Epistemology: FAITH and reason

[Matthias123]

Inspired by the beautiful poetic writing of G.K Chesterton in his book Orthodoxy, I wish to write something on faith. For faith in the divine truths of God, transcend the ignorance of our age. They transcend absence of verification and allow one to so fully engulf oneself in the sacred mysteries. Faith firmly grounds one in truth, and prevents oneself to be swept away by erroneous philosophies and the iniquitous scoffing of our world.

For how would we be pleasing to God if every time there were intellectual difficulties we denied His revelation? For surely there was a time that nobody believed the Hittite Empire existed, where we to reinterpret the scriptures because of their hasty dissidence? What about the notion that Isaiah erred in the identification of the Assyrian King Sargon II? Are we to reinterpret the words of our holy prophet because there is doubt? What about those who doubted the existence of Pontius Pilate? Didn’t we know he exited before they found his inscription on the Roman ruin? The faithful have been rewarded in their thirst for truth by orthodoxy through faith.

What is faith? Surely we know that everything we have faith in is not necessarily true. For didn’t the Greeks who worshiped Apollo have faith? Don’t Hindus and Muslims have faith? Do they not hold to their convictions are firm as we do? Alas! The understanding of such things is lost upon our world! As faith is a gift and our response is the act of accepting such a gift. It is a divinely infused virtue (good habit) that is freely given and freely received. There is an act of faith, or an act of accepting revelation, through the Holy Ghost which gives faith it’s element of mysticism. Faith is accepting the revelation of God through the Spirit – nothing false can come under this faith for God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

It is a practice of humility to rely on another for truth. For in faith we depend on God for truths that we cannot verify, and in this we show our trust in Him.

Of course my understanding of such things are limited, and I of course I error frequently in my writing, but I would hope that I was able to in my on small way, to convey some of the majesty and romance of faith.

Obviously the above is a fairly weak, but it is just to get things going Bring on the objections! Let’s rumble!

 

[Matthias123]

Let’s actually pose an argument here:

1. It seems that atheists are too rash in rejecting faith. For faith for all people is trusting in what appears not. Now it is known that some things that appear not are in fact true, therefore the person who holds what appears not on faith will in some cases be correct. Therefore sometimes faith can be advantageous.
2. It seems that faith in the testimony of Christ is very much like faith in other things. For it is often that we hear testimonies of people concerning personal experiences that appear not to be so, and we believe them, if satisfactorily reasonable, without verification. Therefore if one does not find faith in Christ absurd, there is no reason why we shouldn’t hold such truths on faith.
3. It would seem in our daily lives we know things through faith. For some of that natural sciences propose notions that appear not. Now since these notions have not been verified by experience, they are known through belief in a person who has claimed to have verified it and gained knowledge through experience. Therefore we are accepting his testimony on faith.

 

[AntiTheist]

For faith for all people is trusting in what appears not.

Agreed, but I would add that “faith” is also accepting claims without evidence. If you have evidence for something, then you no longer require faith to accept it.

sometimes faith can be advantageous.

Sure, but only if it turns out to be true. You can’t use “it would be advantageous if it turns out to be true” as a justification to accept something absurd.

As an example, it would be advantageous if it turns out to be true that I can fly under my own power – but just because it would be advantageous if true doesn’t mean that I should have faith in my ability to fly under my own power.

It seems that faith in the testimony of Christ is very much like faith in other things. For it is often that we hear testimonies of people concerning personal experiences that appear not to be so, and we believe them, if satisfactorily reasonable, without verification.

Could I have an example of what you mean here?

Generally, the rule of thumb is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but ordinary claims can be accepted provisionally.

If you present me with an ordinary claim, like “I own a car,” I’m willing to accept that. I know you could always be lying to me, but it’s such a normal claim that it doesn’t make much of a difference if you’re lying or not. It’s pretty likely to be true.

If you present me with an extraordinary claim, like “My car turns invisible when I say a magic word,” then I’m not going to accept that on your word. I would need some really good evidence to accept an extraordinary claim like that.

Therefore if one does not find faith in Christ absurd

It’s an absurd story. There’s no reason to think that a man rose from the dead.

It would seem in our daily lives we know things through faith. For some of that natural sciences propose notions that appear not.

Well, go back to my initial point. If you have evidence, you don’t need faith, and that’s what science deals in, and that’s what we deal in when we live our daily lives.

And non-scientists don’t have “faith” in scientists. What we have is trust in the body of experts whose peer-reviewed findings express the consensus of the scientific community – and we trust it not on faith, but on evidence: all of the developments of technology, for example, are strong pieces of evidence for trusting in the effectiveness of peer-reviewed science.

We have lots of good reasons and evidence, not faith, to provisionally accept the findings of the scientific community.

 

[Matthias123]

Agreed, but I would add that “faith” is also accepting claims without evidence. If you have evidence for something, then you no longer require faith to accept it.

I agree

Sure, but only if it turns out to be true. You can’t use “it would be advantageous if it turns out to be true” as a justification to accept something absurd.

I agree

As an example, it would be advantageous if it turns out to be true that I can fly under my own power – but just because it would be advantageous if true doesn’t mean that I should have faith in my ability to fly under my own power.

I agree

Generally, the rule of thumb is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but ordinary claims can be accepted provisionally.

I understand where you are coming from, but even if it is true, you are not going to get your extradordinary evidence. Either way you are stuck with ordinary evidence, so I do not believe that we can dismiss it as false because there is not any extraordinary evidence. Now then the question comes up “If Christ is God why wouldn’t he give us extraordinary evidence?” The answer to this is a theological one, because it is a question concerning the behavior of God.

My question to you is, if it is not fitting for God to give us extraordinary evidence, and I am not saying a really quick answer, I mean a good solid reason, of why if a God exists, it would not be proper for him to give us this sort of evidence, do you this we could accept such events on ordinary evidence? (I know your thinking now, how convienent! Just roll with me here)

It’s an absurd story. There’s no reason to think that a man rose from the dead.

I am going to save you the classic argument for the for Jesus rising from the dead because I know it will just go on forever (even though I accept this argument). Perhaps we could come to some common agreement here. From my point of view, observing you, it seems that you believe it is absurd because you are trying to get to D without even going to A first. You don’t believe that God exists, you don’t believe the supernatural exists, you are most likely a materialist, you do not believe that Y*hweh is this God, so to you this is absurd. Now lets take my intellectual position, I do believe that God exists, I do believe that the supernatural exists, I am not a materialist, and I do believe that Yahweh is this God. From this foundation can you see why I do not find it absurd? As from my position it is very fitting for it to happen.
I think you have most likely been around this forum enough to know that, even though you disagree, we are not crackpots or idiots.

Can we agree that given a specific foundation of beliefs, the resurection of Christ would not be seen as absurd?

Well, go back to my initial point. If you have evidence, you don’t need faith, and that’s what science deals in, and that’s what we deal in when we live our daily lives.

Well, have you ever seen the empirical evidence that light travels in a straight line? I know I haven’t, I just believe it because my science teacher told me it was true, and many other people that seem to know what they are talking about say it is true.

And non-scientists don’t have “faith” in scientists. What we have is trust in the body of experts whose peer-reviewed findings express the consensus of the scientific community – and we trust it not on faith, but on evidence: all of the developments of technology, for example, are strong pieces of evidence for trusting in the effectiveness of peer-reviewed science.

Is not trust a type of faith? If you trusted me with your car, wouldn’t that mean you have faith that I would not crash it? If I trust a scientist does that not mean I have faith that he is not in error? Does this not mean that I have faith that he is not a lair?

I understand that because it is not just one scientist, but because it is a comunity of scientist, this does hold very well. I think might see what I am trying to stab at here.

Play devil’s advocate with me, if God does exists, do you think it would be fitting for him to reveal himself? If it is, would it be reasonable to have faith in this revelation? (Assuming that God is not a trickster, we are not talking about such things as having faith in Young Earth Creationism)

 

[NowAgnostic]

Inspired by the beautiful poetic writing of G.K Chesterton in his book Orthodoxy, I wish to write something on faith. For faith in the divine truths of God, transcend the ignorance of our age. They transcend absence of verification and allow one to so fully engulf oneself in the sacred mysteries. Faith firmly grounds one in truth, and prevents oneself to be swept away by erroneous philosophies and the iniquitous scoffing of our world.

For how would we be pleasing to God if every time there were intellectual difficulties we denied His revelation? For surely there was a time that nobody believed the Hittite Empire existed, where we to reinterpret the scriptures because of their hasty dissidence? What about the notion that Isaiah erred in the identification of the Assyrian King Sargon II? Are we to reinterpret the words of our holy prophet because there is doubt? What about those who doubted the existence of Pontius Pilate? Didn’t we know he exited before they found his inscription on the Roman ruin? The faithful have been rewarded in their thirst for truth by orthodoxy through faith.

What is faith? Surely we know that everything we have faith in is not necessarily true. For didn’t the Greeks who worshiped Apollo have faith? Don’t Hindus and Muslims have faith? Do they not hold to their convictions are firm as we do? Alas! The understanding of such things is lost upon our world! As faith is a gift and our response is the act of accepting such a gift. It is a divinely infused virtue (good habit) that is freely given and freely received. There is an act of faith, or an act of accepting revelation, through the Holy Ghost which gives faith it’s element of mysticism. Faith is accepting the revelation of God through the Spirit – nothing false can come under this faith for God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

It is a practice of humility to rely on another for truth. For in faith we depend on God for truths that we cannot verify, and in this we show our trust in Him.

Of course my understanding of such things are limited, and I of course I error frequently in my writing, but I would hope that I was able to in my on small way, to convey some of the majesty and romance of faith.

Obviously the above is a fairly weak, but it is just to get things going Bring on the objections! Let’s rumble!

Faith (as the Catholic Church defines it, which is summarized pretty well above) is impossible to have without dismissing reason. It does not permit the believer to entertain the objective possibility he or she might be in error, whereas reason demands the admission of that possibility.

Now, obviously, if it is known that God revealed something, then it is known with metaphysical (absolute) certitude that what is revealed is true; a perfect being cannot be deceived (being omniscient) or deceive (being morally perfect).

But how is it known that God revealed something? There are only three possible answers.

1. In theory, because He reveals that He revealed it. But then how is it known He revealed that? This is what believers call the “gift of faith” or the “divinely infused virtue of faith” - an internal, interior revelation that the exterior claims of revelation are true. But how is the believer to know he or she is not mistaken? What distinguishes the faith of the Catholic from the faith of the Hindu? How is the Hindu to know he or she is mistaken. Saying it is the “gift of faith” is seen to be merely begging the question. One needs another “gift of faith” to know that the claimed interior revelation is really so. And so on.
2. Because one can use deductive logic and arrive at metaphysical certainty. But this is impossible, because every finite effect (which every purported act of revelation is) admits of a finite cause. It is not, for instance, a logical impossibility that a highly (but not infinitely) intelligent and powerful spirit could appear in human form, appear to be crucified and appear to rise from the dead.
3. Because one can use inductive logic and arrive at revelation as an inference to the best explanation. (This is, in my view, what most people who claim to have “faith” actually do.) But then, one doesn’t have absolute certainty. Reason demands the admission there is not absolute, objective certainty about the claim of divine revelation - it is possibly false. That’s why there are intellectual difficulties, because there is contrary evidence against revelation as an explanation which the mind comes into contact with.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Let’s actually pose an argument here:

OK but you’re using a very attenuated version of faith here, which no Catholic would (or should) accept as an acceptable example of the supposed infused divine virtue. You’re talking about mere human faith.

1. It seems that atheists are too rash in rejecting faith. For faith for all people is trusting in what appears not. Now it is known that some things that appear not are in fact true, therefore the person who holds what appears not on faith will in some cases be correct. Therefore sometimes faith can be advantageous.

But he will in other cases be incorrect. How to distinguish advantageous from disadvantageous faith, except by using empirical methods and analyzing the likelihood that what appears not explains what does appear?

1. It seems that faith in the testimony of Christ is very much like faith in other things. For it is often that we hear testimonies of people concerning personal experiences that appear not to be so, and we believe them, if satisfactorily reasonable, without verification. Therefore if one does not find faith in Christ absurd, there is no reason why we shouldn’t hold such truths on faith.

But not with absolute certitude. We may decide to believe the witnesses of the risen Christ. That doesn’t give us absolute certainty that they were not hallucinating or fabricating. Or, that they were honest, but Christ himself was lying when he claimed to be Son of God.

1. It would seem in our daily lives we know things through faith. For some of that natural sciences propose notions that appear not. Now since these notions have not been verified by experience, they are known through belief in a person who has claimed to have verified it and gained knowledge through experience. Therefore we are accepting his testimony on faith.

Yes, in fact scientists often do have to take on “faith” what appears in peer-reviewed literature - they don’t have the time to analyze the data on their own and even if they did, they’d have to take on “faith” the data wasn’t altered or doctored up. Science couldn’t proceed if independent verification had to be performed all the time. But it’s known from time to time that what appears in peer-reviewed literature is false, like the falsified pictures of that Korean scientist using stem cells.

In short, the Church demands far more than fallible human faith to be considered a “believer”.

 

[iNs1d3tRiP]

I understand what you are saying about faith, but you seemed to have nothing to say about reason.

I very much disagree that faith is what keeps us from being “swept away” by other philosophies. Reason can do this as well because our metaphysical understanding of Creation is true.

I do not have many objections to what you say about faith, but I certainly do not think you gave reason it’s due.

 

[Touchstone]

Let’s actually pose an argument here:

1. It seems that atheists are too rash in rejecting faith. For faith for all people is trusting in what appears not. Now it is known that some things that appear not are in fact true, therefore the person who holds what appears not on faith will in some cases be correct. Therefore sometimes faith can be advantageous.
2. It seems that faith in the testimony of Christ is very much like faith in other things. For it is often that we hear testimonies of people concerning personal experiences that appear not to be so, and we believe them, if satisfactorily reasonable, without verification. Therefore if one does not find faith in Christ absurd, there is no reason why we shouldn’t hold such truths on faith.
3. It would seem in our daily lives we know things through faith. For some of that natural sciences propose notions that appear not. Now since these notions have not been verified by experience, they are known through belief in a person who has claimed to have verified it and gained knowledge through experience. Therefore we are accepting his testimony on faith.

You are equivocating on “known” and “knowledge” here in the most reckless way. To read you, one would think “believe” is a synonym for “know”. Science knows nothing that is not verified by experience. That is the basis for its epistemology – knowing is only meaningful as a statement about experience.

It’s true to say that science embraces many ideas provisionally. A hypothesis can come from anywhere, even an LSD-induced hallucination, say (see Francis Crick’s account of his inspiration for the double helix of DNA, for example!). A hypothesis is entertained provisionally, as a way to enable stress testing and evaluation of it.

As for accepting vicarious knowledge, that is also provisional, and always subject to doubt and scrutiny. It was claimed at one time by some ostensibly quite reputable scientists that cold fusion had been catalyzed in a laboratory environment. But science is both skeptical and committed to objective, outside revew, so bogus claims like that can be and are discovered, as well as reliable claims are independently verified. We trust scientific reports provisionally, but also on the basis of evidential performance; we have a way to expect frauds or problems to be identified, and a method for duplicating and confirming claims that do have merit. The “trust” then doesn’t come blindly. It obtains from a critical assessment of the pipeline that delivers it.

This is not the case with vicarious “knowledge” in the form of religious claims. As soon as it becomes subject to objective verification – validation as real knowledge – it ceases to be religious, credulous, and becomes a scientific or rational/empirical proposition.

Faith in Christ, then, is fundamentally different than faith in science or empirical knowledge, because it is not accepted provisionally and on the basis of liability to falsification and/or verification. The corrigbility and accountability of beliefs in those two cases could not be more different. Faith in Christ is incorrigible in principle, and faith in scientific claims is ever liable to empirical falsification or revision on practical, empirical grounds.

Lastly, if I grant, arguendo, that faith in Christ is “not absurd”, “not absurd” is not itself a form of epistemic warrant for belief, even provisionally.

-TS

 

[Matthias123]

OK but you’re using a very attenuated version of faith here, which no Catholic would (or should) accept as an acceptable example of the supposed infused divine virtue. You’re talking about mere human faith.

Granted

But not with absolute certitude. We may decide to believe the witnesses of the risen Christ. That doesn’t give us absolute certainty that they were not hallucinating or fabricating. Or, that they were honest, but Christ himself was lying when he claimed to be Son of God.

Granted

In short, the Church demands far more than fallible human faith to be considered a “believer”.

I agree

 

[Matthias123]

Faith (as the Catholic Church defines it, which is summarized pretty well above) **is impossible to have without dismissing reason. **

I understand where you are going with this but you cannot apply this statement universally. Obviously if something came and appeared to be contrary to her doctrines we would hold it as an error on faith, in this case we would trust the revelation of God.

It does not permit the believer to entertain the objective possibility he or she might be in error, whereas reason demands the admission of that possibility.

Only when something is de fide. Although if something did happen that obviously violated her doctrines, at the violater was a certain truth, I am betting she would admit that she erred in decreeing Papal Infalibility.

1. In theory, because He reveals that He revealed it. But then how is it known He revealed that? This is what believers call the “gift of faith” or the “divinely infused virtue of faith” - an internal, interior revelation that the exterior claims of revelation are true. But how is the believer to know he or she is not mistaken? What distinguishes the faith of the Catholic from the faith of the Hindu? How is the Hindu to know he or she is mistaken. Saying it is the “gift of faith” is seen to be merely begging the question. One needs another “gift of faith” to know that the claimed interior revelation is really so. And so on.

Very valid issues, I will attempt to form an argument later on, for this issue.

1. Because one can use deductive logic and arrive at metaphysical certainty. But this is impossible, because every finite effect (which every purported act of revelation is) admits of a finite cause. It is not, for instance, a logical impossibility that a highly (but not infinitely) intelligent and powerful spirit could appear in human form, appear to be crucified and appear to rise from the dead.

Granted

1. Because one can use inductive logic and arrive at revelation as an inference to the best explanation. (This is, in my view, what most people who claim to have “faith” actually do.) But then, one doesn’t have absolute certainty. Reason demands the admission there is not absolute, objective certainty about the claim of divine revelation - it is possibly false. That’s why there are intellectual difficulties, because there is contrary evidence against revelation as an explanation which the mind comes into contact with.

Granted

I do not disagree, these are very valid diffuculties, and I will hope to respond to them later on. (I am about to head out the door)

 

[Matthias123]

I will respond to touchstone a bit later.

 

[Matthias123]

In order to understand faith, I believe it would be important to reflect on how the early Christians dealt with the subject. No better is to contemplate on the writings of Paul of Tarsus, who givens us such a illuminating glimpse into the fragile early Church.

“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of Christ. For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ: and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom. but in shewing of the Spirit and power: That your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” – Letter to the Church in Corinth

I have meditated on this paragraph long and hard, for many hours, throughout my life, and would like to share some of my epiphanies with you. Now by examining what he is saying, I believe it would be particularly enlightening when thinking about faith. For what he is effectively saying is that he did not come bearing philosophical, scientific, or any human wisdom for that matter, on purpose, so that their faith would not be rooted in human wisdom. This is extremely peculiar, and at first dissatisfying as it implies that Christianity, from the very beginning was irrational, and in breaching faith infused by God, has created an intellectually absurd monster, that has been ravaging minds for almost two-thousand years. To claim this though is missing an entire dimension. As having your faith rooted in the shifting sands of human wisdom, is a recipe for getting swept away by erroneous ideologies, and philosphies. It is fitting that, if Christ was really God, he would not have our faith in him rooted in this way, because it simply, as Now Agnostic has pointed out, wouldn’t work very well – if even at all.

So there is required a deeper and unnatural faith, in order for God’s plan of salvation to unfold people have to take a mystical “act of faith”. I believe that understanding the act of faith, requires understanding the spiritual dimension of the human person. When “religious experience” is spoken about, both theists and atheists cringe, as much of the time this “experience” is rather ordinary happening seen through the eyes of faith, that projects on to them supernatural meaning. What I am going to talk about is not this kind of religious experience, as I am firmly believe that a “holy scepticism” is needed to always keep oneself on guard from mistaking ordinary occurrences as so called “signs” from God. When I start to explain the concepts of the spiritual dimension, I have very enthusiastic that NowAgnostic will understand what I am talking about. I am sure, from my observation of him, that he must be dissatisfied with the like of credulity when it comes to the stereotypical religious experience, and I wish today to go far deeper then these very “childlike” truths and delved deep into the human being.

What I must reject however is the tendency to cast all religious experience under the umbrella of superstition. As this would be effectively denying the whole spiritual dimension that humans so obviously seek after. I would define these “spiritual truths” as those truths that transcend the ordinary – the truths that penetrate into our very selves and gives as that “spiritual satisfaction” – those we so desperately desire. Now this is not just for the religious, as I know that Touchstone as described it as well, when he was explaining to me his awe in the natural world. There is a certain elegance and transcendentalism to certain qualities that we observe in reality. Whether it is the holism seen in quantum mechanics, the deepness, and profound accuracy of mathematical symmetry, or the experience of profound silence, all of these experiences seem to transcend normal experience and point to something higher. What exactly this “something higher” is has been the subject of the human experience from the very beginning of our species. One only has to take a look a comparative look at the boundless number of religious and beliefs, and one would be utterly consumed by the colourful diversity that exists within the religious sphere. Atheists are part of this sphere, even though they do not hold to particular religions; they still satisfy themselves with spiritualism with the same spiritualism, just in radically different ways. I do believe that there can be the spiritual atheist, or the spiritual agnostic, as they too play in the very same meadow, enjoying what transcends the ordinary. So I believe it would be fitting to call man a “spiritual being” and even, if we are so bold, to call man a “religious being” even given this atheist exception.

We have all experienced the satisfaction of these transcendental truths, as they stream through out bodies, fulfilling this peculiar desire. Yet we very rarely contemplate on what these mellow streams of spirituality are doing to the very center of the human being. How can we describe what seems to transcends the ordinary in this way? I believe the only way to describe such a phenomenon is by analogy: Within the realm of the human being there exists a very peculiar path that leads into the hidden interior castle, which is so commonly overlooked amongst the interior rubbish that clutters ourselves. It is this castle, nestled away within the human person, that this “spiritualism” that is slightly illuminated by these truths piercing through our beings. It is like the flickering of light, from a candle that so gently and slightly lights up the room. Although these truths do not satisfy the human person for long and soon they thirst once more. It is this dimension that faith is born, as faith is the result of the mysticisms that exists as the relationship between man and God. As faith exists as the indwelling of the Holy Ghost inside the castle, that illuminates and enlivens oneself in an intimate relationship with God. So to focus one’s faith on the realm of reason is to miss the entire spiritual dimension that exists within the human person.

I must admit I am an amateur at describing such things, but if there is nothing else to take from this, I would challenge you to question the spiritual or mysticism that may be at work.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Agreed, but I would add that “faith” is also accepting claims without evidence.

That depends on the context. It seems you are expressing this within the scientific concept of evidence. But thats not the only kind of evidence.

 

[JDaniel]

Faith (as the Catholic Church defines it, which is summarized pretty well above) is impossible to have without dismissing reason. It does not permit the believer to entertain the objective possibility he or she might be in error, whereas reason demands the admission of that possibility.

Now, obviously, if it is known that God revealed something, then it is known with metaphysical (absolute) certitude that what is revealed is true; a perfect being cannot be deceived (being omniscient) or deceive (being morally perfect).

But how is it known that God revealed something? There are only three possible answers.

1. In theory, because He reveals that He revealed it. But then how is it known He revealed that? This is what believers call the “gift of faith” or the “divinely infused virtue of faith” - an internal, interior revelation that the exterior claims of revelation are true. But how is the believer to know he or she is not mistaken? What distinguishes the faith of the Catholic from the faith of the Hindu? How is the Hindu to know he or she is mistaken. Saying it is the “gift of faith” is seen to be merely begging the question. One needs another “gift of faith” to know that the claimed interior revelation is really so. And so on.
2. Because one can use deductive logic and arrive at metaphysical certainty. But this is impossible, because every finite effect (which every purported act of revelation is) admits of a finite cause. It is not, for instance, a logical impossibility that a highly (but not infinitely) intelligent and powerful spirit could appear in human form, appear to be crucified and appear to rise from the dead.
3. Because one can use inductive logic and arrive at revelation as an inference to the best explanation. (This is, in my view, what most people who claim to have “faith” actually do.) But then, one doesn’t have absolute certainty. Reason demands the admission there is not absolute, objective certainty about the claim of divine revelation - it is possibly false. That’s why there are intellectual difficulties, because there is contrary evidence against revelation as an explanation which the mind comes into contact with.

Sorry, I had read this but did not think this was the philosophical dilemma were referring to. There is one other “answer”: actual Grace. Thus, if a mere mortal uses one, or more, of the above methods to “know” that God has revealed something, and to “know” that it is true, that person has received sufficient actual grace to walk with Truth. Additionally, that person may even “learn” of some revealed Truth by virtue of grace.

Why is this grace more significant than that of some other religion? For one, because it was granted to the Catholic Church by Christ Himself.

God bless,

jd

 

[AntiTheist]

Sorry, I forgot lost track of this thread:

Can we agree that given a specific foundation of beliefs, the resurection of Christ would not be seen as absurd?

Well, the problem is that each of the beliefs necessary to have a belief in the resurrection is increasingly absurd as well. This has the opposite effect of what you intend: rather than showing that the resurrection becomes less absurd when seen through a different point of view, you’ve demonstrated that the resurrection is even more absurd than it might seem at first glance because it involves accepting lots of other beliefs not justified by evidence or reason.

Well, have you ever seen the empirical evidence that light travels in a straight line? I know I haven’t, I just believe it because my science teacher told me it was true, and many other people that seem to know what they are talking about say it is true.

Knowledge doesn’t require me to personally conduct every experiment and personally inspect every piece of historical evidence. I already explained that we have bodies of experts for these things – no one is taking the word of any one individual or any one individual text, here. We are trusting in the findings of a peer-reviewed body.

Let’s clear something up. There are two definitions of the word “faith”:

1. Trust in something (based on evidence)
2. Belief despite a lack of evidence

I use the word “faith” in these kinds of discussions only to refer to definition number 2, i.e. religious faith. I do not use “faith” in the sense of “I have faith in my abilities!” What one means there is really “confidence.”

I don’t have “faith” (definition number 2, above) in scientists; I have confidence (definition number 1, above) in the process and in the bodies of experts.

Play devil’s advocate with me, if God does exists, do you think it would be fitting for him to reveal himself? If it is, would it be reasonable to have faith in this revelation?

I think that if a god actually exists, it would be reasonable for him to announce his existence to everyone on earth at once, in clear and unambiguous terms, in the primary language that each person understands. To “reveal” himself in less direct ways seems, for lack of a better term, dumb.

 

[Matthias123]

Well, the problem is that each of the beliefs necessary to have a belief in the resurrection is increasingly absurd as well. This has the opposite effect of what you intend: rather than showing that the resurrection becomes less absurd when seen through a different point of view, you’ve demonstrated that the resurrection is even more absurd than it might seem at first glance because it involves accepting lots of other beliefs not justified by evidence or reason

Knowledge doesn’t require me to personally conduct every experiment and personally inspect every piece of historical evidence. I already explained that we have bodies of experts for these things – no one is taking the word of any one individual or any one individual text, here. We are trusting in the findings of a peer-reviewed body.

On the contrary, no man believes without a reason. First you speak of justification of believe, I must ask you, what is justification? Take for explain a most certain belief that you have, say the notion that energy can be converted into mass, and mass into energy (E=MC^2). Now why do you believe such a notion? Well I would assume this is because the scientific community collectively confesses such a notion, and you have obtained this knowledge. Now why do you believe you can trust the scientific community? One would assume that it is because you believe they are well respected scientists, who are knowledgeable in their field. Well why do you believe this? Perhaps you see where I am going with this. In fact you are heading for a infinite regress of justifying beliefs has can be illustrated:

Let А be a belief and let small Greek letters be beliefs that justify this belief:

А ←α ← β ← γ ← δ ← ε…]

As you can see this would be an infinite series of justifying beliefs that will never obtain. Therefore belief А will never be justified because the set will never be formed. So I must ask you, how do you justify any of your beliefs if they are subject to this regression?

Secondly, the notion that Christ has risen from the dead is not metaphysically absurd, it is just out of the ordinary. The notion of the reversal of cosmic events given linier temporal events in space-time would be an example of metaphysically absurd. The idea of something popping into existence without an efficient cause it an example of something that is metaphysically absurd, and I would suggest logically absurd. The notion that someone can rise from the dead is far from absurd, it is just out of the ordinary. Now normally rational people adhere to the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I agree on the condition that it depends on who is making the extraordinary claim.

Suppose one of your friends who was a government worker told you that Britain has entered a secret alliance with North Korea. Obviously this would be a very extraordinary claim, and immediately you would want him to prove this seemingly preposterous notion. It is possible that as a government worker he could have ran across some papers that could have revealed this knowledge to him, but this is highly unlikely. Now suppose that instead of your friend the government worker, it was the president of the United States, the leader of the free world, who made this claim. Further suppose he made this claim during a Presidential address live on television. Nobody is going to ask him to “prove it”, at this point, they are going to take the President’s word for it. Now this is the same situation that we have with divine revelation, we do not believe it because it appears to be so, we believe it because it has been revealed by God, who cannot deceive or be deceived, thus we are guaranteed of its truth. Now whether God exists, and has revealed himself to us, is beside the point right now, as we are taking about the epistemology of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In this case, believes the notion would be far from difficult indeed.

Let’s clear something up. There are two definitions of the word “faith”:

1. Trust in something (based on evidence)
2. Belief despite a lack of evidence

I would add a 3rd definition of faith – faith as a infused good habit.

 

[AntiTheist]

Now why do you believe you can trust the scientific community? One would assume that it is because you believe they are well respected scientists, who are knowledgeable in their field. Well why do you believe this? Perhaps you see where I am going with this. In fact you are heading for a infinite regress of justifying beliefs

No, I’m not. My belief rests on evidence.

I trust the scientific process and community because I have a lot of good evidence to trust them – for example, all of the technology that I regularly use is a result of that same process and that same community. It’s obvious that the scientific peer-review process yields results, so when an idea passes the peer-review process, it’s very likely to be true.

I assert that your belief that a man once rose from the dead is based on far less evidence – and in fact, I would argue that the “evidence” is probably no evidence at all. Generally, the two pieces of “evidence” commonly cited for the resurrection are 1) the believer has had a “personal experience” of Jesus and 2) ancient documents, written decades after the event supposedly happened, claim that it happened.

Obviously, 1 is not actually evidence for anything (unless you think the “experience” of Hindus and members of other religions demonstrates that their religion is true), and 2 is equally not evidence for anything (unless you think that ancient Roman histories that contain supernatural elements equally demonstrate that magic exists).

 

[tonyrey]

I assert that your belief that a man once rose from the dead is based on far less evidence – and in fact, I would argue that the “evidence” is probably no evidence at all.

In the fifth century St Augustine remarked that the rise of Christianity would be an even greater miracle if Jesus had not risen from the dead. Fifteen hundred years later Christians now amount to one third of the world’s population. Is it likely they are all victims of fraud, fantasy or superstition?

The teaching of Jesus is evidence enough for any unbiased person. The truth shines by its own light…

 

[totustuusmaria1]

FAITH IS REASONABLE!!! The resurrection is not accepted by Christians on blind faith, but faith working through reason. “IF FAITH DOES NOT THINK IT IS NOTHING” -St. Augustine peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm
“IF FAITH DOES NOT THINK IT IS NOTHING” -St. Augustine

 

[Matthias123]

No, I’m not. My belief rests on evidence.

I trust the scientific process and community because I have a lot of good evidence to trust them – for example, all of the technology that I regularly use is a result of that same process and that same community. It’s obvious that the scientific peer-review process yields results, so when an idea passes the peer-review process, it’s very likely to be true.

You didn’t answer my question.

I assert that your belief that a man once rose from the dead is based on far less evidence – and in fact, I would argue that the “evidence” is probably no evidence at all. Generally, the two pieces of “evidence” commonly cited for the resurrection are 1) the believer has had a “personal experience” of Jesus and 2) ancient documents, written decades after the event supposedly happened, claim that it happened.

This is not a rebuttal, this is a dance. You did not answer my argument.

Obviously, 1 is not actually evidence for anything (unless you think the “experience” of Hindus and members of other religions demonstrates that their religion is true), and 2 is equally not evidence for anything (unless you think that ancient Roman histories that contain supernatural elements equally demonstrate that magic exists).

You’re building a scarecrow out of straw. Please answer my question.