Faith and Reason

[John Cole]

An overview provided by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[scalf]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] it is by faith; and faith alone; that we are saved..

gl

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[garyjacosta]

[ QUOTE ]
it is by faith; and faith alone; that we are saved..



[/ QUOTE ]
What exactly is it that we need saving from?

[Alex/Mugaaz]

THey believe all humans are born depraved and suffer from original sin.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
An overview provided by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[/ QUOTE ]

A Great Link and a Must Read for anybody engaging in these kinds of discussions here. An introduction to the Big Picture.

I especially liked these paragraphs on a couple of 20th century thinkers:

"From these similarities and differences between faith claims and claims of reason, Hick concludes that religious faith is the noninferential and unprovable basic interpretation either of a moral or religious "situational significance" in human experience. Faith is not the result of logical reasoning, but rather a profession that God "as a living being" has entered into the believer's experience. This act of faith situates itself in the person's material and social environment. Religious faith interprets reality in terms of the divine presence within the believer's human experience. Although the person of faith may be unable to prove or explain this divine presence, his or her religious belief still acquire the status of knowledge similar to that of scientific and moral claims. Thus even if one could prove God's existence, this fact alone would be a form of knowledge neither necessary nor sufficient for one's faith. It would at best only force a notional assent. Believers live by not by confirmed hypotheses, but by an intense, coercive, indubitable experience of the divine.

Sallie McFague, in Models of God, argues that religious thinking requires a rethinking of the ways in which religious language employs metaphor. Religious language is for the most part neither propositional nor assertoric. Rather, it functions not to render strict definitions, but to give accounts. To say, for example, "God is mother," is neither to define God as a mother nor to assert an identity between them, but rather to suggest that we consider what we do not know how to talk about--relating to God - through the metaphor of a mother. Moreover, no single metaphor can function as the sole way of expressing any aspect of a religious belief."

PairTheBoard

[garyjacosta]

[ QUOTE ]
THey believe all humans are born depraved and suffer from original sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if that's God's plan for me, who am I to interfere?

[David Sklansky]

"From these similarities and differences between faith claims and claims of reason, Hick concludes that religious faith is the noninferential and unprovable basic interpretation either of a moral or religious "situational significance" in human experience. Faith is not the result of logical reasoning, but rather a profession that God "as a living being" has entered into the believer's experience. This act of faith situates itself in the person's material and social environment. Religious faith interprets reality in terms of the divine presence within the believer's human experience. Although the person of faith may be unable to prove or explain this divine presence, his or her religious belief still acquire the status of knowledge similar to that of scientific and moral claims. Thus even if one could prove God's existence, this fact alone would be a form of knowledge neither necessary nor sufficient for one's faith. It would at best only force a notional assent. Believers live by not by confirmed hypotheses, but by an intense, coercive, indubitable experience of the divine.

Sallie McFague, in Models of God, argues that religious thinking requires a rethinking of the ways in which religious language employs metaphor. Religious language is for the most part neither propositional nor assertoric. Rather, it functions not to render strict definitions, but to give accounts. To say, for example, "God is mother," is neither to define God as a mother nor to assert an identity between them, but rather to suggest that we consider what we do not know how to talk about--relating to God - through the metaphor of a mother. Moreover, no single metaphor can function as the sole way of expressing any aspect of a religious belief."

PairTheBoard

As usual I have no idea what this is saying. But rather than you trying to explain it, I simply want to ask this question:

Does the above stuff apply to conscious intelligent aliens, conscious intelligent manmade robots, or what about dolphins who have been carefully breeded and fitted with voice synthesizers in such a way that in a few thousand years they will be intelectually equivalent to human four year olds?

[RJT]

Basically, Hick (in PairtheBoard's post above) is saying even if one had proof of an existent god, such knowledge alone would not serve. Knowledge alone will not change the heart. The heart must be touched by God (figuratively speaking, not literally.) And until the heart is changed and the person has a relationship with God, the hypothetical knowledge would be irrelevant.

One analogy to this is losing a loved one to death. Everyone can imagine parents or other loved ones dying. They, indeed, know for a fact it will happen. This knowledge does not change one’s heart one iota. But, when one loses a loved one, most people’s hearts are forever changed.

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
Religious faith is of two kinds: evidence-sensitive and evidence-insensitive. The former views faith as closely coordinated with demonstrable truths; the latter more strictly as an act of the will of the religious believer alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice the similarities between religious faith and political faith.

[PairTheBoard]

DS --
"As usual I have no idea what this is saying."

I think it's clearly written English David. Are your reading skills that poor or do you have a prejudice or mental block that prevents you from understanding it? Did you try reading the rest of the information on that link? Or would you rather stay in the dark about what you like to talk about so much.

I think RJT gave a good explanation and analogy for the Hick remarks. I think the McFague remarks are quite easy to understand if you want to.


DS --
"Does the above stuff apply to conscious intelligent aliens, conscious intelligent manmade robots, or what about dolphins who have been carefully breeded and fitted with voice synthesizers in such a way that in a few thousand years they will be intelectually equivalent to human four year olds? "

If and when that time comes I'd be happy to listen to what they have to say about it themselves.

PairTheBoard