Because you have demonstrated that you are a reasonable man (granting me my point about certain implications of the Opening Post), I will meet you half-way. I am willing to discuss with you such things as whether “religious” faith is an emotion, so long as you will allow us to at least contextualize the term when we use it — in either your metaphysic (which, by the way, I cannot experience) or mine. Perhaps if we modify our terms so that we can make our context clear.
How about emotion-faith and decision-faith? Or whatever you recommend.
JMullaney
No, it wouldn’t.
What? He is certainly more trustworthy in matters of ethics than the atoms are. Isn’t He?
Polycarp, no offense was taken in regard to your post. My disagreement stems from my understanding of the term faith as initially intended by QuickSilver. I concur with the interpretations of the word belief you have offered. I was under the impression that we were discussing the nature of faith pertaining to god, rather than belief and trust in general. Which shall we discuss?
Libertarian, I really hate to come off as dense, but I am having difficulty understanding what you are asserting. Bear in mind, faith in god is a foreign concept to me. You have stated that faith in god is attributed to the heart. I assume that this heart is not a muscle. If it is not, then my understanding of the nature of the heart is that it is an emotional center in the brain, as it were. For this reason, I fail to understand how one can simply state that faith is either intellectual or not. Both are attributed to neurological functions, but one is more rational by your definition where the other is not.
What, precisely, do you mean in regard to building a strong man in offering an explanation for the god/devil connotations?
Then let us begin at the beginning. I do not believe in god. I believe in God. It is a proper name, not a simple noun. If you were to speak of “a libertarian”, for example, it might not be clear that you are speaking of me. And if a spoke of a nen, rather than Nen, you might find that a tad disrespectful. It is not necessary that you share my faith in order to be civil and respectful of it.
Here is something handy for you: an online dictionary. There, you will find sixteen definitions at the main entry for “heart”. Once you get the hang of it, you will be able to tell what someone means by a word based on the context of its usage.
Here, for example, we are talking about metaphysics (the nature of reality). In this context, I mean “heart” as in definition 6b.
What I meant was what I said. I said that “I attribute intellectual faith to the brain, and genuine faith to the heart,” whereas you asked, “why do you attribute intellectual faith to a devil and a non-intellectual faith to a god?” Note that the brain is not a devil, and the heart is not a god.
A typical straw man develops something like this:
Mr. Smith: Just as you cannot claim that color does not exist simply because some beings cannot perceive color, so you cannot claim that God does not exist simply because some beings cannot perceive God.
Mr. Jones: But color can be measured objectively by machines. You could take a measurement of light and show that X object is Y color.
Note that Mr. Jones is assailing an argument other than the one made by Mr. Smith.
Having given your suggestion (about a common metaphysic) some thought I submit to you that we are already sharing some common ground. We are afterall (at the minimum) subject to the rules of the same universe. The difference being, as suggested by others, is that I am limited by this universe while you maintain that you are not.
Is that a good enough starting point for the rest of the discussion?
Furthermore, I am curious about your thoughts on Nen’s last question from the other Faith:Mind Construct thread:
Finally, and this is just my observation, why is being limited to this world viewed as a “bad” thing by the faithful? Is there not enough mystery and beauty in this world to challenge the thinking mind? Have we uncovered all the secrets of our universe to begin thinking outside the box? I mean, certainly we can theorize and imagine, but can we presume to know the answer already?
It seems to me that it behooves us to find the answers to questions that lay around us before we can begin an intelligent discussion about what’s next or beyond.
I presume this goes with all the “Jesus saves; are you gaining any interest?” catchphrases that were going around a while ago! The metaphor does, uh, lend itself to some interesting things. “I do my banking at Blessed Assurance…”
Nen, thanks for understanding and for not being irked. I see the term “faith” bandied about with all those different meanings for which I drew mundane parallels, and felt that making the distinction was important. For me, the term “blind faith” to describe the certitude I have in the God I have encountered and see at work is so far from the truth as to be laughable. It’s kind of like the old, sick joke “Have you ever seen Stevie Wonder’s wife?” “No.” “Well, neither has he!” Yeah, but I have a great deal of certainty that he knows her quite well nonetheless. Howsoever, there are people who have equal certitude of their understanding of god who found their credence entirely on the Biblical account, generally taken as predominantly literal. There are others who place equal certitude in the teachings of Holy Mother Church. And there are extreme intellectual sorts for whom “the faith” is a philosophical system. I simply wanted to draw the line that “faith in God” is significantly different from “faith that God exists” and that both are distinct from, e.g., the Catholic “deposit of faith” read as a theological treasurehouse from which Popes and Councils extract dogmatic formulae. (And yes, Joel, I am misinterpreting Catholic doctrine here; the fact is that some Catholics see it in that light, and that is the point I wanted to make.)
Lib’s point, I think, is that the faith of which he and I speak in saying that “I have faith in God” is not “head knowledge” – a tenet in a theological system, but “heart knowledge” – a non-rational (though not therefore irrational) allegiance transcending formularies and requiring radical commitment to another Person.
It is good enough if we limit our discussion of religion to that which is a political system (you know, High Holy Pubahs, and all that). But then, in that reference frame, my entire world-view changes. In other words, if you want to know what I would think (or did think) as an atheist, it will suffice. But if you want to know about the faith God has actually given me, it won’t.
But it isn’t “next” or “beyond”. It’s right here in my heart. You’re right that there is plenty here in the probability field (the universe) to sink our intellectual teeth into. But our intellect will never tell us what any of it means. Were I an atheist, I would assert that it means nothing. As it stands, I know better.
But isn’t Mr. Jones trying to establish grounds on which to base his argument? Without a common basis, wouldn’t the argument turn into something of a Monty Python sketch with Mr. Jones saying, “Yes I can” and Mr. Smith saying, “No you can’t” ad infinitum.
Is it not in their interest to establish a “common metaphysic” from which to pursue their views.
In addition, Mr. Jones can say, “I can establish that colour exists using the natural laws and rules governing this universe. I do not need to interpolate my answer based on unproven presumptions about the existance of some external influence.”
I intended no disrespect, please accept my apology.
Libertarian, I find it quite odd that you would chide me for a lack of capitalization and then continue to imply that I am not aware of dictionaries or how to elicit the meaning of a word from within a given context.
This definition is simply the information I requested you to elucidate. I didn’t think that providing a definition in a debate was a difficult task.
That was a typo; moreover, I am familiar with the straw man argument.
I understand the last sentence was not your implication; however, my question still stands and does not veer from the statement you initially made.
Since you have provided the definition I requested, perhaps you would deign to elaborate upon the concept of precisely what the core or essence of something is. The reason I request this information is that I doubt our views are similar on this matter. Personally, I believe the nearest approximate to the “core” of a human (or other animal), is the synaptic firings in the brain – the electrochemical dynamic, if you will.
Apology accepted. I offer mine in return for thinking you had not seen the countless times I’ve defined “heart” in this context. (I was beginning to think that perhaps you were a small child or computer newbie: hence, the elementary instructions and links).
To answer your question, I believe that the essence of a person is God.
Likewise, I accept your apology. I was unaware of your previous explanations.
I think we may be at an impasse. If you define the essence of a person, the heart, to be God, and it is the heart from which genuine faith originates, then it is God which engenders faith. In effect, God gives faith to people so that they may have faith in Him. (Please note that I use the term Him in the generic masculine). I can only offer physically metaphysical arguments while you can only offer spiritually metaphysical arguments. Perhaps we can com toan agreement as Polycarp and I have reached in the other thread.
…and I believe that the essence of a person is chocolate with toffee cream. I, of course, cannot prove that any more than you can prove the above statement.
So the question remains: If one cannot prove or disprove the existance of God, is one any more likely to be correct in assuming He exists or does not exist? Judging by that statement alone, neither is any more right or wrong than the other. It’s an impass then.
Well, I must say that I have never been asked to prove my philosophies before, but in the spirit of the great civility shown by you gentlemen here, I will not ask you to prove that you exist without first existing to do so.
It seems we can all agree to disagree and remain respectful of one another’s intellect and beliefs.
As an aside, I cannot help but feel that you have been playing devil’s advocate throught much (or at least part) of this thread. If only in the spirit of maintaining a good debate. Am I completely mistaken?
What a great wordsmith you are!
