Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Does Theism necessarily involve faith?
PrintPage: First 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
 Does Theism necessarily involve faith? | |
|
dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 26, 2004 Total Topics: 50 Total Posts: 1569
|
 #131
Wosret wrote: I think that most theists are just wrong, only the intelligent, and knowledgeable ones need faith to maintain their theism, because they know better. What makes you think that theists are wrong? Can you or anyone else prove why other person's beliefs are 'wrong'? No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti |
|
oldandrew
Professor  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 19, 2008 Location: United Kingdom Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 707 Last Blog: A Guide To Scenes From The Battleground. |
#132
brainpharte wrote: You repeatedly disputed assertions (and ignored Biblical examples) that the concept of faith includes lack of evidence. If somebody disagrees with your interpretation of a Biblical passage, that does not mean they are ignoring it. brainpharte wrote: Are you now modifying your position and agreeing that faith has meaning only in a context in which there is a lack of normally expected evidence to warrant the claim at issue? This is just baffling. Where on earth do you get this from? If you are charging that I have misrepresented that article, then be specific and demonstrate your charge. I am charging you with taking an article about the subjective and objective aspects of faith and using parts about the subjective aspects to suggest that faith is without reason or evidence. If anyone wants to see this is the case I suggest they follow the link, no other demonstration is necessary. Are you expecting me to join in the selective quotation game? |
|
brainpharte
Huh? Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 07, 2009 Total Topics: 10 Total Posts: 1503 |
#133
oldandrew wrote: I am charging you with taking an article about the subjective and objective aspects of faith and using parts about the subjective aspects to suggest that faith is without reason or evidence. If anyone wants to see this is the case I suggest they follow the link, no other demonstration is necessary. Are you expecting me to join in the selective quotation game? You falsely charge that I have presented selective quotes that misrepresent the arguments in that article, oldandrew. Anyone can readily check the excerpts I presented in both previous posts and see for themselves that they are taken from both sections of that article. In fact, the excerpts most damaging to your insistence that there is no deficiency of reason or evidence in faith claims came from the so-called "objective" section that you accuse me of selectively avoiding. In the future you might check such things yourself before making an ass of yourself. If you are claiming that I have tendentiously avoided selecting some compelling argument in that article that demonstrates that there is no lack of reason or evidence in faith claims--please show us that argument. The preposterous sophism I've already excerpted is straight from the heart of the argument which presents the authors' selected example of exactly how they claim reason to be involved in faith: "... we may formulate it in syllogistic fashion thus: Whatever God reveals is true but God has revealed the mystery of the Holy Trinity therefore this mystery is true. The major premise is indubitable and intrinsically evident to reason; the minor premise is also true because it is declared to us by the infallible Church, and also because, as the Vatican Council says, "in addition to the internal assistance of His Holy Spirit, it has pleased God to give us certain external proofs of His revelation." This nonsense is what passes for reason in faith. Additionally, the article repeatedly makes the point that the central faith beliefs by their very nature are beyond mere human reason and comprehension. If such claims are by their very nature beyond mere human reason and comprehension, then whatever do you mean when you insist that there is no lack of reason involved in believing such claims? And if, as you also insist, there really is no deficiency of evidence, then what exactly is the sufficient evidence for--to use the article's very own example--the Holy Trinity? Faith is required only in a context in which either rational analysis or empirical evidence are insufficient to warrant the claim. When the claims at issue admittedly are incomprehensible, then by definition those claims cannot meet requirements of rational analysis. And when the empirical evidence consists entirely in millennia-old testimonies and stories told or retold by ideologically driven authors, and such stories contradict all our actual experience of how the world works, then such evidence is insufficient by even the most lenient standards--except the standards of motivated belief--a.k.a. "faith". "I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way." |
|
oldandrew
Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 19, 2008 Location: United Kingdom Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 707 Last Blog: A Guide To Scenes From The Battleground. |
#134
brainpharte wrote: You falsely charge that I have presented selective quotes that misrepresent the arguments in that article, oldandrew. Anyone can readily check the excerpts I presented in both previous posts and see for themselves that they are taken from both sections of that article. Oh for pity's sake. I didn't check all your quotations because a long article covering a variety of views about different types of faith can be mined for quotations to say anything. The quotations I did look up came from a section that was quite clearly about subjective matters, at which point it was quite clear you had no interest in what the article says but wanted to play some kind of quotation game. In your follow up post you even referred to "the authors' selected example of exactly how they claim reason to be involved in faith" and quoted a passage which mentions what is evident, but then dismissed it because its understanding of faith disagreed with you. Why do I even have to discuss your efforts to selectively quote and interpret other passages to disprove a point you have actually conceded? Anyone is free to look up the article and see that it does not define faith to be, by definition, without reason or evidence, and that it does repeatedly suggest "faith" refers to trust in God's authority. To suggest otherwise is sophistry, and no amount of selective quotation, dismissing relevant parts, and reinterpreting all references to the "unseen" as meaning "things without evidence" is going to change that. Edited by oldandrew on Nov 13, 2009 - 4:11 PM |
|
jorndoe
Investigator  Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 06, 2008 Location: Canada,Denmark Total Topics: 29 Total Posts: 1018 |
#135
Ok oldandrew, post #101 consisted of 3 paragraphs. You apparently just ignored the 2nd - the only one addressing a question to you. Fixed. If someone's evasive maneuvers detector goes off, it's not an attack on your person, it's a comment on your posts. People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1 |
|
oldandrew
Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 19, 2008 Location: United Kingdom Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 707 Last Blog: A Guide To Scenes From The Battleground. |
#136
jorndoe wrote: Ok oldandrew, post #101 consisted of 3 paragraphs. You apparently just ignored the 2nd - the only one addressing a question to you. So? I ignored it because you had stated in the first paragraph that you were playing wordgames, and because it appeared to be exactly that. |
|
jorndoe
Investigator Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 06, 2008 Location: Canada,Denmark Total Topics: 29 Total Posts: 1018 |
#137
oldandrew (#136) wrote: So? I ignored it because you had stated in the first paragraph that you were playing wordgames, and because it appeared to be exactly that. I give you my word I was not referring to my own post. People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1 |
|
brainpharte
Huh? Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 07, 2009 Total Topics: 10 Total Posts: 1503 |
#138
oldandrew wrote: Oh for pity's sake. I didn't check all your quotations because a long article covering a variety of views about different types of faith can be mined for quotations to say anything. The quotations I did look up came from a section that was quite clearly about subjective matters, at which point it was quite clear you had no interest in what the article says but wanted to play some kind of quotation game. What a stupid and dishonest way to engage in a discussion. Why in God's name would you insist that I am misrepresenting an article that you admit you haven't actually read? So you refuse to bother to actually check the article, yet you insist that my excerpts are selective. And you continue to charge that I am misrepresenting the article, yet you offer no evidence of this whatsoever. The article itself notes that it is primarily addressing what it calls subjective matters, oldandrew, so why is it a surprise that my excerpts would primarily be about what the article says it is mainly about? I've already challenged you to show us an example of some compelling argument that you insist that I've avoided in that article. Where exactly does that article demonstrate that there is sufficient rational analysis and evidence to warrant faith claims? Why do you ignore that challenge--which would immediately prove your point--and instead repeat your false accusations? To repeatedly accuse someone in a public forum of misrepresenting an argument is a serious charge, oldandrew. Either back it up or apologize. To repeatedly make such an accusation and refuse to back it up is the tactic of an intellectual fraud. In your follow up post you even referred to "the authors' selected example of exactly how they claim reason to be involved in faith" and quoted a passage which mentions what is evident, but then dismissed it because its understanding of faith disagreed with you. Yes I dismiss that argument as transparent sophistry. Here's that argument: Major Premise: Whatever God reveals is true Minor premise: but God has revealed the mystery of the Holy Trinity Conclusion: therefore this mystery is true. The article claims that: The major premise is indubitable and intrinsically evident to reason; the minor premise is also true because it is declared to us by the infallible Church, and also because, as the Vatican Council says, "in addition to the internal assistance of His Holy Spirit, it has pleased God to give us certain external proofs of His revelation." If you really think that this argument is rationally sound and a good example of the role of reason in faith, please do enlighten us. And I'm still waiting for exactly what you (or the article) offer as sufficient empirical evidence to warrant the faith claims. Anyone is free to look up the article and see that it does not define faith to be, by definition, without reason or evidence, and that it does repeatedly suggest "faith" refers to trust in God's authority. Yet another strawman. I have neither asserted that faith is "without reason or evidence" nor have I denied that trust is an element of faith--to the contrary, I have specifically said trust is an element of faith. What I actually have clearly asserted is that faith claims do not sufficiently meet (even the believer's) epistemic criteria, centrally including rational analysis and empirical evidence--and that this insufficiency is made up for with faith, and if there were no insufficiency of epistemic warrant, there would be no need for faith or trust. Whyever would an honest person repeatedly misrepresent what I have very clearly claimed? To suggest otherwise is sophistry, and no amount of selective quotation, dismissing relevant parts, and reinterpreting all references to the "unseen" as meaning "things without evidence" is going to change that. I have already challenged you to show us the "relevant parts" that you falsely accuse me of ignoring, but you ignore that challenge for some reason. Instead of repeatedly falsely accusing me of misrepresenting the article's point just show us where that article demonstrates that there is sufficient rational analysis and evidence to warrant the beliefs without faith filling in the deficiencies. I must have missed it. And when are you going to explain to us how it is that faith or trust are necessary if the beliefs are fully warranted by rational analysis and evidence? "I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way." |
|
oldandrew
Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 19, 2008 Location: United Kingdom Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 707 Last Blog: A Guide To Scenes From The Battleground. |
#139
brainpharte wrote: What a stupid and dishonest way to engage in a discussion. Why in God's name would you insist that I am misrepresenting an article that you admit you haven't actually read? I read enough to know that it didn't contradict what I was saying (i.e. the Catholic church does not define "faith" as "beliefs held without evidence".) brainpharte wrote: So you refuse to bother to actually check the article, yet you insist that my excerpts are selective. And you continue to charge that I am misrepresenting the article, yet you offer no evidence of this whatsoever. I have checked the article enough. Are you actually expecting me to mine it for quotations too? I credit people reading this with the ability to read for comprehension. brainpharte wrote: The article itself notes that it is primarily addressing what it calls subjective matters, oldandrew, so why is it a surprise that my excerpts would primarily be about what the article says it is mainly about? For pity's sake, it talks about the objective at length. brainpharte wrote: I've already challenged you to show us an example of some compelling argument that you insist that I've avoided in that article. Where exactly does that article demonstrate that there is sufficient rational analysis and evidence to warrant faith claims? I'll stop there. You appear to have switched arguments entirely. I was discussing the definition of the word faith. That article was used to suggest that the Catholic Church used "faith" to mean "beliefs held without evidence". It clearly doesn't demonstrate that and you now appear to be, at best, changing the subject, at worst creating a strawman. |
|
brainpharte
Huh? Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 07, 2009 Total Topics: 10 Total Posts: 1503 |
#140
oldandrew wrote: I'll stop there. You appear to have switched arguments entirely. I was discussing the definition of the word faith. That article was used to suggest that the Catholic Church used "faith" to mean "beliefs held without evidence". It clearly doesn't demonstrate that and you now appear to be, at best, changing the subject, at worst creating a strawman. I have consistently claimed that faith and trust are meaningful only in contexts in which the normally expected epistemic criteria are insufficient to warrant the beliefs, and I have shown that the excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia article acknowledge the insufficiency of rational analysis and evidence. So you insist that the article is not acknowledging that there’s any lack of rational analysis or of evidence for faith claims when it says this: The Catholic Encyclopedia wrote: We must, then, either reject revelation altogether, or accept it by faith; that is, we must submit our intellect to truths which we cannot understand …. Or this: The Catholic Encyclopedia wrote: ... this truth is clearly inevident as far as we are concerned; it in no way appeals to our intellect, on the contrary it rather repels it. And yet we assent to it by faith, How about this? The Catholic Encyclopedia wrote: ... there can be no evidence commensurate with such a mystery save the Divine testimony itself ... or this: The Catholic Encyclopedia wrote: The unhesitating assent of the intellect cannot be due to intellectual conviction of the reasonableness of faith, Or this: The Catholic Encyclopedia wrote: ... at the same time that he is brought face to face with the intellectual difficulties which are involved, he will necessarily exercise his faith and repeatedly "bring his intellect into submission". Thus St. Augustine says, "What can be the reward of faith, what can its very name mean if you wish to see now what you believe? If you continue to charge that these selections have misrepresented the article, then demonstrate the intellectual honesty this time to actually show how it is that I’ve used them to say something you claim they did not actually mean. And why do you continue to ignore challenges to address the issue of why faith and trust are required if there already is sufficient rational analysis and empirical evidence to warrant the beliefs? All you have to do is explain how it makes sense to insist that faith and trust are required if the rational analysis and evidence are sufficient. "I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way." |
Page: First 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.