One must believe to understand?

[Dranu]

I. Biggie

Biggie:

If any of this has made sense to you, we can go on to faith as a principal expression of both reason and love,

Sounds good to me (btw really like the take on the meaning of Adam realizing his nakedness/covering it).

Before moving on though I have a point or two I am unsure of. Perhaps a defining of ‘love’ can be given. If it is desire (eros) then I am unsure about some of the things you have said, for one will not act on reason but only if there is also a desire that can be chosen from. For instance, one would not do x if reason said x will save one’s life. The only way one would do so is if they loved/desired their life. All action can be reduced to love in this sense since even when reason may say it is good to do x, one must love good itself to do x in the first place.

Also, in that light, when you said “On the other hand, strictly speaking, it’s work is against the effort of reason in as much as it threatens the existence of self. It makes no sense to give away food when you are hungry or will be hungry,” it is not a conflict of love and reason that seems to be going on here, but rather a conflict in different objects of love. One is concerned (in love) with the well being of others, while the other is concerned (in love) with the well being of self. Reason can actually solve this problem through a third (God or the nature of reality perhaps) if it is seen reasonable that the two may reconciled (like in our faith that loving others in fact is better for you as well).

II. Bluegoat

Bluegoat:

However, faith is indeed the first step to all philisophical, scientific, or experiential knowledge. Even knowledge of the self.

I completely agree. Though at the same time I would say one cannot doubt them since doubt requires awareness of ignorance which entails they could possibly be wrong. Since to doubt reason is to use reason, doubt of it is self-defeating, so in that sense I am not sure if it is faith so much as it is the impossibility of denying.

Still… Often when we doubt we are doing something that can be cleared up even without further knowledge. In that sense we can often doubt even when it is contradictory to do so. Since me realizing I cannot doubt reason relies on a realization of a certain argument and prior trust in the principle of non-contradiction (as you mentioned), I must have faith in my memory and that my reasoning is in fact reasonable. So yes, you are probably right, there must be faith to be reasonable (something I have believed before but it is always nice to refresh such sound thoughts especially when it comes form others).

I suggested to you previously that Anselm did NOT say that religious faith was the first step to knowledge.

Yes, perhaps, but he does seem to say it is the first step in understanding the religion. My question is more along the lines (if that line of thinking is correct) how do we come to a religion in the first place, and if it is a leap of faith prior to understanding why not jump into just any religion?

There does seem something to holding onto faith, however. There are times when we forget the logical reasons for believing yet act with faith anyhow. Furthermore, in these times there seems to be an intuition/obviousness that it would be evil to abandon faith just because you are so uncertain in those times (even when ‘apparent observations’ seem to scream against your belief), not to mention in the long run you always seem rewarded for persevering in more way than one. In that example, the being unaware of reasons is almost akin to having none at all where the only difference is you followed it previously, and that is curious indeed! Perhaps it is just showing immorality of quickly abandoning tradition that had seemed good in the past rather than something regarding faith?

III. Xpistou

Xpistou:

But reason alone is not sufficient to be Christian. You need an act of faith.

Well, I am inclined to think the act of faith is needed, but also that it comes after the will to desire/love and reasons (needing the desire for action and reason for direction). I am unsure how it can be said that faith comes before that. Yet if we say good reasoning is required, what of those many good people who are extremely simplistic in their faith?

I don’t think it is a simple “what comes first” question, like the chicken or the egg. You need both.

I do not see how you can have faith before reason or even that they arrive at the same time. I would like to learn though, but only because I have reasons to want to learn.

IV. Everyone
I think my issue is primarily:
1.) I cannot see how religious faith can come before reasons to believe as it pertains to religion.

and one I haven’t made too clear yet:

2.) When and why is it justified to close yourself off to other possibilities because of your faith in one creed. For example, coming to a twisted hedonistic argument ready to try and find something wrong with it (by faith almost knowing the wrong is there) because of your faith that it is wrong through another creed? At the same time, however, faith (or at least acting as if it were true) seems to be required to understand any given creed/system more fully. -----Perhaps I can answer that with a bit more reflection as I haven’t put a great deal of thought into that yet, but I am starting to get sleepy at the moment

Also, a thanks to those brothers and sisters in Christ who have participated so far!

 

[Biggie]

I. Biggie
Sounds good to me (btw really like the take on the meaning of Adam realizing his nakedness/covering it).

Before moving on though I have a point or two I am unsure of. Perhaps a defining of ‘love’ can be given. If it is desire (eros) then I am unsure about some of the things you have said, for one will not act on reason but only if there is also a desire that can be chosen from. For instance, one would not do x if reason said x will save one’s life. The only way one would do so is if they loved/desired their life. All action can be reduced to love in this sense since even when reason may say it is good to do x, one must love good itself to do x in the first place.

This is very good. Let’s establish love is not an emotion. We cannot command ourselves to feel a particular way, and yet we are commanded to love, therefore love cannot be an emotion. In as much as desire is an emotion, it cannot be that to which we refer.

Self interest is a given. All the resources of the being are martialed by reason to keep the being in material existence. The condition of mortality is such that death surrounds, penetrates and encroaches on the being. A lack of positive action to survive produces death. Action itself produces death. Death advances regardless. The work of fallen reason is to buy time until death itself can be solved. Despair, that voluntary death today spares the being suffering followed by inevitable death tomorrow, is a rational proposition. Reason has tabled the issue of despair in order to continue its work using devices such as distraction and mystification to keep the being aloof from despair.

This whole condition came about through the rejection of love in the garden. Self interest, therefore, cannot be the love to which we refer.

St. Paul provides a long list enumerating what love is. You will notice, though, that he is providing the characteristics of love without really defining it. This is necessarily so, if I am correct in saying love is a capability of the being on a par with reason. If it is on a par with reason, reason cannot define it. To define love, is, in a sense, to digest it - to break it down into its parts, to conquer love, to use it. Once love is converted to utility, it is no longer love.

We can say, then, that love is the act of self sacrifice for the benefit of another. It is not devoid of emotion, but is not emotion either. It is not self loathing and yet is not self interest. It is not rational, but at the same time is not irrational. Love is the capacity within us to anticipate the wants and needs of another and to work to fulfill them without regard to the wants and needs of self. Love is act. Love is work.

Also, in that light, when you said “On the other hand, strictly speaking, it’s work is against the effort of reason in as much as it threatens the existence of self. It makes no sense to give away food when you are hungry or will be hungry,” it is not a conflict of love and reason that seems to be going on here, but rather a conflict in different objects of love. One is concerned (in love) with the well being of others, while the other is concerned (in love) with the well being of self. Reason can actually solve this problem through a third (God or the nature of reality perhaps) if it is seen reasonable that the two may reconciled (like in our faith that loving others in fact is better for you as well).

You are confirming here the observation that love is rational. Love is useful when I can rationalize a return to myself in the good will and cooperation of others. But Our Lord, in scripture, however, indicates that in that event you have received your reward and should expect none other. What was he saying?

I think he was indicating that in love, one lays down his life for his friend without regard for the return. The laying down of your life can be as dramatic as throwing yourself on a grenade or as humble as holding the door for another. Even in the small ways, however, you have given away some of your life and in strictly rational terms that makes no sense for you personally. That is why love is so difficult and so frequently abandoned.

 

[Bluegoat]

I. Biggie

IV. Everyone
I think my issue is primarily:
1.) I cannot see how religious faith can come before reasons to believe as it pertains to religion.

and one I haven’t made too clear yet:

2.) When and why is it justified to close yourself off to other possibilities because of your faith in one creed. For example, coming to a twisted hedonistic argument ready to try and find something wrong with it (by faith almost knowing the wrong is there) because of your faith that it is wrong through another creed? At the same time, however, faith (or at least acting as if it were true) seems to be required to understand any given creed/system more fully. -----Perhaps I can answer that with a bit more reflection as I haven’t put a great deal of thought into that yet, but I am starting to get sleepy at the moment

I don’t think that religious faith does come before reason, or that it has to, so I suppose I sidestep that problem.

Some people do of course have a simple faith. In some cases I would say their faith is a matter of trust, perhaps in a person who they respect, like parents or a religious figure, perhaps in a religion that they see has served themselves or others well. I think that kind of faith provides the same basis as faith based in reason, as far as building a deeper relationship with God goes.

However, I also think all Christians, if they are able, are obliged to arm themselves with more tools than that - that is, they should pursue a deeper understanding of the “rational” reasons to be a Christian. This puts them in a much stronger position as Christians, to help other Christians, to avoid errors in their belief and practice, to help non-Christians, and as well, wanting to know something (God) better is a manifestation of love.

For some, because of circumstances, the ability to do this is limited, and for others it’s just not their primary calling. But once people have begun to ask themselves these philosophical and theological questions, which seems to be a matter of the character they were born with, they are pretty much obliged to try and get them answered,

As far as the second question, I don’t think we should ever “cut our selves off” from the other possibilities. But we must take the commitment we have to one very seriously indeed, and exhaust the possibilities for solutions if we have a problem, including study, prayer, and seeking the help of others. And sometimes, perhaps just waiting. I agree though that there is no religious system or even philosophical position that does not require an attitude of discipleship to really understand it.

 

[Dranu]

I. Bluegoat

Bluegoat:

I don’t think that religious faith does come before reason, or that it has to, so I suppose I sidestep that problem.

That is my position too, it just raises the possibility of the problem with those who have poor reasoning and the whole 'blessed are those who do not see but believe". However, I suppose the latter can be understood by the fact that reasoning never gives you full sight (knowledge), it only allows you to believe rationally.

II. Biggie

Biggie:

Love is the capacity within us to anticipate the wants and needs of another and to work to fulfill them without regard to the wants and needs of self. Love is act. Love is work.

Again I would say this is only an apparent conflict between two objects of love which may be solved by love for that which is greater than either of them. Love of God (or goodness itself) seems to involve loving others and thyself. However there does seem to be a conflict that those two or three loves (self and others or Goodness). It appears many who do what is right have to suffer themselves (abandon self love)

You are confirming here the observation that love is rational. Love is useful when I can rationalize a return to myself in the good will and cooperation of others. But Our Lord, in scripture, however, indicates that in that event you have received your reward and should expect none other.

I am not talking about a reward one finds in this life, but rather is found in the mode of eternity ('after’life). Furthermore, that is what God seems to promise for those who live for the betterment of the whole (seeing neighbors as valuable as your self) rather than themselves. So selfishness and love of others to the exclusion of yourself in this life if that need ever arises (which it often will, I think) is rationally reconciled through God, and most particularly through the revelation of Christ. (if that rational unity of the intuitive desire to love others and self is not a good hard reason to be Christian I do not know what is ).

The way I see it is Christianity brings rational unity to these two loves, and even some of the next greatest systems of belief (Platonism for instance) have that problem they cannot solve except by appeal to myths (like at the end of Gorgias and the Republic) which give no reason as to why that myth is true.

Even in the small ways, however, you have given away some of your life and in strictly rational terms that makes no sense for you personally.

But it does through Christianity doesn’t it?

 

[Biggie]

I. Bluegoat

The way I see it is Christianity brings rational unity to these two loves, and even some of the next greatest systems of belief (Platonism for instance) have that problem they cannot solve except by appeal to myths (like at the end of Gorgias and the Republic) which give no reason as to why that myth is true.

But it does through Christianity doesn’t it?

I had not been thinking in terms of Christianity per se, but rather in terms of reason, love and belief as first things, although you are correct I did use Our Lord’s words to make a point.

If Christianity brings “rational unity” to the love of self and the love of other, then I would offer it does so through proposing the denial of self, an apparent contradiction (lose yourself and you will find yourself). I do not think it is so easy to say that Christianity should be pursued because it works. One has to ask did it work for Christ in rational terms? Was he not rejected, abandoned, tortured and put to a criminal’s death? Did the idea of a suffering Messiah work for his contemporaries? In fact I think the life of Christ and subsequent Christianity pose rational contradictions that require faith to resolve. There is the promise of happiness in the end. One can readily describe the pleasant results of a full belly. What is the content and description of eternal happiness?

That precisely is the challenge of Christianity - to do that which does not apparently work for me out of love for God, in faith.

 

[MindOverMatter]

2.) Most importantly and like #1: ** Many saints I respect (including St. Anselm) seem to state that we ought to believe prior to understanding. If that is the case why not just will to believe any old faith (including some nut-job-cult)? Why Christianity (remember it seems understanding must come after the belief.)?**

No faith is without reason. This is a fallacy and a misunderstanding of what faith is. Every body believes in something for some calculated reason. There are just different types of reasoning. The most basic reason why people kneel to God is because they are looking for that which will fulfill them as persons. Different intentions, or different ways of looking at things, often results in different beliefs. The person who rightly asks what will fulfill me as an entity with a personal nature, is just as much asking what makes the best sense of my being a person in the first place. When you compare the God Zeus and his minions with the God that is eternal love and the giver of life, the most logical idea that deserves attention is the one that ultimately fulfills you as a person, since religion seeks to fulfill that nature and order that nature to its ultimate end. You study that faith, and you ask yourself, does this concept make the best sense of my being a person. Even if one cannot find any certain logical proof for the legitimacy of a religious belief, this still doesn’t change the fact that some religious beliefs are obviously more meaningful, they have more substance and make better sense of our being persons. That we exist to be loved, and to love, makes sense out of my nature that is personal. However; there are other problems that might arise whose solution is not immediately apparent, and if one needs to be reconciled to some fulfilling belief and has not the time to wait or if a certain answer is beyond comprehension, then this is where people make a leap of faith, since being a person and fulfilling that nature is imminently just as important as intellectual fulfillment. But no thinking Christian would encourage a blind leap, and no leap is without good reason. Faith should still seek understanding. Faith is not blind.

 

[Monica4316]

Okay, so I am going through a trying time with my faith admittedly. I am inclined to think that (although I was far from certain) there is more reason to believe Catholicism than not. However, two major issues come to me with that realization that are causing me great difficulty:

1.) What about those who have very little intellectual capabilities. It seems right faith does not require reason (is reason even the right way to come to it?)

there are people who believe and have little intellectual capabilities faith is really quite simple… there are people who don’t really need intellectual reasons to believe, they simply feel that God is there, and believe.

2.) Most importantly and like #1: ** Many saints I respect (including St. Anselm) seem to state that we ought to believe prior to understanding. If that is the case why not just will to believe any old faith (including some nut-job-cult)? Why Christianity (remember it seems understanding must come after the belief.)?**

because faith in Christianity comes from God. If you’re not sure what to believe, humble yourself before God and ask Him for the truth. He will help you accept it even you don’t have a lot of understanding. Then, once you believe, out of your free will, He will give you more understanding. What you need is the will, the desire to believe. God can accomplish the rest, if you persevere in praying.

So why choose Christianity? well …why not ask God what His truth is? if you ask this with an open heart and an open mind, He will not lead you anywhere else. The key is praying correctly, not total understanding.

BUT… if you right now have some understanding, if you have reasons to believe in Catholicism, then remember that God gave you these reasons. What I said above applies to people who have NO IDEA what to believe in and are honestly seeking. If you have any reasons to believe in Catholicism at all, God has already blessed you in this way.

 

[soma]

Believe in something is to hope and think it is true. To understand is to know the truth and I think it is beyond belief.