A
adgloriam
Guest
Can you elaborate a bit on this?? What is “Jewish Agnostic” if I may ask ??
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
So, from the Bible: “Seek, and you shall find”.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
For my own, personal, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt, I like Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.
And also, everybody is on their own spiritual journey, so what works for me might not work for another person. So I’m just throwing this out there.
Have a blessed and peace filled day.
ray:t2:
P
Pattylt
Guest
I was raised Orthodox Jew and lost my faith over a period of several years in my late teens to early 20s. I spent many years trying to regain some faith, any faith and failed miserably. Finally accepted my agnosticism (I don’t feel I can say there is no God but I can say I don’t know if there is or is not a God) and found peace with my position. I am, however culturally still Jewish meaning it’s my background and helped form my world view.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Would it be correct to say that I can know something on faith, I can know something philosophically and I can know something scientifically yet have these types of knowledge not agree with each other?
Can I accept a philosophical knowledge about something yet not have a faith knowledge in it? Insert any combination…
Can I accept a philosophical knowledge about something yet not have a faith knowledge in it? Insert any combination…
A
adgloriam
Guest
Now that’s a bit difficult to comment on, because the one orthodox Jew I met on CAF who elaborated on his faith had a very complex and vast cultural baggage and mindset.adgloriam:
I was raised Orthodox Jew and lost my faith over a period of several years in my late teens to early 20s. I spent many years trying to regain some faith, any faith and failed miserably. Finally accepted my agnosticism (I don’t feel I can say there is no God but I can say I don’t know if there is or is not a God) and found peace with my position. I am, however culturally still Jewish meaning it’s my background and helped form my world view.
By this I mean it’s hard to address you on your terrain and terms. (For example I asked him:“What is holiness”, and he replied the closest thing was:“Righteousness”.)
You appreciate the New Testament adds plentifully to the Old Testament. From my limited viewpoint the Jewish faith, as a whole, has many many branches in modern times. And some, as I was surprised to understand, add elements of Eastern/Buddhist meditation and mysticism.
In any case, your “loss of faith” might not be with God but with Judaism (as you lived and understood it).
Normal time to loss faith if you don’t have ample apologetic to defend against the secular onslaught against faith.
You don’t believe God spoke to the prophets?? God never spoke to you in your heart and conscience??
P
Pattylt
Guest
No, I don’t. God speaking to me in my heart and conscience would have kept me either in Judaism or any of the other religions I tried so hard to believe in. One of my biggest struggles (not the only one) was Gods silence. So many others told me of their God moments and I never had a single one…after praying, crying, begging, more praying, pleading, etc.
I seem to just be incapable of faith. I don’t know why. I just learned to accept it, find peace and move on.
I will add that during my journey of trying to find the faith I was sure was out there, I spent many hours studying the Bible. First devotionally then the critical historical method. Once you go critical historical you can’t go back (in my experience). The Bible becomes a very flawed and human book. I’m quite ok with that. I’d not recommend it for others.
A
adgloriam
Guest
This is really amazing !! Would I be stupid to ask what you tried? Did you try anything Catholic or Christian?
Now this strikes me. Why? Because you come across agnostics ALL THE TIME…And, when I ask them:“How about God?” You know how it goes and what they say right @Pattylt ?? BUT, if you ask them sometime latter, a couple more times, invariably, almost always, there comes faith in one form or another…
I think this is absolutely admirable, honest, and earnest, TRUE !! Just beautiful a testimony
(however painful it might have been for you…and I do get a good chuckle picturing it )Have you tried loving ??
N
Neithan
Guest
Science is an epistemological method for natural philosophy. We use abductive reasoning to form some hypothesis about what is real — metaphysics — and then use inductive reasoning to verify premises that produce a predictable conclusion, right? The sphere of investigation within natural philosophy using this method determines the field of science: physics, biology, geology etc. We can consider this knowledge if we trust that our senses are reliable and that reality is intelligible, two metaphysical and epistemic axioms.
Philosophy is the broader scope of reasoning that includes natural philosophy but is not limited to it. We can reason about supernatural (or preternatural) metaphysics, and we can reason about other epistemological methods, and ethics.
Faith is assent to supra-rational propositions, meaning that they cannot contradict reasonable knowledge, but they cannot be arrived at solely by methods of reasoning. It is based on revelation, and not based on observation. There is no philosophical epistemology because it is not reasoned knowledge; we cannot know that any of it is true, because it is beyond our epistemic grasp, but we believe it is. Our belief in the content of revelation is based on authority from three sources: scripture, tradition, and the magisterium. All three of these sources require one another and they must be in harmony (confirming and not contradicting) for us to give confident assent.
Last edited:
N
Neithan
Guest
Have you considered natural theology? That doesn’t require faith.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, let’s take one of the Eucharistic miracles. There is a Host in Italy, which, at a certain time of the year, appears to shed blood; and the substance has been identified as blood.
So the science is there. Is faith? Science cannot explain how human blood emanates from a Host. That is the realm of faith, as a philosophical examination of it is likely to come up null (not negative, but unable to explain it).
And throughout history there have been a multiple of Eucharistic miracles.
Sometimes the problem with faith has to do with issues which may be subliminal. Meaning, one rebels at the faith issue, because that (faith) may require a different response to other matters. That is not always the case; but it certainly can be; we have a tendency to not always be as honest with ourselves as we like to think.
And I am not trying to imply that is the issue with you; only that I have observed it from time to time.
So the science is there. Is faith? Science cannot explain how human blood emanates from a Host. That is the realm of faith, as a philosophical examination of it is likely to come up null (not negative, but unable to explain it).
And throughout history there have been a multiple of Eucharistic miracles.
Sometimes the problem with faith has to do with issues which may be subliminal. Meaning, one rebels at the faith issue, because that (faith) may require a different response to other matters. That is not always the case; but it certainly can be; we have a tendency to not always be as honest with ourselves as we like to think.
And I am not trying to imply that is the issue with you; only that I have observed it from time to time.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Of course not. I mostly looked into various forms of Protestants. I looked briefly into Islam and Buddhism. A bit into Catholicism though that one the least…I think because some of the Protestant faiths were so negative word it. This was a long time ago. The Jesus Freak movement was the rage at the time and a good friend that was sincerely trying to help me had become attached to them… I was waiting for that still small voice in any of them and all of them left me empty.
Not necessarily. Many that claim agnosticism are still God searching but I’d say most are beyond the search phase and just can’t claim a knowledge of God. They aren’t ready to claim atheism but can’t claim a belief in the supernatural either.
I hope I have, yes. I loved my faith. I had no traumatic experiences or conflicts with Judaism at all. I started out completely believing in it and was assured it was true…until I didn’t. I loved God. I never objected to following Torah, it wasn’t hard or oppressive to me. It was just my life. I love my family and friends within the faith. I love the friends I made during my searching. I’m just too skeptical I guess to believe it. I assure you I had many long discussions with my Rabbi. He tried so hard to help me. There weren’t very many agnostics or atheists out of the closet back then. I didn’t even know there was a name for it!
P
Pattylt
Guest
Thank you (though not written to me). I think this as good as it can get on faith. Would you think that faith could apply to anything other than a religious or supernatural claim? I’m thinking the answer, by this definition, would be no. The three sources could be other than Catholics use…would authority be enough for someone to have faith?
Thanks…great discussion!
P
Pattylt
Guest
This is how I commonly hear faith used and most times it works. Yet, there are exceptions. You have faith that the supernatural exists, yes? But would you say you always trust the supernatural? It does include demons so I assume you wouldn’t use the word trust there…but you do have faith it exists. Does belief lead to faith or faith lead to belief? Or is that a chicken and egg problem?
P
Pattylt
Guest
Thanks Cajun! What I’m reading from you is a knowledge claim based on faith that may or may not have any evidence except in your own mind? I hope that doesn’t sound condescending! I’m truly curious about those that can have such certainty with no physical evidence that it actually exists except personal revelation and authorities that you trust are correct.
I’ve always felt that I can only trust authorities so far and personal revelation is something I’ve never had. Personal revelation would be a game changer for me. I’ve always been a bit skeptical of authorities. How do I determine how much trust I should put into them? I do feel that Catholics have a better claim than Protestants, but I’m just unable to go as far as Catholics do in this. I’ve learned to temper my trust.
Thanks for responding and sharing!
I’ve always felt that I can only trust authorities so far and personal revelation is something I’ve never had. Personal revelation would be a game changer for me. I’ve always been a bit skeptical of authorities. How do I determine how much trust I should put into them? I do feel that Catholics have a better claim than Protestants, but I’m just unable to go as far as Catholics do in this. I’ve learned to temper my trust.
Thanks for responding and sharing!
P
Pattylt
Guest
There have been many times I would have envied you!
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
N
Neithan
Guest
Faith applies to authority claiming divine revelation. So I don’t think it applies to something other than religious or supernatural ideas. Some other authority would be a different kind of trust, which is similar subjectively (I think they work in a similar way, psychologically) but are different in their object (not something proposed as revelation). A lot of what we believe is based on authority, in fact most. We don’t have the expertise or the time to reason our way to all of our beliefs — so arguably we have very little actual knowledge that we ourselves have arrived at by individual reason and personal observation.
Last edited:
T
Thinker_Doer
Guest
Nice post! Let’s analyze it.
Also we cannot doubt that the reality is intelligible. Ever since the dawn of time every encounter with reality was consistent. (That is why miracles are questionable - they contradict the first law of logic, the law of identity). And I also want to be “pedantic” and say that the word “axiom” is limited to the abstract sciences. In the natural sciences we speak of “basic principles”. But these are minor nitpickings. You described science just fine.
What other epistemological method can you offer? I am really curious. And, of course ethics is a different issue. There are many different, and mutually contradictory ethical systems. And they are all subjectively accepted or rejected. Not to mention the fourth “child” - aesthetics, which is really subjective.
continued below.
What you say about science is just fine. But I have to take a mild “exception” to your words of “if we trust that our senses are reliable”. There is no place for the “if”. We have no choice. How could you obtain any knowledge about the external reality if you did not trust your senses? What else would you use? Of course I am aware of the “illusions”, but that does not negate the reliability of the senses. The raw data that the senses “transmit” is always correct, but sometimes we can misinterpret them.
Also we cannot doubt that the reality is intelligible. Ever since the dawn of time every encounter with reality was consistent. (That is why miracles are questionable - they contradict the first law of logic, the law of identity). And I also want to be “pedantic” and say that the word “axiom” is limited to the abstract sciences. In the natural sciences we speak of “basic principles”. But these are minor nitpickings. You described science just fine.
Here the objection is stronger. You cannot “reason” about supernatural or preternatural metaphysics, you can only “speculate” about it. To reason you need logic and a solid starting ground, which is the physical reality we all experience. Of course I do not badmouth speculation - it is extremely important. It is the staring point of every new concept and discovery. But until it is verified or falsified, it remains speculation. As soon as the speculation is verified, it will change from speculation to scientific theory.
What other epistemological method can you offer? I am really curious. And, of course ethics is a different issue. There are many different, and mutually contradictory ethical systems. And they are all subjectively accepted or rejected. Not to mention the fourth “child” - aesthetics, which is really subjective.
continued below.
T
Thinker_Doer
Guest
continued from above.
Hebrews 11:1 says: " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Which the exact opposite of knowledge. I would soften this a little. The evidence for something can be categorized as “indisputable”, “overwhelming”, “strong”, “weak”, “nonexistent”. And there is one more category, where the evidence to the contrary is strong. This is the “blind faith”. I suggest that faith is the opposite of “reasonable expectation”. If the evidence for something is “strong” or better, we speak of reasonable expectation. The rest is “faith”.
And here the objection is getting more serious. The “faith” you speak of is the faith of Christianity and Catholicism - not faith in general. But we can remedy that later. I am talking about faith as an alleged epistemological method, by which we can obtain new information or knowledge. You say that “revelation” is not based on “observation”? Of course it is. A revelation is simply an information exchange between the one who gives the information and the one who receives the information, nothing else. Along with the possible problems of information exchange. Noise in the transmission channel, misunderstanding, and other problems.
Hebrews 11:1 says: " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Which the exact opposite of knowledge. I would soften this a little. The evidence for something can be categorized as “indisputable”, “overwhelming”, “strong”, “weak”, “nonexistent”. And there is one more category, where the evidence to the contrary is strong. This is the “blind faith”. I suggest that faith is the opposite of “reasonable expectation”. If the evidence for something is “strong” or better, we speak of reasonable expectation. The rest is “faith”.
N
Neithan
Guest
Of course we can doubt our senses and the intelligibility of reality. Buddhists, for example. We can’t do that and still be scientists, though. And the law of identity is an axiom that may or may not apply to an observed state of affairs (as you say, which is not pedantic).
I am really curious about other epistemological methods, too.
Uh-oh!
Revelation is the claim of divinely revealed truths that we either cannot observe or cannot reach by reason alone. It may or may not be Catholic. I gave the three sources of authority that we as Catholics base our faith on; some other religion may have other sources of authority for claims of revelation. We can test these claims, to some degree, with observation and reasoning, and discard them as false if they contradict. I agree it would be “blind faith” to accept ideas that contradict logic and observation; another word is “incredible.”
I don’t think faith is an epistemological method, since it is not knowledge. It is not the “exact opposite” because that would be irrational nonsense. Faith is belief in suprarational ideas of a supernatural source. I assume you mean “evidence” is either scientific or historical. I consider the evidence very strong, if we consider miracles as scientific evidence and the gospels, as well as the church, as historical evidence. But if we cannot assent to some proposed truth from personal observation or reasoning alone, then we need belief to supply the rest (this is required in almost every court case). If that belief is about something divinely revealed, it is a matter of faith.
Last edited:
- Status