What is Faith?

[strikeviperMKII]

They're not my rules.

Here's what I was getting at with all of this: I seriously don't know what you mean when you say "knowledge". I don't think your explanations have done a good job of actually communicating what you mean.

I'm not trying to give you some quiz where you have to avoid giving me the wrong answer; I'm honestly trying to find out more about what you're trying to tell us about.

So, when you say to me, effectively, that *unclear thing* is defined in terms of *unclear thing*, it does absolutely nothing to help me understand what you're trying to say.

Do you want me to understand the point you're trying to make?

What are you expecting to understand? Do you think there will finally be a point where something I say will suddenly make you go 'Oh, I see'. It's not up to me.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Whenever a problem needs to be solved, there's a reason (note that expression, "there's a reason") why people don't stop and say, "Let's look at this irrationally."

No -- the phrase people use, and for good reason, is "Let's look at this rationally." Reason/rationality solves problems, discerns truth, winnows sense from nonsense, and distinguishes the profound from the asinine.

How about 'Let's just look at it'?

Irrationality doesn't solve problems. It's nonsense (by definition, not just saying it pejoratively, it literally is nonsense). There's no difference between "talking about things irrationally" and flapping your arms while spinning in circles and clucking like a chicken. None.

Doesn't mean you can't learn anything, though.

 

[blackout]

<H2 class=me>ra·tion·al

&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;ræ&#643;

&#601;

nl, &#712;ræ&#643;

nl/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Show IPA </H2>&#8211;adjective 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.

2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.

What is rational to me,
may very well be... not rational... to you.


'Rational' is not a 'One Way Only' kind of thing.


What is reasonable and sensible to me,
may not be for you.

Your approach to "sound judgement",
or your perspective/s of "good sense"
may look very "other" from my own.

The ways in which I exercise reason,
may not resemble the ways in which you exercise reason.

Still we each have our own (personally) valid reason/s
for coming to our own subjective conclusions (regarding the objective).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is rational to me,
may very well be... not rational... to you.


'Rational' is not a 'One Way Only' kind of thing.


What is reasonable and sensible to me,
may not be for you.

Your approach to "sound judgement",
or your perspective/s of "good sense"
may look very "other" from my own.

The ways in which I exercise reason,
may not resemble the ways in which you exercise reason.

Still we each have our own (personally) valid reason/s
for coming to our own subjective conclusions (regarding the objective).

I've got to disagree. I think this approach rejects rationality.

The central idea of rationality is that, given a particular set of starting premises, anyone will come to the same conclusions as long as they approach things rationally. The only way that two people, exercising reason or rationality, can come to different conclusions is if they have different starting premises (although this happens frequently - nobody's experience exactly matches anyone else's).

If, as you say, "the ways in which I exercise reason, may not resemble the ways in which you exercise reason", then at least one of us is not actually exercising reason. Reason is a single way of approaching things, so if we have different approaches, then something somewhere does not agree with reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What are you expecting to understand?

Expecting to understand? Nothing. Hoping to understand? Your point of view. Your argument.

Do you think there will finally be a point where something I say will suddenly make you go 'Oh, I see'. It's not up to me.

If you're actually trying to communicate, then it's at least partly up to you.

 

[Magic Man]

What are you expecting to understand? Do you think there will finally be a point where something I say will suddenly make you go 'Oh, I see'. It's not up to me.

I don't think there's a point where we'll suddenly say that, but that is the hope of communicating. That's the idea of asking questions of you and requesting clarification. It is indeed up to you to communicate your ideas clearly. If you do that, there will be that point where we say "Oh, I see". So far, you're not only failing to communicate clearly, you're refusing to.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Expecting to understand? Nothing. Hoping to understand? Your point of view. Your argument.

Well, what do you think that is as of now?

If you're actually trying to communicate, then it's at least partly up to you.

Do you ever get something the first time you're exposed to it? I think not.

 

[Magic Man]

Do you ever get something the first time you're exposed to it? I think not.

I won't speak for Penguin, but many times I do, in fact, get things the first time I'm exposed to them. If I don't, I can usually get clarification, and get them with a bit of effort, but that requires the availability of clear explanations of the things, which is something that's lacking here.

 

[lunamoth]

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. [James 2]

 

[Meow Mix]

What is rational to me,
may very well be... not rational... to you.


'Rational' is not a 'One Way Only' kind of thing.


What is reasonable and sensible to me,
may not be for you.

Your approach to "sound judgement",
or your perspective/s of "good sense"
may look very "other" from my own.

The ways in which I exercise reason,
may not resemble the ways in which you exercise reason.

Still we each have our own (personally) valid reason/s
for coming to our own subjective conclusions (regarding the objective).

I've got to disagree. I think this approach rejects rationality.

The central idea of rationality is that, given a particular set of starting premises, anyone will come to the same conclusions as long as they approach things rationally. The only way that two people, exercising reason or rationality, can come to different conclusions is if they have different starting premises (although this happens frequently - nobody's experience exactly matches anyone else's).

If, as you say, "the ways in which I exercise reason, may not resemble the ways in which you exercise reason", then at least one of us is not actually exercising reason. Reason is a single way of approaching things, so if we have different approaches, then something somewhere does not agree with reason.

I agree with Penguin here for the most part. There are sometimes different rational approaches to problems -- for instance, on Mythbusters when they were attempting to set up an apparatus which would allow them to find a needle in a haystack, they came up with two different apparatuses (apparati?) that worked efficiently but with different principles. Both were thinking rationally, yet differently, but I think this is different in principle from what's being said in your post UV (correct me if I'm wrong).

It is true that reason is for the most part a one-way street in that you're either using it or not. It's also possible for one person to look at another person's thought process (if they expound on it) and they can say "That's reasonable" or "That's not reasonable" or "That's more or less reasonable than my idea."

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, what do you think that is as of now?

Well, you use grotesquely altered definitions of words, and when you've tried to define them for him you used the same words in their own definition (therefore not defining anything at all), so I wouldn't be surprised if he knows almost nothing about what your beliefs are since you haven't communicated your beliefs to him. I think he does understand that you're fond of being irrational though. That's difficult to miss. (Sounds like I'm slinging an insult, thanks to everyday society's association of negativity with that word, so just allow me to point out to new readers that strikeviperMKII admits freely to thinking irrationally and doesn't find any problem with that).

Do you ever get something the first time you're exposed to it? I think not.

Can't speak for Penguin but yes, when ideas are communicated efficiently to me I often get them on the first try, or I can keep them in the back of my mind and digest them and get them eventually.

Can't do that if the communicator fails to communicate, though, because then there's no inception, no idea to think about, at all.

 

[Meow Mix]

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. [James 2]

Is this supposed to define faith, though? Or is it just commenting on many who profess to believe the Bible's truth (which tells them to do good deeds) but then they don't do good deeds?

Interestingly I've also heard arguments that Christianity is the only non-deeds based religion.

 

[lunamoth]

Is this supposed to define faith, though? Or is it just commenting on many who profess to believe the Bible's truth (which tells them to do good deeds) but then they don't do good deeds?]/quote]
To James one expression of faith was in good deeds. I would agree with this, although I would say that the faith is not in the deed itself, but in the love that motivates the deed.

Interestingly I've also heard arguments that Christianity is the only non-deeds based religion.

In a sense I would agree with this. Christianity is based on Christ. However, what does it mean to have faith in Christ if this does not make any difference in one's life? I think this is what James is saying, but of course this is my interpretation. Christians are called to midwife the reconciliation of the world. What could this mean?

 

[Meow Mix]

In a sense I would agree with this. Christianity is based on Christ. However, what does it mean to have faith in Christ if this does not make any difference in one's life? I think this is what James is saying, but of course this is my interpretation. Christians are called to midwife the reconciliation of the world. What could this mean?

Makes sense to me, I just found it interesting to note. I place the most respect on good deeds that are done because they are good (not because they're stepping stones to heaven or away from hell), so Christians who believe their good deeds aren't scoring them brownie points have a lot of my respect.

 

[YmirGF]

It depends. There are several definitions of faith. Generally when speaking of faith in God, the definition is "belief without evidence".

I'd call it more a "suspension of disbelief" myself, though I am more inclined to view "faith" as a crutch that folks use to prop up somewhat feeble reasoning.

 

[Magic Man]

I'd call it more a "suspension of disbelief" myself, though I am more inclined to view "faith" as a crutch that folks use to prop up somewhat feeble reasoning.

Agreed. I think that goes along with the definition "belief without evidence".

 

[blackout]

Two people, using reason, can come to completely different conclusions.

I don't see what's so hard to get about this?

(I have to go so this is a quickie)
example: Evidence shows that politicians lie.

Therefore, In my reasoning it is pointless to vote for politicians.
(and certainly not on the basis of what they say and promise)

Which for me then easily becomes, "it is pointless to vote".

Apparantely though, most people find it reasonable to vote for liars.
I guarantee you, I never will.


Either that, or other people don't feel that politicians lie.
In this case they are stupid and inept?
.... My argument still stands. For me.

 

[Willamena]

I've got to disagree. I think this approach rejects rationality.

The central idea of rationality is that, given a particular set of starting premises, anyone will come to the same conclusions as long as they approach things rationally. The only way that two people, exercising reason or rationality, can come to different conclusions is if they have different starting premises (although this happens frequently - nobody's experience exactly matches anyone else's).

If, as you say, "the ways in which I exercise reason, may not resemble the ways in which you exercise reason", then at least one of us is not actually exercising reason. Reason is a single way of approaching things, so if we have different approaches, then something somewhere does not agree with reason.

In other words, "rationality and reason" is everyone thinking like you.

I could only wish that everyone was me --apparently, you believe it.

 

[Magic Man]

In other words, "rationality and reason" is everyone thinking like you.

I could only wish that everyone was me --apparently, you believe it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In other words, "rationality and reason" is everyone thinking like you.

I could only wish that everyone was me --apparently, you believe it.

If you think that's what I mean, then you didn't get my point.

If you and I start with the same premises and end up at different conclusions, then we know that at least one of us is wrong. This doesn't imply that I'm right and you're wrong; it could be the other way around. Heck - we could both be wrong... but we couldn't both be right.