Responding to my friend

[clem456]

Blind assertion is not evidence.

And insulting people is never going to convince them.

We’re talking two different languages.

Faith is not about evidence, at least in a scientific way.
Faith is not about making assertions.
And faith is definitely not blind, although there are spiritualities that talk about blindness, but not as the absence of reason or sense. Faith and reason mutually inform one another.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Faith is not about evidence, at least in a scientific way.
Faith is not about making assertions.
And faith is definitely not blind, although there are spiritualities that talk about blindness, but not as the absence of reason or sense. Faith and reason mutually inform one another.

So if that’s what it is not then what does the word “faith” mean when you use it?

 

[clem456]

So if that’s what it is not then what does the word “faith” mean when you use it?

One of the fundamental components of faith is the recognition that I did not create myself. Faith is the recognition that without something or someone outside myself, I do not have being. I am not the universe. Before me there was being, there is being after I am gone. There is “other” than my self. The universe does not revolve around me.

This recognition can also be called “hearing” or listening". The etymology of “To hear” has “ab-audiere”, which is brought forward as “obedience”. In hearing I use my senses to observe the world around me and try to understand it. Why am I here, how did I get here, where am I going. Science cannot answer these questions in a full way. It explains what it can. Neither does faith give definite and final and fully understandable answers to these questions. Faith is the journey into this mystery.

So faith is not -merely- the understanding and proclaiming of doctrines and ideas through the accumulation of evidence.
It is about things like assent, trust, submission, obedience, to that which is seen and unseen. These are personal things. By that I mean things that constitute a relationship between persons.

So you could say that faith is the personalization of the unknown. And Christian theology expresses this fully in the Incarnation of Christ.
God is mystery, not fully knowable. In good faith God gives us God’s self incarnate, that we might know him more fully. I respond in good faith by giving my assent to this offer of a relationship.
So, big topic there, hard to explain faith because it has all those elements that you might experience in a relationship with other persons.
I don’t know if you are married, but you may have a relationship that is mysterious at times. People can be mystifying. We never fully know a person like we can know a physics problem.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’ve always thought of Lewis as a wannabe Chesterton.
ThinkingSapien;12853612:

He’s in the queue…

As mentioned, he’s in my queue. I know this is something small but I am going to ask anyway. In your signature you have the quote:

“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” G.K. Chesterton

But in what I have the quote shows “If there were not God, there would be no atheists.”

The difference being the words “no” and “not”. Are the meanings of both variations of this phrase equivalent to you? From a search I’m finding that others feel that the omission of the letter ‘t’ on not changes how they interpret the quote.

 

[Aloysium]

Blind assertion is not evidence.

And insulting people is never going to convince them.

The assertion I was attempting to make is that if you want to know about Christ, you should read about what He said and how to we interpret what has been revealed. To do otherwise is akin to expecting to do neurosurgery without having done the preliminary four years of medical school and five of specialization, Doc.

Seriously, do you expect anyone here to convince you of anything? I most certainly was not trying to do so. What I gave was a taste of what this is all about, hoping you might consider what is not only possible, but is actual reality.

I was not being insulting when I lol’d. I actually laughed. If I had wanted to say something negative and judgemental, it would have been along the lines of lamenting how a mind that could achieve a “Dr” was being squandered arguing that what is, is not.

 

[tonyrey]

The assertion that “God compels us to use free will” is nonsense implies that we can be created with free will and choose not to use it.

No it does not. If I am wrong do please feel free to spell out that argument in formal logic… But if you were able to do that I doubt we would be having this conversation. “Reading that made me think this” is not the same as proving that the original assertion logically, necessarily, implies what it made you think.

In other words we can choose not to choose!

Neither implied by what I said, nor does it lead to the conclusion you seem to be drawing.

That seems like a paradox to me…

Then I suspect you need to learn more about logical argument. Formal logic, not rhetoric.As Sartre pointed out, it is impossible to remain uncommitted. We have to make choices whether we like it or not (- unless you reject free will altogether and believe all our choices are caused by factors beyond our control. If that is your view I think you would have brought it up by now but in any case it is self-refuting. If we cannot choose our conclusions there is no guarantee they are trustworthy. Machines aren’t generally regarded as capable of rational insight.) It follows that a normal person cannot be prevented from making choices. To abstain is itself a choice.

Do you believe a normal person would choose to give up free will?

Would? No. Could, logically speaking, yes.We are concerned with reality not fantasy. As Cicero observed, probability is the very guide of life.

Whereas “being compelled not to be compelled” violates the law of identity (nothing can be both A and not-A simultaneously) and so, if that statement results logically as the result of an assertion, that assertion an be concluded to be false.

Nor is your mind is chained if you sell yourself into slavery; you are still free to choose what to think.

But you can choose to be compelled. There is no logical contradiction there.The very fact that you **choose **to be compelled implies that you are not compelled in every respect. If you think you are compelled to choose what to think you are deceiving yourself, unless of course you have been hypnotised or brainwashed - which are both abnormal situations.

The boot is on the other foot with fantasies like “some sort of lobotomy”…

No. Really, no.Then why bring up such an extravagant extreme to attempt to prove your point?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The difference being the words “no” and “not”. Are the meanings of both variations of this phrase equivalent to you? From a search I’m finding that others feel that the omission of the letter ‘t’ on not changes how they interpret the quote.

I think either version amounts to the same sentiment, though we’d have to ask Chesterton to clarify to be certain of that.

If God did not exist, there would be no one to deny God.

Or:

If God did not exist, what would be the point in denying God (we do not bother to deny unicorns, or at least we don’t get blasphemous against their existence).

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think either version amounts to the same sentiment, though we’d have to ask Chesterton to clarify to be certain of that.

If God did not exist, there would be no one to deny God.

Or:

If God did not exist, what would be the point in denying God (we do not bother to deny unicorns, or at least we don’t get blasphemous against their existence).

We don’t spend time or effort arguing about unicorns or other such things because unicorns don’t have lobbyists pushing for agendas.

 

[Bradski]

We don’t spend time or effort arguing about unicorns or other such things because unicorns don’t have lobbyists pushing for agendas.

And in breaking news…

The Unicorn Protection Society today called for an end to same sex marriage. A spokesman said: ‘Anyone who believes in Unicorns understands that gay marriage is an abomination and we call upon all right minded people to fight against this affront to our values. Those secular, left wing socialists in the media and the government who have intentionally turned away from belief in Unicorns are leading society into the depths of depravity’.

Leaders of the Gay Rights Association were unavailable for comment.

 

[StrawberryJam]

And in breaking news…

The Unicorn Protection Society today called for an end to same sex marriage. A spokesman said: ‘Anyone who believes in Unicorns understands that gay marriage is an abomination and we call upon all right minded people to fight against this affront to our values. Those secular, left wing socialists in the media and the government who have intentionally turned away from belief in Unicorns are leading society into the depths of depravity’.

Leaders of the Gay Rights Association were unavailable for comment.

This just in,
The fairies accidentally sprinkled fairy dust upon untold numbers of residents in the larger Chicago area rendering them all to benefit from their magical properties, when only some were intended. This has caused the Grand Fairy to be investigated.

 

[clem456]

Ummm, humor requires an element of truth to be humorous.
If not, it’s just kinda lame and pointless.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Ummm, humor requires an element of truth to be humorous.
If not, it’s just kinda lame and pointless.

I am sorry that there is a theocracy movement butting into our democracy and that theists can not distinguish the difference.
I and many others are willing to go to bat for you to defend your civil rights.
In fact, atheists may be your largest supporters in that sense.
However, we will not be tread upon.

 

[clem456]

I am sorry that there is a theocracy movement butting into our democracy and that theists can not distinguish the difference.
I and many others are willing to go to bat for you to defend your civil rights.
In fact, atheists may be your largest supporters in that sense.
However, we will not be tread upon.

A theocracy movement is butting into our democracy? That is a laughable assertion.
Anyone who can read the news can observe this is nonsense, and since your faith revolves around your own reason, that is troubling.
The whole history of the last hundred years (actually 2-300 years) testifies against your assertion of a building theocracy. :whacky:

Your atheist utopia experiments have failed miserably, have not begun to protect civil rights, and have instead substituted a rabid individualist faith revolving around the whims and power of individuals, at the expense of the weak.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]Anyone who can read the news can observe this is nonsense, and since your faith revolves around your own reason, that is troubling. …]

…]and have instead substituted a rabid individualist faith revolving around the whims and power of individuals, at the expense of the weak.

Guessing “faith” means something slightly different here than what was specified earlier (?).

 

[clem456]

Guessing “faith” means something slightly different here than what was specified earlier (?).

Can you be more specific with your question?
What earlier, who earlier, how earlier.? Which post?
Clarity is necessary for an honest discussion.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Can you be more specific with your question?
What earlier

Message 202.

who earlier

You.

how earlier.?

approximately 22 hours 57 minutes ago

Which post?

202

Clarity is necessary for an honest discussion.

Indeed, hence my question.

 

[clem456]

Message 202.

You.

approximately 22 hours 57 minutes ago

202

Indeed, hence my question.

Really, can you express a specific misunderstanding before I have to go looking and trying to determine what you are talking about through divination? (you are a person who values reason, right?)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We don’t spend time or effort arguing about unicorns or other such things because unicorns don’t have lobbyists pushing for agendas.

That’s generally because unicorns are not taken seriously … who would lobby for them?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Really, can you express a specific misunderstanding before I have to go looking and trying to determine what you are talking about through divination?

“Faith” is oa bit of an elastic word. It’s used in a variety of different ways. So I tend to ask which sense of the word that one is using which is why I had asked you what the word meant when you use it on the previous page. Some of the descriptions that you gave for taith don’t quite fit in the phrase “your faith revolves around your own reason”. So I am assuming you mean something different here than you did back in 202. Your previous reply describing faith included:

• Recognition that something outside the self created one’s self
• The Journey into the mystery of understanding the questions about the world
• Personalization of the unknown

Some of the other things you said might fit your most recent usage. But the ones that don’t have me thinking you may mean something else here. So I wanted to ask for clarification.

 

[clem456]

“Faith” is oa bit of an elastic word. It’s used in a variety of different ways. So I tend to ask which sense of the word that one is using which is why I had asked you what the word meant when you use it on the previous page. Some of the descriptions that you gave for taith don’t quite fit in the phrase “your faith revolves around your own reason”. So I am assuming you mean something different here than you did back in 202. Your previous reply describing faith included:

• Recognition that something outside the self created one’s self
• The Journey into the mystery of understanding the questions about the world
• Personalization of the unknown

Some of the other things you said might fit your most recent usage. But the ones that don’t have me thinking you may mean something else here. So I wanted to ask for clarification.

What I posted is how I understand faith in a Christian context.

Generically, faith means “belief”. The other poster bemoaned religious theocracy, which is just ridiculous (unless you live in the middle east, then you have a problem with state enforced religion).

Faith (belief) is frequently disparaged and minimized as something contrary to reason. Frequently in discussions with atheists it is asserted that belief is unreasonable and leads to all sorts of problems.

Atheism is frequently held as a paragon of the triumph of reason over belief, as if the two are incompatible. The believer himself is frequently disparaged simply because he claims to believe and talks about those beliefs, as if atheism is not a belief in itself. Which is nonsense. Atheists believe like everyone else. Hence the idea that religious believers are attempting to throw a blanket of illegitimate belief over the rest of us is nonsense.

Atheists are also trying to construct a society around their beliefs and have them codified into law. Even if you would like a society devoid of religious beliefs, you are still trying to forge your own theocracy, there is simply a difference in who your god is compared to “religious” gods. An “atheistic theocracy” if you will. The idea that atheism is somehow different than religion because it is not religious is nonsensical. Everyone believes something.
I recognize your right to talk about your beliefs and to attempt a society constructed around them. You should stand for what you believe. I do not discredit your beliefs simply because you have them and talk about them. I disagree with you on the substance of your beliefs, not because I fear you are attempting to construct a “theocracy”.

And this is the problem I have with atheism generally. It is used to shut people up, and that is how it has played out in other societies, with tragic consequences. It can become the most radical of unreasonable faiths.
(not saying you personally subscribe to this, just observing what has happened. And we also have to admit that religious people have done the same thing. Fair is fair.)