[EDIT] The praxis of making a Leap of Faith ...

BigV said:

Um...there is no certainty that Jesus rose from the dead. Resurrection of Jesus is a faith based proposition too.

Click to expand...

InterestedAtheist said:

I'm afraid I have kept you waiting rather too long, @Philo. I really must apologise for that. However, I'm reading the article now, and hope to answer soon.

Click to expand...

BigV said:

Is that mark going to be worse than the hibby jibbies?

Click to expand...

InterestedAtheist said:

Okay, here we go.
That was something of a case of procrastination. It's a weakness of mine, and I apologise. It was not my intention to keep you waiting so long.
I have now read the article all the way through, highlighting key areas to consider, and read it again. I feel I understand its points sufficiently.

For readers who haven't yet read it, here is what it's about (Philo, please correct me on these points if necessary).
Briefly, Lessing felt that the huge gap between the resurrection of Christ, in which he believed, and his present circumstances (a few hundred years before our present time) was a serious problem. He said that the historical evidence for Jesus was insufficient to believe in Him; that, to use a figure of speech, there was a broad, ugly ditch that could not be crossed.
The famous philosopher Kierkegaard disputed Lessing's ideas. The essay that Philo shared (Benton, Matthew A. "The modal gap: the objective problem of Lessing's ditch (es) and Kierkegaard's subjective reply." Religious studies 42, no. 1 (2006): 27-44.) explains why Climacus (the pseudonym Kierkegaard wished to be referred to by, as this essay does) felt that Lessing was wrong to say there was an uncrossable ditch in between the present-day Christian and the historical event of Christ's death and resurrection. Climacus' answer is that we are, in fact, directly connected to Christ's resurrection - by revelation.

"Just as the historical becomes the occasion for the contemporary to become a follower - by receiving the condition, please note, from the god himself - so the report of the contemporaries becomes the occasion for everyone later to become a follower - by receiving the condition, please note, from the god himself."
"Hence there 'is no follower at second hand,' for the 'first and last generation are essentially alike' in that the both require reception of the condition: God 'gave the follower the condition to see it and opened for him the eyes of faith'."

So, there we are! Yes, it's true that the resurrection of Christ, if it ever happened at all, is at such a great distance that history can never prove it. But it's alright, you see, because God is real, right now, in the present day, and our relationship with Him assures us that the Bible is speaking the truth.

"Climacus' reconfiguration of the issues places faith at the centre, which brings all follows into contemporaneity with Christ, and this faith conceives the infinite interest in the eternal truth on which eternal happiness is built."
"Belief, says Climacus, us 'the organ for the historical,' which 'must have within itself the corresponding something by which in its certitude it continually annuls the incertitude that corresponds to the uncertainty of coming into existence...This precisely is the nature of belief...belief believes what it does not see.' Climacus maintains that 'belief is not a knowledge but an act of freedom, an expression of the will."

Just too easy, really isn't it? Yes, Kierkegaard/Climacus concedes that Lessing is right to say that we can never jump across the ditch. But Lessing was wrong to see it as a ditch in the first place. Because if we have faith, you see, we can just believe that the Bible is telling the truth. We don't need to have good reason to think that. We can just have faith that it's true - and then it's true for us.

Philo, thank you for bringing this to my attention. It was an interesting read, and I'm not sorry I encountered this. But i have to point out, the basic point of this article is already covered in Seidenstecker's essay. He quotes William Lane Craig as bringing up this very argument - and, quite correctly, dismisses him as "teleporting over (Lessing's Ditch) on a lavender cloud of make-believe". Short and pungent this opinion may be, but it seems to me he's hit the nail on the head with it.

To be honest, I was actually surprised, reading the paper, to find that the argument was so weak. I felt a bit intimidated by all the impressive vocabulary, the references, the diagrams. But for all of the verbiage spent on the question, all the article comes down to is:
"Lessing was right, but we don't need to worry about it, because if we just believe, we don't need evidence".
Just believe, and it will be so for you. And that is a sentiment that can be used to prove anything and, therefore, proves nothing.

Click to expand...

InterestedAtheist said:

With respect, I think it does matter if Kierkegaard's position was weak. The argument he gave for believing in God was very weak, almost nonsensical. "It's okay to believe whatever you want to believe" just about sums it up.

Click to expand...

If his position, or yours, was to avoid seeing "faith" as a result of a purely rational deliberation, then that is a mistake in itself.

Click to expand...

Because if you can simply decide to believe in something because you have "faith" in it, then you can believe in anything at all, no matter how nonsensical.

Click to expand...

As the well-known atheist Dan Barker puts it: “Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits. It is intellectual bankruptcy.”

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

None of us has direct access to the past. The past is never going to be provable beyond the possibility of doubt.

BTW, I agree with Lord Buddha that a teaching should at least lead to benefit and not harm. On this account, many forms of Christianity fail since they discount the harm their beliefs cause and they are discounted by the wise. Benefit and happiness, and being praised by the wise, are two criteria that the Buddha gave to those who inquired concerning what to believe.

Click to expand...