What is this obsession with the "heart"?

[Solmyr]

For example, you can make a reasonable and logical argument that your wife won’t cheat on you by considering her past and present behavior, but it still requires faith to actively trust her.

You abuse the word “faith”. If someone does not have absolute, 100 percent, Cartesian certainty it does not “degenerate” into “faith”. Faith is a belief for which there is no rational underpinning. According to Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” - which translates into BLIND faith.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Logical arguments MUST always come first. Only when the existence of God has been firmly established can one embark on the next step, of building a relationship with God.

What you are saying is easily disproven by the fact that millions of people from the dawn of human history have established relationships with God without it being firmly established by the logic of the head that God exists. God has planted in us the desire to know him, and this is why religion is so popular throughout mankind. The devil has planted in us the desire not to know God, and one of the weapons he uses to defeat that desire to know God is to plant in our head the notion that we must first prove the existence of God before we can believe in him.

Suppose God exists and wants children to grow in knowledge of him. How do you suppose children are going to "firmly establish the existence of God?

By your logic no child should have any relationship with God since no child can have the kind of analytical powers you say must exist before building a relationship with God.

No child should learn to pray?

And having acquired no habit of prayer in childhood, you are almost going to guarantee that when the child becomes an adult he going to be a victim of atheistic scientism.

 

[Maddie26]

You abuse the word “faith”. If someone does not have absolute, 100 percent, Cartesian certainty it does not “degenerate” into “faith”. Faith is a belief for which there is no rational underpinning. According to Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” - which translates into BLIND faith.

I think you want a new thread for this discussion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

My faith was as strong as only a child can have. Unquestioning, trusting. Unfortunately I used it to ASK for things, which is a major no-no - and I was unaware of this at that time. So I asked and my requests went unanswered. There is no use to run after a cart, which will never stop to pick you up. Eventually you get tired, and you give up. The result was that I lost my faith gradually when I started to grow up. And I never missed it ever since.

That was my attitude in my atheist days. But there are surprises around every corner of life.

May you be surprised some day by how much you’ve missed the God you could have learned to love as a child.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think you want a new thread for this discussion.

I agree. It is the head that is frequently blind. The heart sees what it wants to see.

 

[Solmyr]

I just made a New Year resolution: I will ignore everyone who uses the phrase “atheistic scientism”.

Since it would be uncharitable to go into details, I will refrain from expressing my true feelings, which are pretty strong and not particularly “endearing”. Suffice it say that anyone who uses this expression is unworthy of being recognized and considered. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

 

[Maddie26]

So it is just a meaningless leftover? In the times of Aristotle the brain was supposed to be the organ which had one function: “to cool the blood”. Should we adhere to this concept?

Logical arguments MUST always come first. Only when the existence of God has been firmly established can one embark on the next step, of building a relationship with God.

That is the 64 thousand dollar question.

To pray to someone whose very existence is questioned would be a “farce”.

When I USED to be a believer, that is exactly what I did. Needless to say, nothing happened.

The OP asked about the reason why the heart was referenced so often in antique texts therefore antique usages are given here. Just because something is an antique usage doesn’t make it irrelevant.

For you, logical arguments come first then the heart. For me the heart came first and the intellect followed. To each their own. You can also believe with the will as well as the mind and heart.

And do you really think, as someone who used to be a believer, that you’re the best person to be telling others the best way to believe?

 

[HoistedSheep]

“Abuse” is an extreme word. Misinterpret, fine. But I disagree. That’s exactly how I represented faith here. That’s what a leap of faith is: the abandoning of reason. I argue that you misrepresent “logic”. You are too focused on the hows. You state that one must be absolutely convinced by a logical argument before leaping. But logic is a tool we use to formulate reasonable arguments. Logic by itself can be used to rationalize any argument, no matter how silly. It can degenerate into simple word games. This is because logic, as a tool, is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge. Nor of life. You did not address my example of trust. This is important. Trust is a form of faith. There is no absolute logical reason to trust your wife. Humans are unpredictable. Even the most saintly person has the capability to cheat. Yet we trust. Why? Because we utilize logic and reason to formulate confidence in our trust. Your wife never cheated before, she’s usually honest, she says she loves you, she appears happy with you. We use these observations to logically and reasonably conclude that she will not cheat. But this is not and can never be an absolutely demonstrable fact. Therefore we accept the partial knowledge logic and reason has brought us to and commit to a leap of trust. That leap has no basis in logic, and yet it is indispensable to the health of the relationship. Life is not logical. It simply is not. To believe God can be known entirely by logic is to say life can be understood entirely by logic. This is a false premise.

Your concept of prayer is also predicated only on the hows. It is illogical to pray for God to reveal himself and then question him because your wish was not granted. It’s circular reasoning. You’ve stated a pre- conceived expectation and will not accept any answers outside of that expectation. Prayer is a companion to works. Prayer is a way to understand ourselves in relation to God. It is only half of the Catholic life. You must apply your prayer life to works. Then your prayers become active. Prayer is meant to enrich life, not to simply provide answers. Do not pray that God reveals Himself to you. Pray that He leads you to a deeper understanding of how your will can match His. Do not say, alright God, give me answers, then sit and wait for answers. Say God, lead me to you. Life is not lived in the head. Thoughts are influenced by what is exterior and how we conceptualize these thoughts leads to insights on how to live better.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I just made a New Year resolution: I will ignore everyone who uses the phrase “atheistic scientism”.

Since it would be **uncharitable **to go into details, I will refrain from expressing my true feelings, which are pretty strong and not particularly “endearing”. Suffice it say that anyone who uses this expression is **unworthy **of being recognized and considered. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

I think you have already been uncharitable enough. Good bye.

 

[GEddie]

I agree. It is the head that is frequently blind. The heart sees what it wants to see.

I gotta disagree. We are meant to see from our heads. It’s the head that has sight; the heart is there to play the fool.

The current culture expects life, and faith, to be a torrent of feeling, but that has not been my experience, nor have I missed it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Solmyr]

The OP asked about the reason why the heart was referenced so often in antique texts therefore antique usages are given here.

There must be some misunderstanding. In the OP I did not say one word about the ancient texts. I do not care about the ancient texts. I was curious about the frequent usage of the word “heart”, here and now.

And do you really think, as someone who used to be a believer, that you’re the best person to be telling others the best way to believe?

Looks like another misunderstanding. I do not suggest how and why YOU should believe. I only speak about my path. For me only logical arguments count. Arguments which employ “fallacy ad populum” - like “millions of people are Christians, do you think that you are right and all of them are wrong”? Arguments employing the “fallacy of referring to authority” - like “much smarter people than you were all Christians, and you think that you are smarter than they were”? These kinds of arguments carry no weight at all. Actually they only exhibit the unworthiness of those who produce them.

I am open to reason and logic, but nothing else. As you said, your mileage may vary. It is your business.

 

[fisherman_carl]

So it is just a meaningless leftover? In the times of Aristotle the brain was supposed to be the organ which had one function: “to cool the blood”. Should we adhere to this concept?

Logical arguments MUST always come first. Only when the existence of God has been firmly established can one embark on the next step, of building a relationship with God.

That is the 64 thousand dollar question.

To pray to someone whose very existence is questioned would be a “farce”.

When I USED to be a believer, that is exactly what I did. Needless to say, nothing happened.

I understand what you are saying,but logical arguments are not the trump card and do not move one’s soul. Even if there were no logical arguments for God the Christian would be justified in believing in him. For, It is the witness of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer that truly makes the difference. For instance, even when I was distant from God I could not deny his existence,because I could not deny my experience of him. If I hadn’t had those experiences of God I could see at the time how someone could deny him. But it would be illogical to deny my own experience. Nor would it be logical to deny God based on someone else’s non-experience. Just like it would be illogical for a person accused of a crime knowing he is innocent to plead guilty even if all the evidence were against him. Because he knows by firsthand experience that he did not commit the crime, regardless of whether or not he can prove it in a court of law.

While you can’t believe solely based on another person’s experience, you can be open to God giving you your own experience and knowledge of his love for you. It would take an act of the will. Thus, you would have to want it. Or perhaps, you would prefer to wait until some crisis brings you back to God?

 

[Solmyr]

“Abuse” is an extreme word. Misinterpret, fine. But I disagree. That’s exactly how I represented faith here. That’s what a leap of faith is: the abandoning of reason.

Impossible for me. Your mileage may vary.

You state that one must be absolutely convinced by a logical argument before leaping.

No, I did not say that. “Beyond any reasonable doubt” is my way.

But logic is a tool we use to formulate reasonable arguments. Logic by itself can be used to rationalize any argument, no matter how silly. It can degenerate into simple word games. This is because logic, as a tool, is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge.

Correct. But I use both reason and logic. As you said: “logic is just a formal tool”. An argument can be logically valid, and still unsound.

You did not address my example of trust. This is important. Trust is a form of faith. There is no absolute logical reason to trust your wife. Humans are unpredictable. Even the most saintly person has the capability to cheat. Yet we trust. Why? Because we utilize logic and reason to formulate confidence in our trust. Your wife never cheated before, she’s usually honest, she says she loves you, she appears happy with you. We use these observations to logically and reasonably conclude that she will not cheat.

So far, so good. You used the all-important word: “reasonably”!

But this is not and can never be an absolutely demonstrable fact.

Here is your error. It is not a necessary requirement to have absolute, 100 percent, Cartesian certainty, only one “beyond any reasonable doubt”. Absolute certainty is only possible in axiomatic (formal) systems, like mathematics.

Therefore we accept the partial knowledge logic and reason has brought us to and commit to a leap of trust. That leap has no basis in logic, and yet it is indispensable to the health of the relationship.

It is based in reason. If you find your spouse in bed with a stranger, and you still trust her, then it is not rational any more. Suppose she explains the circumstances and you realize that she was blackmailed, and accept her explanation, then you might still reasonably trust her. But if you catch her cheating every day, and you STILL trust her, that would be faith… BLIND faith.

Let me explain. There is a line with values from minus one to zero and to plus one. The values indicate how rational the proposition is. Plus one would be absolute, Cartesian certainty. This only happens in mathematics. Values under “one” but close to it indicate a very strong, “beyond any reasonable doubt” types of propositions. Lower vales indicate propositions which MIGHT be true… Values close to zero are propositions which are very likely false. The value zero indicates a proposition which is certainly false. And then there are the negative numbers, which indicate propositions, for which not only there is no supporting evidence, but all the available evidence refutes them.

Somewhere on this line is a dividing point, which indicates that the proposition must be accepted on “faith”. You chose that point immediately under “one”. You say that anything and everything that is not 100 percent certain is accepted on “faith”. I reject that approach. You make no distinction between “almost certainly true” and “almost certainly false”, or even “definitely false”. They are all “faith” based.

I cannot accept this categorization. Sorry.

Your concept of prayer is also predicated only on the hows. It is illogical to pray for God to reveal himself and then question him because your wish was not granted. It’s circular reasoning.

Why not? The Bible says: “knock and the door will be opened”, and “ask and you will receive”. There is nothing circular about it.

 

[Solmyr]

I understand what you are saying,but logical arguments are not the trump card and do not move one’s soul.

Since I have no idea what this “soul” might be, you lost me. For me the “trump card” is reason. But we are all somewhat different. My way is not necessarily your way. And vice versa.

Even if there were no logical arguments for God the Christian would be justified in believing in him. For, It is the witness of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer that truly makes the difference. For instance, even when I was distant from God I could not deny his existence,because I could not deny my experience of him. If I hadn’t had those experiences of God I could see at the time how someone could deny him. But it would be illogical to deny my own experience. Nor would it be logical to deny God based on someone else’s non-experience.

I don’t argue. I - personally - had no experience of God. I even asked for it (when I was a believer) and received no “reply”.

While you can’t believe solely based on another person’s experience, you can be open to God giving you your own experience and knowledge of his love for you. It would take an act of the will. Thus, you would have to want it. Or perhaps, you would prefer to wait until some crisis brings you back to God?

I disagree about the “want” part. I am willing to accept evidence. That is all I can do. To do otherwise is exactly as impossible for me as it would be to grab my hair and lift myself off the ground into the air.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Since I have no idea what this “soul” might be, you lost me. For me the “trump card” is reason. But we are all somewhat different. My way is not necessarily your way. And vice versa.

I don’t argue. I - personally - had no experience of God. I even asked for it (when I was a believer) and received no “reply”.

I disagree about the “want” part. I am willing to accept evidence. That is all I can do. To do otherwise is exactly as impossible for me as it would be to grab my hair and lift myself off the ground into the air.

I sympathize with your position. Perhaps, you have felt like God wasn’t there for you. I know what that feels like. However, I also believe that for many doubt is really a forrm of forgetfulness. They may have had experiences of God’s presence when they were little, but as they grew older they forgot them and he feels distant to them. Yet, God is always near. We also need to seek him in prayer and develop that relationship with him. As well as with other believers. God eventually called me back to him through other Christians and God’s love for me. God still loved me despite how far I had drifted from him, going my own way, living almost as though he did not exist or care about me. The truth is God does care about you. And he has not given up on you.

 

[Maddie26]

There must be some misunderstanding. In the OP I did not say one word about the ancient texts. I do not care about the ancient texts. I was curious about the frequent usage of the word “heart”, here and now.

Looks like another misunderstanding. I do not suggest how and why YOU should believe. I only speak about my path. For me only logical arguments count. Arguments which employ “fallacy ad populum” - like “millions of people are Christians, do you think that you are right and all of them are wrong”? Arguments employing the “fallacy of referring to authority” - like “much smarter people than you were all Christians, and you think that you are smarter than they were”? These kinds of arguments carry no weight at all. Actually they only exhibit the unworthiness of those who produce them.

I am open to reason and logic, but nothing else. As you said, your mileage may vary. It is your business.

Sorry to break it to you but there is extremely good evidence that the texts you quoted were 2000-3000 years old. I call that antique. That also means that a high proportion of the OP was made of antique texts.

You criticised someone else’s mode of belief here:
Originally Posted by fisherman carl 
It basically means to open yourself to God’s presence and to him speaking to your heart, rather than just to logical arguments.

Solmyr:
Logical arguments MUST always come first. Only when the existence of God has been firmly established can one embark on the next step, of building a relationship with God.

And here:

Originally Posted by HoistedSheep 
For example, you can make a reasonable and logical argument that your wife won’t cheat on you by considering her past and present behavior, but it still requires faith to actively trust her.

Solmyr: You abuse the word “faith”. If someone does not have absolute, 100 percent, Cartesian certainty it does not “degenerate” into “faith”. Faith is a belief for which there is no rational underpinning. According to Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” - which translates into BLIND faith.

And this was plain insulting:

Solmyr: I just made a New Year resolution: I will ignore everyone who uses the phrase “atheistic scientism”.
Since it would be uncharitable to go into details, I will refrain from expressing my true feelings, which are pretty strong and not particularly “endearing”. Suffice it say that anyone who uses this expression is unworthy of being recognized and considered. A word to the wise should be sufficient. 

If you are being misunderstood all the time perhaps you should be more clearly.

And all the “unworthy” arguments… they were only stated by you…

 

[Solmyr]

Sorry to break it to you but there is extremely good evidence that the texts you quoted were 2000-3000 years old. I call that antique. That also means that a high proportion of the OP was made of antique texts.

I am only aware of the proposition: “The fool in his heart says there is no God” coming from the Bible. The rest I have seen only here. And my question was, why are those texts - regardless of their origin - repeated ad nauseam.

You criticised someone else’s mode of belief here:
Originally Posted by fisherman carl
It basically means to open yourself to God’s presence and to him speaking to your heart, rather than just to logical arguments.

Solmyr:
Logical arguments MUST always come first. Only when the existence of God has been firmly established can one embark on the next step, of building a relationship with God.

Criticized? I simply pointed out how things work for me. Explicitly: “your mileage may vary”.

Originally Posted by HoistedSheep
For example, you can make a reasonable and logical argument that your wife won’t cheat on you by considering her past and present behavior, but it still requires faith to actively trust her.

Solmyr: You abuse the word “faith”. If someone does not have absolute, 100 percent, Cartesian certainty it does not “degenerate” into “faith”. Faith is a belief for which there is no rational underpinning. According to Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” - which translates into BLIND faith.

What is your problem? The word “faith” is used in many, different connotations.

And this was plain insulting:

Solmyr: I just made a New Year resolution: I will ignore everyone who uses the phrase “atheistic scientism”.
Since it would be uncharitable to go into details, I will refrain from expressing my true feelings, which are pretty strong and not particularly “endearing”. Suffice it say that anyone who uses this expression is unworthy of being recognized and considered. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

There is no requirement to answer to everyone. I am simply sick and tired to see this “atheistic scientism” all over the place. Especially after explaining why it is incorrect.

And all the “unworthy” arguments… they were only stated by you…

You are free to disregard me… as I will do it to you.

 

[tonyrey]

“obsession” gives wrong impression. It implies a mental disorder whereas it is reasonable to associate the heart with powerful emotions because it responds more swiftly and noticeably than other physical organs. Throughout history it has indeed been regarded as the symbol of both life and love but not with logic and reasoning because, as Pascal remarked, “The heart has its reasons that reason doesn’t have”.

The reason for Christians is what happened to Jesus on the Cross. The Roman soldiers wanted to ensure Jesus was dead without knowing He is the source of life. The saints have been overcome with joy, ecstasy and overwhelming love for the Sacred Heart because they knew it was pierced for us on the Cross and is the greatest symbol of Our Lord’s perfect love for all of us regardless of our sins and regardless of our response. They realised nothing else matters in comparison with this, the most important fact of all:

Romans 8:38-39

Those who reject the pre-eminence of love when interpreting reality clearly have a defective scheme of things which doesn’t correspond to the way they live - unless they are sociopaths!

 

[tonyrey]

Those who reject the pre-eminence of love when interpreting reality clearly have a defective scheme of things which doesn’t correspond to the way they live - unless they are sociopaths!

Even as the devil’s advocate I cannot think of any way of disproving that statement.

 

[fred_conty]

It is all over the place.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God”.
“Your heart is closed to God”.
“You must open your heart to God”.
“If you don’t open your heart to God, your prayers will not be answered”…

and so on, ad nauseam.

What is this obsession? I only know one metaphor for the “heart”, and it is emotion. What does “emotion” have to with God’s alleged existence? I have my MIND open to the possibility that God exists. This means that I am open to logical and rational arguments. If the arguments would be sufficient, I would accept them. That is all I can offer. But the “apologists” demand something further, they want me to “open my heart to God”? What the heck do they mean?

With reference to the heart, I believe someone mentioned the Valentine card that people receive. And it is an expression of someone’s feelings and care for the other person.

A mother holding her child in her arms often gives it a kiss which is an expression of her love and care.

I could go on but it all basically is saying “I love you” and this comes from the heart, and the mind which understands relationships.

An expression of love to another may not seem to be much but it really is appreciated. The child who holds up a little violet to his mother and says I love you mommy, means so much to that mom.

Another expression is “love makes the world go round.”

Now it is true that there are different forms of love as well as different strengths of love. But no matter what form or strength it takes it is real and people know it and look for it. It is something that science cannot measure or really explain … but there it is.

Jesus’ heart was pierced with a spear on the cross by the Centurion from which came out water and blood. This is the moment we hold dear for it was comming from his heart, giving all he had to us.