Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

de Fide

Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 12:29:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Through reason I think we can know that Christianity isn't unreasonable.

But reason isn't the only epistemological mechanism through which we can know certain truths:

Eg., there is a "moral sense" that most people seem to possess, even the relativist has some sort of personal moral conviction that they just ascribe to themselves and not anyone else. There are also reports of things known tacitly, like when the quarter back throws to one receiver and not another and tacitly knew he'd make the winning touchdown. There are things known through the mechanism of instinct, things known through memory, etc... all of these are different epistemological mechanisms of knowing something. None of which require a philosophical argument!

Why can't Faith be a way of knowing that"s in addition to reason? This wouldn't be just a "blind trust" .. but in stead faith is of the order of an epistemological mechanism for knowing things which aren't discovered by reason alone.

Matters of faith lie within a higher level than the determination of reason, which isn"t the faculty that God may've intended to lead us to himself. In this way, faith can"t hang in suspense while reason cautiously weighs arguments. Scriptures say that the way to God is through the heart, not just the intellect.

The Scripture also says that Faith, an epistemological mechanism, isn't learned but received as a gift from the Holy Spirit in the form of an inner, faith-producing work. Faith then is an inner light of a constant and particular revelation imparted separately and supernaturally to every individual by the Holy Spirit.

I accept that if faith defined as mere superstitious belief or an emotional trust is an unreliable guide to theological issues, but why conflate this definition of faith with Faith as an epistemological mechanism which is a higher order above reason?

And how is it not ad hoc to discount faith as the former definition?
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 2:04:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 12:29:32 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
Through reason I think we can know that Christianity isn't unreasonable.

What a sentence that is...

But reason isn't the only epistemological mechanism through which we can know certain truths:

Is that so? Like Foucault, if you keep talking with me, I'll show you another form of the truth -but not before you reevaluate what you think "counts" as the truth. This could be interesting. I'll keep reading.

Eg., there is a "moral sense" that most people seem to possess,

Now that's a brave proposal. You observe something and so therefore you deduce that it must be inherent? That's intellectually on par with knowing that penises and vagina's make babies, so that must be the telos of what's between people's legs...

even the relativist has some sort of personal moral conviction that they just ascribe to themselves and not anyone else.

Or, it could be that we are inculturated to be moral by the very process of living in the world such that there is nothing inherent about morality but rather that morality is the very result of existence among other humans.

There are also reports of things known tacitly, like when the quarter back throws to one receiver and not another and tacitly knew he'd make the winning touchdown.

I'm going to pretend like you didn't say that.

There are things known through the mechanism of instinct, things known through memory, etc... all of these are different epistemological mechanisms of knowing something. None of which require a philosophical argument!

Well, I think what you just said could be, more or less, quashed by a first semester phil major... so there's that.

Why can't Faith be a way of knowing that"s in addition to reason?

Now you're talking.

This wouldn't be just a "blind trust" .. but in stead faith is of the order of an epistemological mechanism for knowing things which aren't discovered by reason alone.

If to be blind in the sense that you're referring means to believe in the absence of empirically verifiable evidence, then yes, insofar as faith is belief in that for which there is no evidence as such, faith must also be necessarily blind.

And let's not talk about things "known by reason alone." It's at once beyond the scope of what we're talking about here, and a hot mess of philosophical nonsense that I'll be happy to leave in my underrate years.

Matters of faith lie within a higher level than the determination of reason, which isn"t the faculty that God may've intended to lead us to himself. In this way, faith can"t hang in suspense while reason cautiously weighs arguments. Scriptures say that the way to God is through the heart, not just the intellect.

I think there is something to be said for those who have faith in that if they do, then they just "know." They "get" it. Those who don't, won't, because they can't. But that's not to say that faith isn't blind as we talked about earlier.

The Scripture also says that Faith, an epistemological mechanism, isn't learned but received as a gift from the Holy Spirit in the form of an inner, faith-producing work.

Right on.

Faith then is an inner light of a constant and particular revelation imparted separately and supernaturally to every individual by the Holy Spirit.

More or less.

I accept that if faith defined as mere superstitious belief or an emotional trust is an unreliable guide to theological issues, but why conflate this definition of faith with Faith as an epistemological mechanism which is a higher order above reason?

It entails a far greater intellectual risk to believe that which one cannot literally see before them then it does to believe only that which is empirically verifiable.

And how is it not ad hoc to discount faith as the former definition?

...
Tsar of DDO
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 2:31:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 2:04:36 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:29:32 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
Through reason I think we can know that Christianity isn't unreasonable.

What a sentence that is...

But reason isn't the only epistemological mechanism through which we can know certain truths:

Is that so? Like Foucault, if you keep talking with me, I'll show you another form of the truth -but not before you reevaluate what you think "counts" as the truth. This could be interesting. I'll keep reading.

Eg., there is a "moral sense" that most people seem to possess,

Now that's a brave proposal. You observe something and so therefore you deduce that it must be inherent? That's intellectually on par with knowing that penises and vagina's make babies, so that must be the telos of what's between people's legs...

even the relativist has some sort of personal moral conviction that they just ascribe to themselves and not anyone else.

Or, it could be that we are inculturated to be moral by the very process of living in the world such that there is nothing inherent about morality but rather that morality is the very result of existence among other humans.

Either way however that sense of the moral arises is irrelevant to the sense itself. The merits of cultural relativism (there are none) is irrelevant to what I'm getting at.


There are also reports of things known tacitly, like when the quarter back throws to one receiver and not another and tacitly knew he'd make the winning touchdown.

I'm going to pretend like you didn't say that.

A disservice maybe.


There are things known through the mechanism of instinct, things known through memory, etc... all of these are different epistemological mechanisms of knowing something. None of which require a philosophical argument!

Well, I think what you just said could be, more or less, quashed by a first semester phil major... so there's that.

No it wouldn't. Many theories of knowledge acknowledge different possible ways by which we can know something that isn't reduced to reason.

"One might claim, for example, that we can gain knowledge in a particular area by a form of Divine revelation or insight that is a product of neither reason nor sense experience. In short, when used carelessly, the labels "rationalist" and "empiricist," as well as the slogan that is the title of this essay, "Rationalism vs. Empiricism," can retard rather than advance our understanding."

http://plato.stanford.edu...


Why can't Faith be a way of knowing that"s in addition to reason?

Now you're talking.

This wouldn't be just a "blind trust" .. but in stead faith is of the order of an epistemological mechanism for knowing things which aren't discovered by reason alone.

If to be blind in the sense that you're referring means to believe in the absence of empirically verifiable evidence, then yes, insofar as faith is belief in that for which there is no evidence as such, faith must also be necessarily blind.

It all depends on what you mean by evidence. Empiricism is reductive when it comes to evidence, which is observable by the senses, etc..


And let's not talk about things "known by reason alone." It's at once beyond the scope of what we're talking about here, and a hot mess of philosophical nonsense that I'll be happy to leave in my underrate years.

No it's not. There are things known by reason I think that aren't discerned by the senses, like knowing that two and three of something is never six, in any state of affairs.


Matters of faith lie within a higher level than the determination of reason, which isn't the faculty that God may have intended to lead us to himself. In this way, faith can't hang in suspense while reason cautiously weighs arguments. Scriptures say that the way to God is through the heart, not just the intellect.

I think there is something to be said for those who have faith in that if they do, then they just "know." They "get" it. Those who don't, won't, because they can't. But that's not to say that faith isn't blind as we talked about earlier.

I want to resist that term "blind" in the sense of "arbitrarily held" though.


The Scripture also says that Faith, an epistemological mechanism, isn't learned but received as a gift from the Holy Spirit in the form of an inner, faith-producing work.

Right on.

Faith then is an inner light of a constant and particular revelation imparted separately and supernaturally to every individual by the Holy Spirit.

More or less.

I accept that if faith defined as mere superstitious belief or an emotional trust is an unreliable guide to theological issues, but why conflate this definition of faith with Faith as an epistemological mechanism which is a higher order above reason?

It entails a far greater intellectual risk to believe that which one cannot literally see before them then it does to believe only that which is empirically verifiable.

The thing I wanted to nail down with this thread is that Faith, so defined has no intellectual risk but instead is an intellectual deliverance. Empirically verifiable stuff is limited to certain subjects, just like rationally discernible bits of knowledge is relative to certain other subjects. Faith is applicable to a relationship with God where often times reason and empiricism isn't. And there's nothing unreasonable about that, how could there be? That's what I want to get across here..
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 10:23:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 12:29:32 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
Through reason I think we can know that Christianity isn't unreasonable.

But reason isn't the only epistemological mechanism through which we can know certain truths:

Eg., there is a "moral sense" that most people seem to possess, even the relativist has some sort of personal moral conviction that they just ascribe to themselves and not anyone else. There are also reports of things known tacitly, like when the quarter back throws to one receiver and not another and tacitly knew he'd make the winning touchdown. There are things known through the mechanism of instinct, things known through memory, etc... all of these are different epistemological mechanisms of knowing something. None of which require a philosophical argument!

Why can't Faith be a way of knowing that"s in addition to reason? This wouldn't be just a "blind trust" .. but in stead faith is of the order of an epistemological mechanism for knowing things which aren't discovered by reason alone.

Matters of faith lie within a higher level than the determination of reason, which isn"t the faculty that God may've intended to lead us to himself. In this way, faith can"t hang in suspense while reason cautiously weighs arguments. Scriptures say that the way to God is through the heart, not just the intellect.

The Scripture also says that Faith, an epistemological mechanism, isn't learned but received as a gift from the Holy Spirit in the form of an inner, faith-producing work. Faith then is an inner light of a constant and particular revelation imparted separately and supernaturally to every individual by the Holy Spirit.

I accept that if faith defined as mere superstitious belief or an emotional trust is an unreliable guide to theological issues, but why conflate this definition of faith with Faith as an epistemological mechanism which is a higher order above reason?

And how is it not ad hoc to discount faith as the former definition?

Only God's saints understand what faith means. Believers can only believe what the saints know because of our faith.