Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

planets · 11-09-2004, 12:27 AM

"It's perhaps worth noting that fideism, "a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority"[1], is condemned by the RCC.

[1]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm "

Asaris that was quite enlightening. Never knew such a term existed.

SecretMethod70:

Granted, faith is a concept with no defined state, it exists always in some flux between "blind faith" and "informed faith". The effort through which we challenge our current level of faith adds to how well-informed we are (and sometimes deducts too, if we find out certain facts were actually wrong). Actually, these precepts of constant examination and re-examination are fundamental to Islam and Buddhism as well.

So yes, i agree that for a religion, questioning faith is crucial. Yet, I still hold that questioning faith is an almost entirely but not quite sincere act for the already faithful. For the exact reasons that you state. If my purpose of questioning is to solidify my already-existent faith, there is no chance that my faith can ever be dispelled; in the consideration of arguments for and against some religion, the person who already subscribes to that religion lives in a tautological world, where no rebuttal exists that can ever be strong enough to sway his/her faith.

So here's a proposition: There still exists a level of blind faith within anyone who has consciously declared their subscription to a religion. This degree of blind faith must necessarily arise from something that is beyond reason, (for if it arose through logical deductions, by the fact that deductions can be drawn only from assumed premises, one can always reduce these assumed premises to certain statements that are purely arbitrary) which may be derived from either 1. a person's inherent predisposition towards accepting and defining a God/religion (the non blank slate thing) or 2. through sociological interactions.

Questioning faith is for the 2nd case. For the first, the person can no longer be considered to question faith; he/she is affirming their position.

Also there is the statement that "One who rejects what one does not know is good cannot be held accountable for their ignorance". What about our responsibility to find out if that thing we rejected was in fact good before making that decision? And if we can't come up with the answer, just as SecretMethod70 has stated that there is no firm answer to theological debates (whom i agree with too), do we just stall? If someone asks me what i subscribe to, in reply should i quote the lack of direct answers in theological debates as my reason for answering "nothing much dude, i'm just floating here"?

11-09-2004, 12:27 AM	#8 (permalink)
planets Upright	"It's perhaps worth noting that fideism, "a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority"[1], is condemned by the RCC. [1]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm " Asaris that was quite enlightening. Never knew such a term existed. SecretMethod70: Granted, faith is a concept with no defined state, it exists always in some flux between "blind faith" and "informed faith". The effort through which we challenge our current level of faith adds to how well-informed we are (and sometimes deducts too, if we find out certain facts were actually wrong). Actually, these precepts of constant examination and re-examination are fundamental to Islam and Buddhism as well. So yes, i agree that for a religion, questioning faith is crucial. Yet, I still hold that questioning faith is an almost entirely but not quite sincere act for the already faithful. For the exact reasons that you state. If my purpose of questioning is to solidify my already-existent faith, there is no chance that my faith can ever be dispelled; in the consideration of arguments for and against some religion, the person who already subscribes to that religion lives in a tautological world, where no rebuttal exists that can ever be strong enough to sway his/her faith. So here's a proposition: There still exists a level of blind faith within anyone who has consciously declared their subscription to a religion. This degree of blind faith must necessarily arise from something that is beyond reason, (for if it arose through logical deductions, by the fact that deductions can be drawn only from assumed premises, one can always reduce these assumed premises to certain statements that are purely arbitrary) which may be derived from either 1. a person's inherent predisposition towards accepting and defining a God/religion (the non blank slate thing) or 2. through sociological interactions. Questioning faith is for the 2nd case. For the first, the person can no longer be considered to question faith; he/she is affirming their position. Also there is the statement that "One who rejects what one does not know is good cannot be held accountable for their ignorance". What about our responsibility to find out if that thing we rejected was in fact good before making that decision? And if we can't come up with the answer, just as SecretMethod70 has stated that there is no firm answer to theological debates (whom i agree with too), do we just stall? If someone asks me what i subscribe to, in reply should i quote the lack of direct answers in theological debates as my reason for answering "nothing much dude, i'm just floating here"?