Epistemological Problem of Faith

[evolvedForm]

Conclusion: Faith in X is impossible
- A subject can never have faith in X because it cannot know what X is.

In the Bible it says that Jesus might be anyone, even a homeless person (I don’t know the exact verse). Suppose a homeless person comes to a believer’s door tomorrow and claims to be God. The believer (a person of faith) should be able to tell if it is Jesus, right? If he cannot, then he must not have enough faith. It is also the person’s responsibility to have faith – otherwise, if God shows himself to the person, then the person is no longer acting out of free will (i.e., faith is no longer subjective or personal, and is thus no longer ‘faith.’)

In this particular case, the believer needs faith before he can recognize God. Faith precedes knowledge. This appears to be the case in many Christian doctrines. Prayer demands faith before knowledge in that one must have faith to begin to pray, and yet knowledge is accrued through prayer. Likewise, knowledge is gained by reading the Bible, yet only on the condition that the reader has faith in the book’s words.

Now, according to this book, sin exists, and the Father of sin is very tricky. It is the believer’s duty to avoid sin and practice righteous acts. But how does the believer learn the difference between the two? Since he must have faith prior to knowledge, it seems that he never truly can. The reality of Satan prohibits him. If a homeless person claiming to be God shows up at your door, do not let him in. He may just as easily be Satan, who is capable of such tricks. In fact, Satan could be equally capable of writing the Bible or intercepting prayers. But we will never know, will we?

To all of this, the only objection is that God would not let a believer’s faith trick him. My answer is that if this were true, then free will does not exist and faith is completely useless, as God merely picks and chooses those whom he assigns this illusory ‘faith.’

If you choose to have faith, you are stuck not knowing what to have faith in. Having faith in the bible but not in the Koran cannot be a well-reasoned decision, for it is totally arbitrary. The only way to assure faith in God is to have faith in every possible thing imaginable as soon as it pops in your head, for God could be in anything.

Faith is perpetual ignorance.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

Conclusion: Faith in X is impossible
- A subject can never have faith in X because it cannot know what X is.

In the Bible it says that Jesus might be anyone, even a homeless person (I don’t know the exact verse). Suppose a homeless person comes to a believer’s door tomorrow and claims to be God. The believer (a person of faith) should be able to tell if it is Jesus, right? If he cannot, then he must not have enough faith. It is also the person’s responsibility to have faith – otherwise, if God shows himself to the person, then the person is no longer acting out of free will (i.e., faith is no longer subjective or personal, and is thus no longer ‘faith.’)

In this particular case, the believer needs faith before he can recognize God. Faith precedes knowledge. This appears to be the case in many Christian doctrines. Prayer demands faith before knowledge in that one must have faith to begin to pray, and yet knowledge is accrued through prayer. Likewise, knowledge is gained by reading the Bible, yet only on the condition that the reader has faith in the book’s words.

Now, according to this book, sin exists, and the Father of sin is very tricky. It is the believer’s duty to avoid sin and practice righteous acts. But how does the believer learn the difference between the two? Since he must have faith prior to knowledge, it seems that he never truly can. The reality of Satan prohibits him. If a homeless person claiming to be God shows up at your door, do not let him in. He may just as easily be Satan, who is capable of such tricks. In fact, Satan could be equally capable of writing the Bible or intercepting prayers. But we will never know, will we?

To all of this, the only objection is that God would not let a believer’s faith trick him. My answer is that if this were true, then free will does not exist and faith is completely useless, as God merely picks and chooses those whom he assigns this illusory ‘faith.’

If you choose to have faith, you are stuck not knowing what to have faith in. Having faith in the bible but not in the Koran cannot be a well-reasoned decision, for it is totally arbitrary. The only way to assure faith in God is to have faith in every possible thing imaginable as soon as it pops in your head, for God could be in anything.

Faith is perpetual ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Multiple holes in your reasoning but you are speaking of "blind desire", not faith. The Intellect perceives the True through Thinking which is ensconced in Faith. A scientist, through his Thinking(Intellect), searches for Truth. That there are many "truths" on the way to the True and the Good in no way obviates the ability of the scientist to reach a truth nor a religious from seeking and reaching the True.

Faith leads to the Good and the True through the Intellect. If you say that God is everywhere it only means that we search in the particular, connect the particulars in what are called "concepts" which is called "Thinking".

[SitNHit]

I find it funny that people spend time trying to disprove things such as God, Faith, the G-Spot.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that people spend time trying to disprove things such as God, Faith, the G-Spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel the same way about NASCAR.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
Multiple holes in your reasoning

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[ QUOTE ]

you are speaking of "blind desire", not faith


[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that faith is necessarily blind.


[ QUOTE ]


Faith leads to the Good and the True through the Intellect

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by 'good and true,' but I'll assume they are synonyms for the christian god, since that is the topic under consideration. Using your proposed model, I'm having a hard time figuring out which is ontologically prior as a vehicle to God: faith or the intellect. I have no problem with faith if it is ontologically posterior to the intellect, obviously. But I'm not arguing against your model; you need to defend christianity from the claim that faith is prior to the intellect. Until then, it cannot stand up to my objections.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by 'good and true,' but I'll assume they are synonyms for the christian god, since that is the topic under consideration. Using your proposed model, I'm having a hard time figuring out which is ontologically prior as a vehicle to God: faith or the intellect. I have no problem with faith if it is ontologically posterior to the intellect, obviously. But I'm not arguing against your model; you need to defend christianity from the claim that faith is prior to the intellect. Until then, it cannot stand up to my objections.



[/ QUOTE ]

Only a defense of Christianity obliquely. I'm speaking to knowledge, its seeking and the role of Faith. I could very well be speaking to a scientist and his work(and in fact I am).

The question of which came first is your question, not mine. A practical understanding is that Truth or its attainment is of course a searching of the unknown and this fits across all of the searching via the Intellect. For you to say that Faith is "blind faith" implies a pejorative which you have laid on it. Of course, we seek the truth from OUR BLINDNESS but not that Faith is Blind.

Faith is that guide by which we seek the True and the Good through the Intellect and the comprehension and experiencing of this Faith is within each of us. Faith is truly an act of knowing and the impetus in which the Intellect rights its way.

As mentioned in the other post on Faith Aquinas states that each and every individual seeks the Good and in this he finds the Truth.He speaks to the Theological Virtues by which Man finds his God(Faith, Hope and Charity).

In religious parlance(not only Christian but if I can be so bold, all the great religions) Man seeks a return to his place before the Fall which is the work of religion(reunite to a pre Fall days-called the "Land of Milk and Honey". This return is facilitated by the Intellect through Thinking and in the process Mankind is Changed and the great religions speak to the "New Man".

As with many posts on this forum I have to say that the understanding of Reincarnation and Karma points to this "New Man" for the education of Mankind is not accomplished in one lifetime. TIME must be considered.

Another perspective is that Faith is not contrary to the Intellect but Man with Faith obliges the Intellect to find the Way. I see that logically Faith is an Impulse of Will which is the deeply hidden impulse of Man. Faith cannot deny the Truth, only the Intellect in Error can entertain a Falsehood.

[evolvedForm]

Not one reply from a christian apologist?

[evolvedForm]

In your (Aquinas's?) model, it seems that the intellect is intertwined with faith; in other words, the impetus of the intellect is faith, for without faith, there would be no motivation to know. I can accept this.

However, this seems to define faith as merely a gap which beckons the intellect to fill it. It's function is mechanical and practical. In the Christian doctrines I spoke of, faith takes on a more significant role: it is THE basis for all divine knowledge, and is required to get into heaven. Not only that, but knowledge is required, a fact which poses a problem since faith cannot bring one to knowledge if it is ontologically prior.

[El_Oso]

[ QUOTE ]

In the Bible it says that Jesus might be anyone, even a homeless person (I don’t know the exact verse).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible makes no such claim. I think the passage you are thinking of is Matthew 25:44-45: “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"

That is about caring for the sick/poor/etc. It has nothing to do with someone claiming to be God.

[dknightx]

your post is based on a falsity (please at least read the bible if you are going to bash it), so it doesnt really deserve much reply. thankfully el oso was kind enough to enlighten you.

[evolvedForm]

As a kid raised in a fundamentalist church I was taught that Jesus may be disguised as anybody, even a homeless person. Not sure if that was merely inferred from the text or not. However, a well-versed fundamentalist used this in an argument we were having, which sparked the idea for this post.

Even if there is no verse that explicitly states this, you can't think it is impossible for Jesus to do, can you? I thought he could do just about anything.

Besides, even without that example my point remains valid. Since faith is required to believe the bible before rational justification, it is impossible to know what one should believe in.

[evolvedForm]

Which falsity is that? Since what he pointed out was merely a bad example that doesn't hurt my argument...

[dknightx]

"As a kid raised in a fundamentalist church" you don't seem to know very much about faith, the holy spirit, prayer, etc, etc as christians (should) understand it. I don't really feel like rehashing stuff you can find out on your own.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
"As a kid raised in a fundamentalist church" you don't seem to know very much about faith, the holy spirit, prayer, etc, etc as christians (should) understand it. I don't really feel like rehashing stuff you can find out on your own.



[/ QUOTE ]

Way to dodge the issue

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"As a kid raised in a fundamentalist church" you don't seem to know very much about faith, the holy spirit, prayer, etc, etc as christians (should) understand it. I don't really feel like rehashing stuff you can find out on your own.



[/ QUOTE ]

Way to dodge the issue

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't tap the glass.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
In your (Aquinas's?) model, it seems that the intellect is intertwined with faith; in other words, the impetus of the intellect is faith, for without faith, there would be no motivation to know. I can accept this.

However, this seems to define faith as merely a gap which beckons the intellect to fill it. It's function is mechanical and practical. In the Christian doctrines I spoke of, faith takes on a more significant role: it is THE basis for all divine knowledge, and is required to get into heaven. Not only that, but knowledge is required, a fact which poses a problem since faith cannot bring one to knowledge if it is ontologically prior.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely true,during our time it is the way to reach the Divine but you are relating it to Condemnation. "Either you have faith or die!!". "You can't go to heaven unless you have faith",etcera. The condemnation is yours not Faith.

Faith is not something manufactured by Man but a gift for which he can proceed in his work in knowledge. Now remember, we are not just speaking of Earthly Knowledge for which the Intellect more easily takes to(in our age) but Spiritual Knowledge which is also Man's heritage.





The idea that Faith is Ontologically Prior(???) obviates its rightful place in Knowledge is specious. This is not an arithmetical progression in which "one" is necessary before "two" but a conjoint working of spiritual activity of which Thinking Is.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]


"Either you have faith or die!!". "You can't go to heaven unless you have faith",etcera. The condemnation is yours not Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's the bible's.


[ QUOTE ]
The idea that Faith is Ontologically Prior(???) obviates its rightful place in Knowledge is specious. This is not an arithmetical progression in which "one" is necessary before "two" but a conjoint working of spiritual activity of which Thinking Is.



[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your idea, but Christian doctrines don't go along with it. Also, explain to me how you are supposed to pray without faith. Faith is the causa prima for a prayer, not knowledge. They don't act simultaneously. Why would you be suddenly motivated to pray out of knowledge of a God that you don't believe exists? Faith comes first, knowledge comes second (knowledge of god comes through prayer - a christian doctrine).

But you can pray without knowledge (and I would hold that anybody who prays does exactly that, but that's another story). Unless you hold that faith equals knowledge, or is a kind of knowledge, you can't disagree with this.

Finally, my point is not exactly that faith's ontological (or existential) priority obviates its place in knowledge. It is that when faith is the starting point for any kind of knowledge, it utterly deafeats itself, so that no knowledge can come about.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible makes no such claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there is. After Jesus is resurrected doesnt he travel with a few of the disciples and they do not recognize him until he tells them?

Luke 24:14

[ QUOTE ]
As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16but they were kept from recognizing him.

[/ QUOTE ]

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's the bible's.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That may be your idea, but Christian doctrines don't go along with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last post-the first statement is you.

The second statement is you with an expansive sweep without substance.

Mercy.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, according to this book, sin exists, and the Father of sin is very tricky. It is the believer’s duty to avoid sin and practice righteous acts. But how does the believer learn the difference between the two? Since he must have faith prior to knowledge, it seems that he never truly can. The reality of Satan prohibits him. If a homeless person claiming to be God shows up at your door, do not let him in. He may just as easily be Satan, who is capable of such tricks. In fact, Satan could be equally capable of writing the Bible or intercepting prayers. But we will never know, will we?

To all of this, the only objection is that God would not let a believer’s faith trick him. My answer is that if this were true, then free will does not exist and faith is completely useless, as God merely picks and chooses those whom he assigns this illusory ‘faith.’



[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this is what I was taught, and I haven’t cared about these things for over 20 years, but here go’s. ( This is Yukoncpa’s 20 year old Mormon interpretation )

Everyone, whether you are Jewish, Buddhist, Catholic or Atheist, is born with the light of Christ. Every single person is imbued with this gift that allows you to discern right from wrong. Nobody is held accountable, that lacks the mental power to access this gift, i.e. mentally retarded folks. ( Now, don’t ask me why God would allow anyone to be mentally retarded, I’ll simply continue ). God doesn’t allow Satan the ability to cause someone to do wrong ( which, again, everyone has an innate understanding of thanks to Christ ), Satan merely has the power to tempt.

[siegfriedandroy]

where does it say that 'jesus might be anyone'?

[siegfriedandroy]

Having faith in the bible but not in the Koran cannot be a well-reasoned decision, for it is totally arbitrary.


this is hideously untrue

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
Having faith in the bible but not in the Koran cannot be a well-reasoned decision, for it is totally arbitrary.


this is hideously untrue

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually for this entire thread I thought the Koran/Bible argument was the most intriguing.

Beyond faith and cultural heritage, what logical reasons is there to 'chose' the bible over the Koran or vice versa?

Some might sigh and say 'well, without faith that discussion is pointless', but I actually find this a very intriguing question. And no I'm not picking it up to 'have a go' at anybody religious, I just think it is a good question.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
Last post-the first statement is you.



[/ QUOTE ]

The bible says, basically, you burn in hell if you don't have faith. If that's not a condemnation I don't know what is.

[ QUOTE ]

The second statement is you with an expansive sweep without substance.


[/ QUOTE ]

I should have been more clear. I was referring to your claim that faith and intellect go hand in hand, and that that is an impossibility for a christian. As to why, see the rest of my last post.