[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry it took me so long, but I'm finally back [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Kierkegaard does not actually claim that it is wrong to "go further", but that faith and doubt are lifelong tasks that are being maligned by "every Privatdocent, tutor, and student, every crofter and cottar in philosophy" who jumps straight into the deep end.

For example, let us take the following set of assumptions:

1. God is omniscient.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. God is omnibenevolent.
4. God exists.
5. Evil exists.

Logic can neither prove nor disprove any of these assumptions, yet this board is full of posters who have claimed the latter, i.e. "gone further". Taken separately, none of these assumptions contradicts itself, and therefore cannot be disproven. However, taken collectively, they do contradict each other and logic then tells us that at least one of the five propositions should be disallowed. Keep in mind, logic cannot tell us which assumption to throw out, merely that the whole set cannot be simultaneously put forth. The problem with doubting faith is not the expectation that our beliefs be valid, but the illogical application of logic.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]
I was beginning to wonder what OSU was? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

So by 'gone further' KS is refering to throwing out one of 1-5 (usually god exists) because of the inconsistency of 1-5, when in fact all they are logically justified in doing is recognising that 1-5 are inconsistent.

Is KS going further and claiming that faith in logic is required to know that 1-5 must be modified and so we can accept 1-5 and add 6. Logic consistency doesn't apply?

chez