat, faith is not an emotion.
I have no intention of twisting Nen’s words.
Gosh, I’m in the minority here; well, “Hier Ich steh’, Ich kann nicht anders.”
Lastgasp has a point, for faith, after all, ultimately must be “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” However, despite its emotional components, one must ** decide** to have faith, removing it from the category of emotions.
Is that it then? No middle ground? No place to discuss the merrits and errors of each position without having to embrace the opposite extreme. We are at an impass then. You cannot permit yourself the latitude to consider the possibility that God is a construct of your own mind, while I cannot in good concience step off the edge of a cliff expecting to land safely into your Spiritual metaphysic and not plunge to my death on the rocks beneath.
Yet I can show you the cliff and you cannot show me your Spiritual metaphysic.
I fail to understand the nuances between these two definitions of faith. Would you please elaborate, Libertarian? Moreover, why do you attribute intellectual faith to a devil and a non-intellectual faith to a god?
goboy, do you understand my drift at this juncture or do you require additional elaboration? (Thank you for the additional clarification of my post pldennison and QuickSilver).
I believe Libertarian is talking about the faith held by the devils in hell in the first chapeter of the Epistle of James, intellectual faith that something exists, e.g., I believe Belgrade exists, even though I’ve never been there.
Lib’s second definition can also be called trust, as in I trust you to do the right thing, I have faith in you, that sort of thing.
Nen, I hesitate to suggest you are being disingenuous, because you seem to be a clear-minded, reasonable poster. But I cannot understand how you can miss the distinction, which to me is clear as day, between:
> Quasi-emotional, and probably emotionally based, loving allegiance to another, involving the placing of trust in that other
> Intellectual adherence to a non-rational belief system
> The codification of such a belief system, with appropriate metaphysic appended
I apologize for this sounding like a flame, but I can clearly see all three meanings in the word “faith” in different contexts, and am completely at a loss as to why you insist on failing to see the distinction.
To say, “I believe that little green men from Mars exist,” does not mean that I put any trust in them, only that I have formed an intellectual conviction of their existence that I presumably have no proof of. To say, “I believe in you” means that I trust you, not that I have the theory that you do in fact exist. And to say “I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” has a quite different meaning, involving both an intellectual adherence to a system of government defined on a piece of parchment in the National Archives and copied hither and yon, and a willingness to take action in support of same system – patriotism, if you will.
I realize that I am using the word “believe” as the verb form of “faith” – not quite on target – but it clarifies for me the distinction that I see here. For many years I had the general, vague intellectual concept of the existence of God and adhered in loose terms to the theology of a church that I belonged to. Then I had a personal encounter with Him, and committed myself to Him. And the difference is that between doing a college paper on courtship customs and falling head-over-heels in love.
Quicksilver, I like the analogy from goboy best - ‘I believe it exists, although I’ve never seen it’, substitute God, Belgrade, or Hennessee XO Cognac for the word ‘it’ in that sentence. Is this also an emotion? I don’t think so. I think this is a belief in something you have not seen, but have been taught/shown/convinced that it exists.
I also believe that some base their faith in God simply on emotional factors - it feels good to pray and believe that someone hears the prayers, it makes one feel good to do what they believe is Gods work, etc. But not all faith is stricktly emotional. For instance, I have no particular religious affiliation, nor do I believe in any given religion as we define them, but I do believe in ‘Supreme Power’ for lack of better words, based on my knowledge of the Universe, and my belief that it’s all a bit much to have come about all on it’s own. That is very little to do with emotion, and is fairly similar to religious faith (I hope the same for the purposes of this discussion).
