knowledge is merely one of faith's children

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

That's a new twist! I'm convinced (trusting my reasoning powers) that there is a necessary relationship between knowing and faith (in the generic sense of "trust" or "believing"). And I'm still inclined to think that, perhaps with the exception of the most primitive forms of knowledge (thank you paulhanke!), whatever I know is a product of my faith/ trust/ belief in something or somebody.

But the concept of sacrifice is a whole new angle to me. I normally think of sacrifice as giving up (usually reluctantly) something valuable in order to receive something else that is presumed to be more valuable. I can see where faith might lead one to sacrifice something, but I don't understand how "faith is the act of sacrificing to a god." Can you elaborate or give an example?

Then, also, I'm curious as to why you think there is a major dichotomy between whatever the Bhagavad-Gita is saying and "what winds up being the answers in the Bible."

Thanks for your response. My knowledge of post-Gita Indian philosophy, I'm afraid, is a bit limited, so I'm limited to what Krishna says in the Gita itself. What I described to you is the essential gist of the seventh chapter of the Gita, "Knowledge and Judgement." The best quote is 7.17:

Quote:

...the disciplined man of knowledge
is set apart by his singular devotion;
I am dear to the man of knowledge,
and he is dear to me.

The reason I say a dichotomy appears between the Bible and the Gita in this respect is because in the Old Testament God seems to be saying "Obey Me and thou shalt be better" (commandments and laws) and in the New Testament God seems to be saying "Accept Me as Jesus Christ, My son and thy Savior, and thou shalt be absolved of thy sins" (belief and faith {as the willing suspension of reason}). Neither of these seem to correlate well to the Gita.

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... what is experience and reason to a hard-core solipsist? ... for a hard-core solipsist, all experience is self-evident because experience does not correspond to an external reality - it's just in the mind ... and thus reason grounded in experience is also self-evident (there is nothing to which it corresponds, either) ... admittedly, this is an extreme case, but extreme cases are often where we find interesting things about ourselves ...

... in which case perhaps a dive into the extremes of the human psyche is unnecessary ... that is, if we're only investigating the consequences of some form of realism here, delving into idealism is probably superfluous ... and in that sense, when you say "know something" is that shorthand for "know something about the external world"? ...

Sorry, I just don't follow you. Are these leading questions? Rhetorical questions? Are you saying your understanding of knowing is based on solipsism? If so, I think that is well worth considering. I think it can easily be argued that the universe is in my mind. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was reluctant to investigate the human psyche, if that is where you are heading. But, please be candid....

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

Sorry, I just don't follow you. Are these leading questions? Rhetorical questions? Are you saying your understanding of knowing is based on solipsism? If so, I think that is well worth considering. I think it can easily be argued that the universe is in my mind. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was reluctant to investigate the human psyche, if that is where you are heading.

... actually, they're investigative questions intended to shed some light on the boundary between things that are inherently "self-evident" and things that inherently require "belief" ... under investigation here is "reason" ... under your own introspection, the product of "reason" requires "belief" for two reasons: 1) because the things that are being reasoned about require "belief", and 2) you "believe" the product to correspond to something in the real world ... so under your own introspection, it would seem that "reason" inherently requires "belief" ... but does the existence of solipsism say otherwise? ... that is, does the existence of solipsism - that "it can easily be argued that the universe is in my mind" - mean that while "reason" requires "belief" for you, "reason" does not inherently require "belief"?

Dichanthelium wrote:

But, please be candid....

... sorry - a hazard of my profession ... engineers are trained to be as obscure as possible Wink

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

The reason I say a dichotomy appears between the Bible and the Gita in this respect is because in the Old Testament God seems to be saying "Obey Me and thou shalt be better" (commandments and laws) and in the New Testament God seems to be saying "Accept Me as Jesus Christ, My son and thy Savior, and thou shalt be absolved of thy sins" (belief and faith {as the willing suspension of reason}). Neither of these seem to correlate well to the Gita.

I don't think there is any basis in the Bible for the idea that faith means suspension of reason. It is a very prevalent but utterly false concept that has been perpetuated by certain elements within the Christian tradition.

I'm not an old testament scholar, but I think it could be argued that the heart of the OT story is the relationship between the creator and his "chosen people." God favored Israel with his love and wished to be loved, honored, and obeyed in return. The "faith" that god wanted from his people is probably best understood as both trust in him and faithfulness, such as would be expected in a marital relationship. As for an endorsement of the value of knowledge and wisdom, check out the first few chapters in the book of Proverbs.

When you get to the new testament story the key thing is to keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, living in Roman-occupied Palestine. The Jews had had their own kingdom and had lost it, and they wanted it back. Jesus' message was a radical one, but radical in the best sense of the word, i.e., focused on the root ideas. He was reiterating that god wants a loving and faithful relationship with his people, but his people should stop being preoccupied with the idea of an earthly kingdom. When Jesus said "Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand," I think he was saying, "Change the way you are thinking and acting. Get with the spiritual kingdom." The "spiritual kingdom" is a "place" in our minds where we can focus on the principles and ideas that can "save us" from the downward spiral of negativity and ultimate sadness that accompanies egocentricity and preoccupation with worldly possessions.

To "believe in Jesus" is to say, "I think he was right." It has nothing to do with abandoning reason.

Sorry for the ramble, but this idea that faith means believing something without having any rational basis for it is one of the biggest misconceptions about Christianity, and, no wonder, because some of the people who claim to be Christians have systematically perpetuated it for a couple thousand years.

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

Sorry for the ramble, but this idea that faith means believing something without having any rational basis for it is one of the biggest misconceptions about Christianity, and, no wonder, because some of the people who claim to be Christians have systematically perpetuated it for a couple thousand years.

That is certainly one of the meanings "faith" has according to the dictionary. And many Christian philosophers and theologians have held that the path to heaver is through faith alone. Tertullian, a Father of the Church wrote that he believed that Jesus was God because that belief was absurd (notice he did not say only that it was absurd and he believed it. He said that he believed it because it is absurd). And Kierkegaard wrote that religion is the "crucifixion of the intellect".

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... under your own introspection, the product of "reason" requires "belief" for two reasons: 1) because the things that are being reasoned about require "belief", and 2) you "believe" the product to correspond to something in the real world ... so under your own introspection, it would seem that "reason" inherently requires "belief" ... but does the existence of solipsism say otherwise? ... that is, does the existence of solipsism - that "it can easily be argued that the universe is in my mind" - mean that while "reason" requires "belief" for you, "reason" does not inherently require "belief"?

Okay, thanks. That helps bring it into focus. If the wikipedia definition is acceptable, solipsism is the position, "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." I'm not sure that is much different from saying that the only self-evident truth is "I am" or "I exist" (as long as I don't presume to know too much about who or what I am). Let's examine that if you feel it it necessary.

Now I could take solipsism a step further and declare that I know that nothing else exists except my mind, but that would be presumptuous. I don't know that. Other things may exist, and my experiences, as they build up from the time I was an infant, lead me think that they do. In fact, it appears that the only appropriate conclusion for me is that indeed they do. But to consciously accept that conclusion and act upon it is an act of faith, because the proof is not there. That's just a form of critical realism, right?

On the other hand I could naively accept the conclusion that I experience the world as it is or perhaps I never even examined the problem. That's just a form of naive realism.

I assume we are on the same page up to that point, but I just wanted to spell it out, to be sure.

Now, if I, as a critical realist, say that I know something, because I have thought about it (I have done the reasoning) and have come to an apparently logical conclusion or have weighed the evidence and found it to be apparently unquestionably true, all I am saying is that I believe in my ability to observe accurately, and I believe in my ability to do the cognitive work (reasoning) in such a way that my conclusion is reliable.

Not 100% reliable, because if I keep on asking myself "How do I know" and keep on examining my verifications, eventually I have to bump into the solipsist argument and admit, "Well, I don't really know it to be indiputably true. But I still know, because human knowing never means knowing something to be indisputably true. It wouldn't be fair to impose that definition on the word. Knowing something (beyond our "I am") to be indisputably true is something I can imagine, but never achieve.

So when I say that I have to trust my reasoning powers, I'm talking about my cognitive processes, my analytical abilities.

That's why I thought that, earlier, you were using the term "reason" to indicate perhaps a pure creative process or pure imagination, which, if that is what you are pointing to, hopefully you will expound.

I'll shut up now. We're supposed to be following your line of thought.:surrender:

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

That is certainly one of the meanings "faith" has according to the dictionary. And many Christian philosophers and theologians have held that the path to heaver is through faith alone. Tertullian, a Father of the Church wrote that he believed that Jesus was God because that belief was absurd (notice he did not say only that it was absurd and he believed it. He said that he believed it because it is absurd). And Kierkegaard wrote that religion is the "crucifixion of the intellect".

Yes, those are good illustrations of the very point I was making. So far as I know, neither the Jewish tradition nor Jesus himself ever said that we should suspend our reasoning powers to accept any propositions about God or salvation. The "faith alone" concept applies to putting your trust in the message of Christ--not the messages of the apostles or the church fathers or the theologians (unless they are reinforcing the message of Christ). Look at it, examine it, think about it, analyze it, and see how much sense it makes. Then put your trust in it. The same way you put your trust in a bridge you are driving over. You bet your life that it is solid, but not without good reason.

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

Yes, those are good illustrations of the very point I was making. So far as I know, neither the Jewish tradition nor Jesus himself ever said that we should suspend our reasoning powers to accept any propositions about God or salvation. The "faith alone" concept applies to putting your trust in the message of Christ--not the messages of the apostles or the church fathers or the theologians (unless they are reinforcing the message of Christ). Look at it, examine it, think about it, analyze it, and see how much sense it makes. Then put your trust in it. The same way you put your trust in a bridge you are driving over. You bet your life that it is solid, but not without good reason.

But if it is not reasonable not to suspend reason then how does that make a difference? Did Jesus ever say that it was wrong to suspend reason? There might be good reasons to suspend reason, after all. At least some have thought so.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

But if it is not reasonable not to suspend reason then how does that make a difference? Did Jesus ever say that it was wrong to suspend reason? There might be good reasons to suspend reason, after all. At least some have thought so.

Can you give an example?

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

I don't think there is any basis in the Bible for the idea that faith means suspension of reason.

That's because there probably isn't any basis in the Bible for any aspect of reason. Reason didn't become very important to Christian theology until the Middle Ages. Sure, Augustine was influenced by Plato (probably indirectly through Plotinus), but Augustine didn't (to my knowledge) make arguments about the necessity or process of reason. His argument was that our beliefs were the result of God's grace -- i.e. he was a determinist.

The conflict of faith and reason is a much more modern phenomenon explored by Spinoza and most famously (perhaps) Kierkegaard.

Quote:

The "faith" that god wanted from his people is probably best understood as both trust in him and faithfulness, such as would be expected in a marital relationship.

It's not presented as faith. It's almost presented as inescapability, especially in stories like Abraham on Mt. Moriah or the story of Job, where people could not bring themselves to turn away from God.

Quote:

Sorry for the ramble, but this idea that faith means believing something without having any rational basis for it is one of the biggest misconceptions about Christianity.

You need to specify where "rational basis" even enters the discussion in the history of Christian thought. It certainly isn't found in the Gospels.

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

Can you give an example?

Of what? Kierkegaard argued that Christian belief was beyond reason, and that, for example, reason conflicted with virgin birth, or the incarnation, and a host of other doctrines. The entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. Luther said, quoting the Bible said that if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, by which he said was meant that if reason conflicts with faith, reason should be discarded as an instrument of the Devil. The view is called, Fideism.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Of what? Kierkegaard argued that Christian belief was beyond reason, and that, for example, reason conflicted with virgin birth, or the incarnation, and a host of other doctrines. The entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. Luther said, quoting the Bible said that if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, by which he said was meant that if reason conflicts with faith, reason should be discarded as an instrument of the Devil. The view is called, Fideism.

Well, Kierkegaard and Luther were wrong on that point, and they helped keep the damage cycle going. And it is not accurate to say that the entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. There is a very prominent liberal element within Christianity that focuses on the central message of Christ, rather than church dogma or tradition or prominent figures in church history.

By the way, do you think we should move this part of the discussion over to that wilderness they call the Philosophy of Religion part of the site?

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

That's just a form of critical realism, right?

... I'm not sure it is - scroll down the Wikipedia entry to the part about "Metaphysical Solipsism" ...

Dichanthelium wrote:

... all I am saying is that I believe in my ability to observe accurately, and I believe in my ability to do the cognitive work (reasoning) in such a way that my conclusion is reliable.

... but for a metaphysical solipsist, what does "observe accurately" mean (if anything)? ... what does it mean (if anything) to reach a "reliable" conclusion? ... that is, if the universe exists purely in my mind, isn't any and every observation I make trivially "accurate"? ... isn't any and every conclusion I reach trivially "reliable?" ...

Dichanthelium wrote:

That's why I thought that, earlier, you were using the term "reason" to indicate perhaps a pure creative process or pure imagination, which, if that is what you are pointing to, hopefully you will expound.

... I'm just trying to see if "reason" is a function that is independent of its inputs and outputs (there I go wandering off into engineering jargon again! Wink

) ... that is, if I start from some fictional facts and reason to some fictional conclusion, what is there to believe in? ...

Dichanthelium wrote:

I'll shut up now. We're supposed to be following your line of thought.:surrender:

... my turn to shut up now Wink

... for a realist like yourself, this tangent off into idealism is probably only esoterically interesting at best ...

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

Well, Kierkegaard and Luther were wrong on that point, and they helped keep the damage cycle going. And it is not accurate to say that the entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. There is a very prominent liberal element within Christianity that focuses on the central message of Christ, rather than church dogma or tradition or prominent figures in church history.

By the way, do you think we should move this part of the discussion over to that wilderness they call the Philosophy of Religion part of the site?

Saying they were wrong doesn't make them them wrong, as I am sure you know.

Have you ever read the definition of "faith" in The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce? It is:

FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Saying they were wrong doesn't make them them wrong, as I am sure you know.

Have you ever read the definition of "faith" in The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce? It is:

FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

No, I know. I only said they are wrong because that is my observation based on my familiarity with the facts that are available. I think I can prove to your satisfaction that they are wrong, but we should pursue that discussion in that topsy-turvy place they call the Philosophy of Religion portion of this site, don't you think? I'll start a new thread, called "Kierkegaard and Luther Were Wrong!"

AB's definition is incomplete. It only covers one kind of faith, which is naive faith, which is the twin brother of naive realism, and both of them are alive and well both in religious and in scientific circles.

@paulhanke,

Younger Dichanthelium: "Now I could take solipsism a step further and declare that I know that nothing else exists except my mind, but that would be presumptuous. I don't know that. Other things may exist, and my experiences, as they build up from the time I was an infant, lead me think that they do. In fact, it appears that the only appropriate conclusion for me is that indeed they do. But to consciously accept that conclusion and act upon it is an act of faith, because the proof is not there. That's just a form of critical realism, right?" (emphasis added).

paulhanke wrote:

... I'm not sure it is - scroll down the Wikipedia entry to the part about "Metaphysical Solipsism" ...

Wikipedia: "Metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which maintains that the individual self of the solipsistic philosopher is the whole of reality and that the external world and other persons are representations of that self having no independent existence."

Slightly older Dichanthelium: You don't mean to imply that if I decide t'be a "critical realist" I am no better than a doggone ol' metaphysical solipsist do ya?!:thats-enough:

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

Slightly older Dichanthelium: You don't mean to imply that if I decide t'be a "critical realist" I am no better than a doggone ol' metaphysical solipsist do ya?!:thats-enough:

... sorry - my misread! ... I thought you were saying that solipsism was just a form of critical realism! ...

@paulhanke,

Slighltly Younger Dichanthelium: "...all I am saying is that I believe in my ability to observe accurately, and I believe in my ability to do the cognitive work (reasoning) in such a way that my conclusion is reliable."

paulhanke wrote:

... but for a metaphysical solipsist, what does "observe accurately" mean (if anything)? ... what does it mean (if anything) to reach a "reliable" conclusion? ... that is, if the universe exists purely in my mind, isn't any and every observation I make trivially "accurate"? ... isn't any and every conclusion I reach trivially "reliable?" ...

Slightly Older Dichanthelium: Were I to adopt the perspective of a metaphysical solipsist (and I think this is a very informative exercise) I think I would answer that observing accurately would have to mean, at least, that I strive to be utterly honest about the thoughts that occur to me, and I honestly examine them, and I willingly subject them to the scrutiny of my fellow inquirers (recognizing that they exist only in my mind), and I receive the results of their scrutiny with humility and gratitude, and I try to re-apply their observations to my own assumptions. To reach a "reliable" conclusion would have to mean that, having been utterly honest and candid with myself, and having tried my best to criticize my conclusion on any given matter (my self criticism employing the observations of my fellow inquirers who, admittedly, exist only in my mind, but who, nevertheless may present valid points) my current conclusion appears to be logical.

But when you introduce the concept of "trivially accurate" and "trivially reliable" I have to ask you what you mean, and request that you illustrate your meaning by providing examples.:Not-Impressed:

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

But when you introduce the concept of "trivially accurate" and "trivially reliable" I have to ask you what you mean, and request that you illustrate your meaning by providing examples.:Not-Impressed:

... taking that definition of Metaphysical Solipsism literally (caveat: it's a Wikipedia definition), if the external world is merely a representation (reflection?) of myself, then any observation is also a reflection of myself ... there is no such thing as "out there" to which an observation can correspond, and so "observation" is just some sort of mind game I play with myself ... an "observation" simply is as I (consciously or unconsciously) create it and therefore cannot be "inaccurate" ... yes?

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... taking that definition of Metaphysical Solipsism literally (caveat: it's a Wikipedia definition), if the external world is merely a representation (reflection?) of myself, then any observation is also a reflection of myself ... there is no such thing as "out there" to which an observation can correspond, and so "observation" is just some sort of mind game I play with myself ... an "observation" simply is as I (consciously or unconsciously) create it and therefore cannot be "inaccurate" ... yes?

Yes, that would appear to be right. I'm not sure what the implications would be....What is the metaphysical solipsist doing when he corrects himself, as in "Oops! I thought that was a piece of hard candy, but it's actually a marble, and now I have a broken tooth."

Philosophy Forum

knowledge is merely one of faith's children

Quick Links

My Account

able2know