Why does it make sense to rely upon "faith"?

[Touchstone]

Touchstone:

I’ll believe it when - and only when - I see it!

OK, well, it’s ready to see whenever you are willing to open your eyes. And I don’t mean that figuratively; you can go read the instrumentation on this with your own eyes.

I like the following description, though I disagree with part of it:

"Well for one thing a point particle is an idealised abstraction. That is to say we say things are point particles to make the maths easier. We can define the size of particles a number of different ways according to how we are measuring or interpreting it.

But to explain point particles (bearing in mind the above). Most of the rigidity of matter is down to the forces between atoms and molecules. If you can imagine a point that has a property that it cannot be moved towards or away from it neighbour. That is, without large enough forces being applied to change how they are linked together. If you make a big grid of these point particles then push it against another grid like it you will find that they can touch but never be pushed through each other as that would entail particles coming too close to each other. That is kind of like matter.

Molecules are very much 3D, as are atoms. They can be thought of as 3D arrangements of point particles that have forces acting between the points to give the illusion of volume. Remember that this is just a model to make the maths easy. Point particle models these days are mostly (except for approximate models like the ideal gas law) relating to particles we current[ly] think of as fundamental. So electrons, quarks, neutrinos and so on are point particles but protons and neutrons are most definitely not (being made up of 3 quarks)." - Shaula, established member of the Bad Astronomy and Universe Forum (Respectfully commandeered.)

I think Shaula would disagree particularly with the basis on which you are arguing.

Well, so much to his misconception, then! And feel free to ask him, or point him here - I’d like that. But reading this here, I suspect he would not disagree with a thing I said about particles having mass (photons are problematic because ‘rest mass’ is an incoherent concept for a photon, but that’s another involved subject); I think you are not understanding what you quoted.

Maths and calculations are the “map”, and the map is not the territory! When you read “can be thought of”, that’s a signal that we are using simplified isomorphisms – using a map as a guide to the territory – for practical purposes. And indeed, particles “can be thought of” in such ways, and to good practical ends. That “can be thought of” also signals that the subject we are referring to – the particles, the map – is NOT configured in such fashion, as a matter of actuality. If they were, you wouldn’t need “can be thought of”.

Which is just to anticipate that Shaula, or anyone with a basic familiar of physics would not find my corrections put to you controversial in the least. I think you are just unfamiliar enough with the subject matter to have confused abstractions and mathematical approximations for the phyiscal phenomena they are referring to.

Do you think that the molecules and atoms of air are absolutely contiguous?

No, demonstrably not. If there is space between molecules – and there is and must be for air to be air – they are not ‘contiguous’, by which I take you to mean “touching cheek by jowl”. Consider that for air to be air, the molecules have to be able to move around like a gas… no not “like” a gas, “as” a gas. They move around in space.

What about the protons and neutrons within a nucleus?

Space. I’m giving you very basic, gradeschool answers, trusting this is not you pulling my leg. I can’t recall ever providing this level of remedial physics (available instantly with a simple Google search) on a forum like this. The answers are what they are, though, so if this is you yanking my chain just to give me some busywork, or something, this is the kind of stuff we should be able to recall of the top of our head, quickly, so I don’t mind.

Or, are they separated by something? And, don’t say “dimensional extension,” unless by that term you mean a “medium,” even if it’s nothingness.

It’s space – dimensional extension. That is as “medium” as physics gets, there is no “aether”.

It’s not “nothingness” in a philosophical sense (the negation of existence), nor is it “nothingness” in the natural sense – absence of space/time/energy/matter. It’s extended space/time (and we must not mention matter/energy, because your question is specifically focused on what is between material entities).

I’m not pulling any legs and no thanks, on the intros!

Why no thanks on the intros. This seems an odd kind of disregard for making the kind of trivially identified erroneous statements you’ve been putting out, here. Is that the goal, somehow? None of my business, I guess, but that is an even more curious response than to offer “atoms have no mass” in the first place.

I think almost everyone on that Bad Astronomy forum would disagree with you.

See above, I don’t think so, and believe you’ve completely misunderstood the quote you provided.

I believe in “matter” because I’ve bought into the illusion of matter at an early age. It’s helped me get almost through this distractional test.

How would you distinguish between the “illusion of matter” and “matter as non-illusory, veridical phenomena”? You are positing “illusion” at a level of perception that is not able to discriminate between “illusion” and “non-illusion”, a level where “illusion” is not a coherent concept. If you disagree, then trying to answer my question will illuminate the nature of the problem, I wager.

You would no doubt like me to agree?

Only so long as you see and understand!

Why must the Host be desecrated in order to prove that the illusions of bread and wine are Jesus? Catholics don’t need to do that.

God bless,
jd

It would tend to dispel warranted doubts that one is deceiving oneself or otherwise being deceived. Are Catholics interested in that?

-TS

 

[WillP]

P.S. Ya know, I was just thinking… while I think you’re overreacting to sw85’s comments to begin with, I think you should take a look in the mirror before you talk about people being emotionally charged and insulting. Just something to think about before you go getting mad at people. Consider the fact that you might be inciting people’s seemingly “rude” comments.

Over-reacting? to something as trivial as being called ignorant? Perhaps I failed to turn my cheek far enough for you to notice, however, I don’t believe any comment of mine was ever directed to any individual----only toward beliefs held. I would be dishionest if I said that I found some of these concepts anything but silly. Yet, I would have hoped that this forum would allow for discussion and critique, the necessary “give and take” for honest discussion and tolerance for scruntiny. Even if I am an imperfect practitioner of the maxum, “love the sinner–hate the sin” , I hope I apply the maxum (albeit, in the contex of my own worldview).

I also strive against the impulse to re-interpret (or “translate”) the words of my .fellow posters, lest I fall into the fallacy of overlooking the planks in my own eye while excorating the specks in thei eyes of others.

Nonetheless, I’ll re-examine my approach toward those I disagree with. I am certain you will do likewise.

Altogether, I am not sure that we disagree on the way we should live our lives at least not in the essentials of doing good, avoiding hypocracy, treating others fairly, being civil as well as many of the core teachings of Christ (examples of which I alluded to above, eg the “eye/plank” principle).

However, where we “disconnect” is when I ask: why do these priciples, on which we have no disagreement, have to be bound up with the mysticism that your faith teaches? As I have argued before, my perception is that , in the extreme, faith drives some rather ugly impulses. I cited Jonestown as an example in one of my “post musings”, but, all faiths, it seems to me, have the potential to manifest in hyper-ugly form. Christianity’s history in Europe, after it gained the favor of political power waxed as violently as any other during various periods. In the last several decades, as the western world became more secularized, this has not been so much the case, but, always (in my view) that potential is there–seething, as it were, below the surface. Some of the anger I have felt directed toward me ( “ignorant heretics”, for example) is some evidence (at least to me) of the rage that is always just under the surface.

Having said all of that, I am also not unmindful of, and, indeed, I credit Christianity with a great many things. The two major ones are the acts of preserving western culture during the dark period from about 450 c.e. to sometime after 900 c.e. Mostly this was by way of Irish monks who kept the “light of the west” lit while Europe was plunged into an ugly dark and savage period. The second great contribution was the inspiration christianity provided for the great advances and expeditions when Europe awoke from its regressed state in the fifteenth century. These are indeed accomplishments to be rightly credited to christianity.

I also agree that we dwell in a corrupted culture, materialistic and fraught with consumerism and drive up window mentality that saps our intellectual strength.

Where we disagree of couse is how we fix “us”. I think the daysof mysticism must come to an end and we must embark on a reason based quest for a proper ethic, a proper worldview (what the Germans would call a weltanschalung) and a methodolgy toward problem resolution grounded in science.

I hope this clarifies my position.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Well that is indeed curious. This must be an esoteric implication of Thomism, or something, because it ain’t physics. Atoms have mass.

Electrons have mass, at least in the secular understanding of physics. An electron was approx. 9.1095 x 10^-31 kg.

Mass is a measure of interactivity between other particles, not of material size. Specifically, the Higgs Mechanism is the manner that particles acquire mass.

Also, you’re confused about point particles, it appears. Electrons are not point particles. They have mass, and volume.

Electrons are spatial points whose existence occupies a probability distribution centered around a specific location. As a point particle, the electron is “shielded” by a cloud of virtual electron-positron pairs. They are not tiny balls.

 

[WillP]

The first sentence in the Bible talks about God creating the heavens and the Earth, we have no absolute proof for this, however, believers take this to be true but it does take faith and trust. If God had no beginning and he created the universe and life then all other miracles like transubstantiation, talking snakes, virgin births, raising the dead are all minor miracles by comparison.

Blessings

Eric

Here’s my logic:
1.We are here. Hence, in Cartesian terms, there is something going on.
2. I don’t know what it is that is going on because it is very complicated and opaque to perception, however, I have one tool that I can use which is reliable.
3. I have the power to see that 2 plus 2 make four—so without anything else that matches up to the utility, accuracy and repeated success of reason, I’ll rely upon it.
4. When my uncle louie tells me that the moon is made of green cheese, I resist the urge to believe him, regardless of how much I like him, because it makes no sense to do so (i.e. it violates principle no 3 above) Hence, I will resist the urge to believe that bread is anything other than bread even though Father O’malley whom I love as much as my Uncle Louie, says so. Why, because of principle no. 3.
4. I think we are all better off if we treat others as we want to be treated. It makes sense and doesn’t require me to violae principle no. 3.
5. For figuring out really tough questions like how did all of this get started; what happens after death, 21st century science is working on that and it acquires more information every day which conforms to principle no. 3 above. I think I will follow that for those answers.

What’s wrong with my logic? And why should I not simply live my life in conformity with a reliance on science and to form an ethos consistent with a sense of civic responsibility and awareness of the rights of others? Why the mysticism?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Here’s my logic:
1.We are here. Hence, in Cartesian terms, there is something going on.
2. I don’t know what it is that is going on because it is very complicated and opaque to perception, however, I have one tool that I can use which is reliable.
3. I have the power to see that 2 plus 2 make four—so without anything else that matches up to the utility, accuracy and repeated success of reason, I’ll rely upon it.
4. When my uncle louie tells me that the moon is made of green cheese, I resist the urge to believe him, regardless of how much I like him, because it makes no sense to do so (i.e. it violates principle no 3 above) Hence, I will resist the urge to believe that bread is anything other than bread even though Father O’malley whom I love as much as my Uncle Louie, says so. Why, because of principle no. 3.
4. I think we are all better off if we treat others as we want to be treated. It makes sense and doesn’t require me to violae principle no. 3.
5. For figuring out really tough questions like how did all of this get started; what happens after death, 21st century science is working on that and it acquires more information every day which conforms to principle no. 3 above. I think I will follow that for those answers.

What’s wrong with my logic? And why should I not simply live my life in conformity with a reliance on science and to form an ethos consistent with a sense of civic responsibility and awareness of the rights of others? Why the mysticism?

There a presumption that your power to “see” equates to the closest approximation of “truth” of a situation. You cannot observe that your observations are correct, therefore, you take it on belief they are reliable. Further, it’s a matter of trust (faith) for most people that they believe a scientific disclosure is reliable. Scientific revelation is provisional in character and subject to change. There is nothing wrong with faith; just be aware when it is being used.

To treat others as you would like to be treated, while superficially attractive, is a relatively thin ideology. What is desirable for you is subjective and does not necessarily coincide with another person position on how they would be treated. This is one of several flaws of using the “Golden Rule” as an ethical framework.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Over-reacting? to something as trivial as being called ignorant? Perhaps I failed to turn my cheek far enough for you to notice, however, I don’t believe any comment of mine was ever directed to any individual----only toward beliefs held. I would be dishionest if I said that I found some of these concepts anything but silly. Yet, I would have hoped that this forum would allow for discussion and critique, the necessary “give and take” for honest discussion and tolerance for scruntiny. Even if I am an imperfect practitioner of the maxum, “love the sinner–hate the sin” , I hope I apply the maxum (albeit, in the contex of my own worldview).

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of something. We are all ignorant of many things. In this case, you were ignorant of the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation. I’m sorry if you take offense to that statement, but as you thought it had something to do with DNA, etc. you were, by the textbook definition, ignorant of what the teaching really said. This in no way implies you are a generally ignorant person; I’m sorry if that’s the impression you got.

Still, whether your comments were directed towards an individual or not does not make them any less potentially offensive when the beliefs you are referring to are bound up so intimately with your audience’s sense of identity. There are ways of framing disagreement without using trigger words like “silly.” Stating that you find it perplexing or something of the like is more than sufficient to get the point across. When you call it “silly”, though, like I said, the belief is so intimately intertwined with Catholics’ self-identity that its hard not to transfer the implications to the person as well. Just something to consider.

I also strive against the impulse to re-interpret (or “translate”) the words of my .fellow posters, lest I fall into the fallacy of overlooking the planks in my own eye while excorating the specks in thei eyes of others.

The translations were intended as hyperbole to emphasize how others might take your comments. Like I said before, nothing you said really offended me, personally.

Nonetheless, I’ll re-examine my approach toward those I disagree with. I am certain you will do likewise.

Altogether, I am not sure that we disagree on the way we should live our lives at least not in the essentials of doing good, avoiding hypocracy, treating others fairly, being civil as well as many of the core teachings of Christ (examples of which I alluded to above, eg the “eye/plank” principle).

I strive to be more charitable always, but I know that I, like most everyone, still have a lot of work to do.

However, where we “disconnect” is when I ask: why do these priciples, on which we have no disagreement, have to be bound up with the mysticism that your faith teaches? As I have argued before, my perception is that , in the extreme, faith drives some rather ugly impulses. I cited Jonestown as an example in one of my “post musings”, but, all faiths, it seems to me, have the potential to manifest in hyper-ugly form. Christianity’s history in Europe, after it gained the favor of political power waxed as violently as any other during various periods. In the last several decades, as the western world became more secularized, this has not been so much the case, but, always (in my view) that potential is there–seething, as it were, below the surface. Some of the anger I have felt directed toward me ( “ignorant heretics”, for example) is some evidence (at least to me) of the rage that is always just under the surface.

No mysticism is required for such ugliness to manifest. It is just the dark side of human nature. Remember that the atheistic regimes of the 20th century massacred more people in 100 years than had ever been slaughtered in the preceding 2000.

As for being called an “ignorant heretic,” this is a little bit dishonest. sw85 didn’t call you an ignorant heretic; his exact words were that you were probably “catechized by a group of ignorant heretics.” No fault was placed upon or offense directed towards you here. If anything, he was saying you were, like many of us, the victim of a decidedly misleading education in regards to the Catholic faith. The issue of clerical dissent is a topic of common discussion in Catholic circles; whole books have been written about it. With the advent of liberation theology and other unorthodox/heretical movements, the teaching of wrong theologies, etc. has become a huge problem within the Church. The former Fr. Matthew Fox is probably the most well publicized (and extreme) case. As sw85 noted, and I will second, his own experience in RCIA was lacking. Having gone through Catholic primary schooling and CCD, etc. as a youth my experience was no different. It was grossly inadequate and I fell away from any faith by the end of my teens and then for over a decade.

Having said all of that, I am also not unmindful of, and, indeed, I credit Christianity with a great many things. The two major ones are the acts of preserving western culture during the dark period from about 450 c.e. to sometime after 900 c.e. Mostly this was by way of Irish monks who kept the “light of the west” lit while Europe was plunged into an ugly dark and savage period. The second great contribution was the inspiration christianity provided for the great advances and expeditions when Europe awoke from its regressed state in the fifteenth century. These are indeed accomplishments to be rightly credited to christianity.

I would say its made more great contributions than just two, but that’s a debate for another time

I also agree that we dwell in a corrupted culture, materialistic and fraught with consumerism and drive up window mentality that saps our intellectual strength.

Where we disagree of couse is how we fix “us”. I think the daysof mysticism must come to an end and we must embark on a reason based quest for a proper ethic, a proper worldview (what the Germans would call a weltanschalung) and a methodolgy toward problem resolution grounded in science.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ecclesiastes. I don’t think any such thing will ever work; in the absence of God all human endeavor, from great to small, from building cities to watching TV, is a diversion. A diversion from the fact that when all things tend towards annihilation, all is vanity. This futility and emptiness will always be felt by man, eating away at his heart but hidden in his subconscious. I think the fact that the most secular societies have the highest suicide rates is telling in this regard. It also goes a great way in explaining why enough is never enough in our culture. There is always a push for more and more; for more material possessions, for greater extremes of experience, for more sex, and on and on and on. It is modern man’s response to facing emptiness. He is struggling to fill a hole that nothing in this world is big enough to fill. No amount of materialistic philosophizing can change the perceived “fact”, which comes inherently along with it, that we’re all headed for oblivion.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Indeed. I think I’ve properly understood your position thus far; I just disagree!

 

[decarlec]

I would just like to point out the futility of all of the people on here who are trying to make catholicism and christianity a matter of logic. The whole idea of faith is that it is completely separate from logic. It is entirely illogical. Logic would dictate that one could not take a piece of bread turn into a person who lived 2000 years ago. This is why people who rely on facts and logic to define their world and their beliefs can’t reconcile with the pure lack of logic in religious beliefs such as this.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I would just like to point out the futility of all of the people on here who are trying to make catholicism and christianity a matter of logic. The whole idea of faith is that it is completely separate from logic. It is entirely illogical. Logic would dictate that one could not take a piece of bread turn into a person who lived 2000 years ago. This is why people who rely on facts and logic to define their world and their beliefs can’t reconcile with the pure lack of logic in religious beliefs such as this.

I must disagree. As sw85 said earlier, this is only true when you “put the cart before the horse.” There are sound logical arguments for the existence of God. Once that has been established, you have perfectly logical grounds to believe that an entity with the power to create an entire universe out of nothing could then make Himself present anywhere within that universe; even a piece of bread. You can’t just isolate a detail from the big picture. Logic must proceed from the ground up.

 

[Gaber]

I have to disclose that it defies my sense of reality that certain doctrines could possibly be true. Just to take a single doctrine–transsubstantiation. Members in this forum seem to believe in what is called “the real presence”. They accept it on the basis of “faith”.

I cannot reconcile that with anything resembling reasonableness. I find it amazing that people who are otherwise sensable and reasonable in their daily lives come to believe something that is so far removed from logic and reason as this doctrine.

Doesn’t the doctrine say that the molecular structure of bread changes into what is–not just equvalent–but is identical to the human DNA of a specific human (i.e. Christ). Moreover, the same DNA reincarnation occurs over and over and over throughout the decades and into as many digestive systems as consume it (apparently, the body of Christ is infinite in this regard).

The concept actually brings to mind “the Emperor’s New Clothes”. So I have to ask:

1. Can “faith” really operate to allow people to defy their own sense of reality to this extent?
2. And, if so, what is the driving force of “faith” which is so overwhelming that it would allow one’s reason to be so superceded?
3. Does anyone have second thoughts ever as whether they are only engaged in some form of wishful thinking or perhaps deceiving themselves?

Faith is a default position from not knowing. Mind, that doesn’t mean that one might not have an exceptionally brilliant “knowledge” of their faith. but does that constitute experiential knowledge of Reality, or of an explanation that holds by dint of inculcation, habit, emotional and ego attachment, etc, rationalized by its nearness, but not equivalency to facts?

So while faith might be a useful “ad hoc” paradigm, it would very well be the kind of inquiry into self knowledge that could get one to a point beyond figuring about religion to something actually and palpably fundamental. From that point, religion could suddenly make sense, as it is seen from where it most likely came from, as distinct from something assumed as part of growing up, or chosen from a necessarily limited field of options. So in christianist terms, what that is that makes us to be “created in the image and likeness of God” must be discovered, and not taken on as mere book learning or habit. Or faith.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

As far as transubstantiation goes:

That article might help to clear things up for you.

Mark should be more precise. There are " teachings proximate to the faith " which hold that the physical reality of bread and wine remain, so in that sense Mark is correct. However, even though real as far as measurement, etc are concerned, they must now be regarded as accidents without a subject in which to inhere. Thus, the molecules which can be measured or detected must be regarded as accidents. This was not in the Catechism, though it is in Ott. What the Catechism teaches is that the “… whole substance of the bread and wine,” are changed into the whole, glorified substance of Jesus Christ. Therefor nothing remains of the bread and wine but the " appearance " of bread and wine, what we would term mere accidents. What we see is the glorified body of the 2nd Person of the Trinity under a veil of accidents. What has taken place is a miracle. I am not an authority, read the Catechism on this point to satisfy yourself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have to disclose that it defies my sense of reality that certain doctrines could possibly be true. Just to take a single doctrine–transsubstantiation. Members in this forum seem to believe in what is called “the real presence”. They accept it on the basis of “faith”.

I cannot reconcile that with anything resembling reasonableness. I find it amazing that people who are otherwise sensable and reasonable in their daily lives come to believe something that is so far removed from logic and reason as this doctrine.

Doesn’t the doctrine say that the molecular structure of bread changes into what is–not just equvalent–but is identical to the human DNA of a specific human (i.e. Christ). Moreover, the same DNA reincarnation occurs over and over and over throughout the decades and into as many digestive systems as consume it (apparently, the body of Christ is infinite in this regard).

The concept actually brings to mind “the Emperor’s New Clothes”. So I have to ask:

1. Can “faith” really operate to allow people to defy their own sense of reality to this extent?
2. And, if so, what is the driving force of “faith” which is so overwhelming that it would allow one’s reason to be so superceded?
3. Does anyone have second thoughts ever as whether they are only engaged in some form of wishful thinking or perhaps deceiving themselves?

You have a lot going on here. Why not get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( the long, original version) and read it through. That will give you a better understanding of what Catholics believe. You can read it here vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

I think you will find it very interesting, eventhough you are not a believer. At least you will find out our intentions are noble at least.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

quote=WillP;
What’s wrong with my logic? And why should I not simply live my life in conformity with a reliance on science and to form an ethos consistent with a sense of civic responsibility and awareness of the rights of others? Why the mysticism?

If and only if God the creator of the universe exists, then he has to be the greatest thing in the universe, and there should be the need to search for him.

Blessings

Eric

 

[tonyrey]

1. Everyone ultimately relies on faith because nothing is self-evident.
2. Even the fact that we are thinking can be questioned (unreasonably in my opinion).
3. It makes sense to rely upon faith because otherwise everything is senseless!
4. Everything we believe depends on our faith in the power of thought.
5. Faith in the power of thought implies that no explanation of reality is adequate unless thought is a fundamental reality.

 

[tonyrey]

I would just like to point out the futility of all of the people on here who are trying to make catholicism and christianity a matter of logic. The whole idea of faith is that it is completely separate from logic. It is entirely illogical. Logic would dictate that one could not take a piece of bread turn into a person who lived 2000 years ago. This is why people who rely on facts and logic to define their world and their beliefs can’t reconcile with the pure lack of logic in religious beliefs such as this.

Welcome to the forum!

1. Facts and logic presuppose the power of reason which requires explanation.
2. Science cannot explain the power of reason because science is a product of the power of reason.
3. Science is an inadequate explanation of reality because facts and logic are intangible.
4. Intangible reality is more fundamental than tangible reality.

 

[ReapReason]

1. Everyone ultimately relies on faith because nothing is self-evident.
2. Even the fact that we are thinking can be questioned (unreasonably in my opinion).
3. It makes sense to rely upon faith because otherwise everything is senseless!
4. Everything we believe depends on our faith in the power of thought.
5. Faith in the power of thought implies that no explanation of reality is adequate unless thought is a fundamental reality.

One requires faith in-order to believe that the particular thing’s that we sense are real in so far as we tend to think that the sensory perception of any nature reflects that which extends beyond our minds or imagination. However one cannot logically deny existence in its most general form; that is, we cannot say that the act of existence is an illusion. It is impossible to rationally doubt that which is self evident. I also disagree that the act of thinking or self awareness can be questioned rationally with out contradicting our immediate experience of thinking.

 

[tonyrey]

One requires faith in-order to believe that the particular thing’s that we sense are real in so far as we tend to think that the sensory perception of any nature reflects that which extends beyond our minds or imagination. However one cannot logically deny existence in its most general form; that is, we cannot say that the act of existence is an illusion. It is impossible to rationally doubt that which is self evident. I also disagree that the act of thinking or self awareness can be questioned rationally with out contradicting our immediate experience of thinking.

Our awareness of our mental activity is our sole certainty. To doubt that we are thinking is self-destructive because it undermines every conclusion we reach.

 

[Gaber]

1. Everyone ultimately relies on faith because nothing is self-evident.

Except that you can say “I am” because that is self evident.

1. Even the fact that we are thinking can be questioned (unreasonably in my opinion).

It being self evident that “I am” I see that I “have” thoughts. That is the reverse of “Cogito ergo sum” which is backwards from fact. And having thoughts, as material of mind, that material can be manipulated, and that is called “thinking.” “Thinking” can have a correspondence with Reality according to the accuracy of the premises used. Using inaccurate, incomplete premises results in rationalization. or the wrong use of reason. What cannot be reasoned results, for many, in the need for belief. Or belief is the result of rationalization.

1. It makes sense to rely upon faith because otherwise everything is senseless!

Yes, as an ad hoc provision until one knows better, not as an end. A child has “faith” in that it takes the values of its family as it perceives them to be reality. As the child grows, we hope, it transcends and includes several orders of such “realities.” Eventually it is faced with the presentations of society in the form of more over-arching beliefs about politics, economics, behavior and religion. Those as well can be transcended as the understanding of the relative and absolute values of “I” unfold as to what that sense of “I” includes, or doesn’t.

1. Everything we believe depends on our faith in the power of thought.

Which power of thought is rightfully used to get past the need for faith and belief in every way possible to knowledge.

1. Faith in the power of thought implies that no explanation of reality is adequate unless thought is a fundamental reality.

Thought, being contents, as demonstrated by the primacy of “I” having thoughts, shows that thoughts are a secondary characteristic of our form of mental existence, and therefore thought is not primary, as it is part of the subject/object duality that is a construct within Being as it manifests as existence. “I” am not a thought.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have to disclose that it defies my sense of reality that certain doctrines could possibly be true. Just to take a single doctrine–transsubstantiation. Members in this forum seem to believe in what is called “the real presence”. They accept it on the basis of “faith”.

I cannot reconcile that with anything resembling reasonableness. I find it amazing that people who are otherwise sensable and reasonable in their daily lives come to believe something that is so far removed from logic and reason as this doctrine.

Doesn’t the doctrine say that the molecular structure of bread changes into what is–not just equvalent–but is identical to the human DNA of a specific human (i.e. Christ). Moreover, the same DNA reincarnation occurs over and over and over throughout the decades and into as many digestive systems as consume it (apparently, the body of Christ is infinite in this regard).

The concept actually brings to mind “the Emperor’s New Clothes”. So I have to ask:

1. Can “faith” really operate to allow people to defy their own sense of reality to this extent?
2. And, if so, what is the driving force of “faith” which is so overwhelming that it would allow one’s reason to be so superceded?
3. Does anyone have second thoughts ever as whether they are only engaged in some form of wishful thinking or perhaps deceiving themselves?

I think you answered your own question. We don’t want to spend our lives justifying ourselves to people who have no faith and are unjustly critical. We know the road to salvation, those who scorn do so at their own peril.

 

[WillP]

There a presumption that your power to “see” equates to the closest approximation of “truth” of a situation. You cannot observe that your observations are correct, therefore, you take it on belief they are reliable. Further, it’s a matter of trust (faith) for most people that they believe a scientific disclosure is reliable. Scientific revelation is provisional in character and subject to change. There is nothing wrong with faith; just be aware when it is being used.

To treat others as you would like to be treated, while superficially attractive, is a relatively thin ideology. What is desirable for you is subjective and does not necessarily coincide with another person position on how they would be treated. This is one of several flaws of using the “Golden Rule” as an ethical framework.

Do you think you have rebutted the proposition that the most utilitarian and most reliable faculity that we possess is reason? If reason works as well as it does, then why migrate to something as fanciful as “faith”? Or do you think that my Uncle Louie is right about the composition of the moon?

By the way, I don’t think “faith” in any sense of its definition is anything other than “hope”. For example, if we say that we have faith that the moon id made of green cheese, doesn’t that more accurately translate to the hope that it is made of green cheese? We can’t know that the moon is made of green cheese because knowing is a function of reason. Faith is, I submit, a function of hope.

 

[WillP]

P.S. Ya know, I was just thinking… while I think you’re overreacting to sw85’s comments to begin with, I think you should take a look in the mirror before you talk about people being emotionally charged and insulting. Reflect on some of the things you’ve been saying in this very thread about Catholics. Emperor’s new clothes, etc., etc. You haven’t exactly been respectful yourself and I would suggest that everyone else here has shown you more courtesy than you have them.

Translation: You’re all too stupid to realize how ridiculous your beliefs are. Fortunately for me, I’m smarter than you.

Translation: You’re all a bunch of closed minded, medieval fruitcakes.

Translation: none required.

Calling one of the most central beliefs of many people’s lives, which is neither a danger nor an impediment to you, “silly” is just disrespectful.

Just something to think about before you go getting mad at people. Consider the fact that you might be inciting people’s seemingly “rude” comments.

Your “translations” would be ever so quaint were it not for their undercurrents of rage. They do, however, point up precisely why religion is so dangerous. Were it not for the secularization that the West has undergone in the last few centuries, and had the Church maintained its grip on western culture as it had in the centuries after Theodosious, I suspect that I would be in some Inquisitioner’s dungeon explaining my posts to you.