Heidegger on Faith

[Received]

(And I agree quite a bit.)

"One who holds on to such faith as a basis can, perhaps, emulate and participate in the asking of our question in a certain way, but he cannot authentically question without giving himself up as a believer, with all the consequences of this step. He can act only "as if" --. On the other hand, if faith does not continually expose itself to the possibility of unfaith, it is not faith but a convenience. It becomes an agreement with oneself to adhere in the future to a doctrine as something that has somehow been handed down. This is neither having faith nor questioning, but indifference..." -- Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics

Far from the common atheistic conception of faith as antithetical to reason, Heidegger postulates both on the same field. Faith not accessed through questioning (even if part of it is somehow accepted as a "leap") is tantamount to a doctrine that has been passively handed down.

Assuming that this formula for faith applies to the world of believers, how many of them really are believers?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Not me. I have committed to being Christian for 5 years, and have 3.5 left.

On the other hand, my faith is open to review and assesment during that period.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Indifferent accepting of an idea is still belief.

 

[Received]

What do you mean by having 3.5 left, GS?

 

[Brady111]

Not me. I have committed to being Christian for 5 years, and have 3.5 left.

What does that even mean? Are you going through the motions that you think a Christian goes through? Are you doing things like, going to church on Sundays, reading the Bible, helping little old ladies walk across the red sea? Remember what Jesus said:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness."

If you died tomorrow, what would you tell Jesus? Would you say, "I committed to being Christian for 5 years." His response would probably be the above, "I never knew you; depart from me, you worker of lawlessness."

A Christian is a Christian because he actually believes that the propositions of Christianity are true and he has committed his life fully to them and to his relationship with Jesus.

Isn't what you mean in the above is that you are pretending to be a Christian for five years?

To be a Christian one must confess with his mouth that Jesus is LORD and believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. Do you really believe that Jesus is king of the universe and king over you? Do you fall down on your knees and confess that Jesus is your Lord and your God? Do you really believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead? Do you go to Church on Sundays to praise him and worship him and thank him with all your heart for saving you from the necessary implications of your sins (i.e. Hell) or do you go because that is what Christians do on Sundays?

 

[Chesterton]

Not me. I have committed to being Christian for 5 years, and have 3.5 left.

Your posts are just getting weirder by the day.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Some of Heidegger's ideas are interesting, but he definitely had something against religion, in my opinion. Or at least that's something that shines through in Being and Time.

Concerning the topic of this thread, I'd like to mention that when the priest in church speaks once a year about the Doubting St Thomas Gospel in the St John account he says that taking your faith seriously entails taking your doubts seriously. He had more to say about it, of course, and I'm not very good at explaining, but I think that's really great, that God allows us to ask the most difficult questions and to really hunger for truth and that he guides us through that process.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What do you mean by having 3.5 left, GS?

3.5yrs left out of the 5. Then I will review the situation more thoroughly, and may continue or not. Until that I am in the Roman Catholic Church through thick and thin, confessing sins, keeping holy days of obligation etc. IMO that's a fair trial period. Maybe I will turn apostate or protestant, which is a real possibility for everyone I suppose, although they may not like to think that way. But at the moment I am liking it and see it as a positive move, except I have a lot of respect for people critical of the stance on LGBT issues. However, I am intending to try and conform my conscience to the Church as far as is possible, as that seems to be in the "spirit" of my chosen lifestyle. It will probably take years for me to even approach a fairly complete catholic conscience.

The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop

I see it as in the spirit of realism to think that one day I might give up. Even 1.5 years is longer than some people last, never mind 5! We can't all be saints you know.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Isn't what you mean in the above is that you are pretending to be a Christian for five years?

No. I don't see any problem with making a temporary commitment to see how things go. Whats the issue? Isn't that normal, rational? Open to review. Respecting personal freedom, in "good faith" as Sartre would have it. Maybe you just want to own my mind like some kind of cult leader?

That bible quote, I could send it right back to you, you know.

What about this one:

Luke 14:11 For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted
.

I have humbled myself by being baptised, which is a big step for one with deeply ingrained secular values such as me.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

edit: douses flames

 

[Brady111]

No. I don't see any problem with making a temporary commitment to see how things go. Whats the issue? Isn't that normal, rational? Open to review. Respecting personal freedom, in "good faith" as Sartre would have it. Maybe you just want to own my mind like some kind of cult leader?

You can do whatever you like, I was just pointing out the distinction between what the NT calls being a Christian and what you call being a Christian. Jesus sacrificed his life on the cross for you, you are only willing to give 5 years.

I have humbled myself by being baptised, which is a big step for one with deeply ingrained secular values such as me.

The above just furthers my point, after saying you humbled yourself, you then proudly tell us of your victory over secular values. Any Christian knows that any victories there are can only be attributed to God. He is the only one that can take a heart of stone and turn it to a heart of flesh. The Christian knows that if anything were left solely to him, he would screw it up every time.

But what you do is your business, have a nice 3.5 years.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok Brady111 thats for the pius reminders. What do you think of Heidegerrs idea that " if faith does not continually expose itself to the possibility of unfaith, it is not faith but a convenience"?

Also, Received I am interseted for a fuller account of what this means to you.

 

[Brady111]

Ok Brady111 thats for the pius reminders. What do you think of Heidegerrs idea that " if faith does not continually expose itself to the possibility of unfaith, it is not faith but a convenience"?

Also, Received I am interseted for a fuller account of what this means to you.

Faith in what is the question, also what do we mean by faith?

Heidegger's God beyond God, that is completely other, and unknowable on both a personal and metaphysical level, doesn't leave much to have faith in. This is the type of God that Anthony Flew spoke about in the parable of the garden: what is the difference between this type of garden keeper and no garden keeper at all?

Next, what do we mean by "faith." I find their are three kinds of faith:

Irrational faith - this is faith that flies in the face of fact. It's the mother whose son is on trial for murder and in spite of the over whelming evidence says, "I know my boy didn't do it, I raised him better than that!"

Blind faith - this occurs when there is not enough reason to make a decision on something either way, yet the person does make a decision, and tenaciously holds to it.

Rational (or reasonable) faith - This is where there is a preponderance of reason for a position, but not certainty, faith fills in the blanks. For instance, most scientific assertions are inductive at their base, therefore are only probable, yet we speak of them as more than just probable.

So, when we look at what faith could possibly mean, given Heidegger's understanding of God, we see that the only thing he can mean is irrational faith. For of his "God beyond God," we can know nothing. There really is nothing to have faith in. But it goes beyond that, in saying that God is completely other, and unknowable, Heidegger is saying he knows that God is completely other, and unknowable. So, I guess God in not completely unknowable after all. In the famous word of Homer Simpson, "DOA!"

The only kind of faith that can be exposed to the possibility that it is wrong (unfaith) is, by definition, rational faith.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The only kind of faith that can be exposed to the possibility that it is wrong (unfaith) is, by definition, rational faith.

Surley you can't mean, "the person with irrational faith, and the person with blind faith, cannot possibly be caused by logical argument to believe otherwise?"

IIRC there are people who have left the Christian religion because they believed their prior beliefs were irrational, c.f. trinity, & problem or evil.

 

[Brady111]

Surley you can't mean, "the person with irrational faith, and the person with blind faith, cannot possibly be caused by logical argument to believe otherwise?"

IIRC there are people who have left the Christian religion because they believed their prior beliefs were irrational, c.f. trinity, & problem or evil.

I would hope that logical argument would make an impact, but those who hold to blind and irrational faith have already shown that their commitment to logic is less than stellar. If they weren't concerned about logic when they made their faith commitment, I don't see why logic would influence them now. Although, I say again, that I hope it would have an impact.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I would hope that logical argument would make an impact, but those who hold to blind and irrational faith have already shown that their commitment to logic is less than stellar. If they weren't concerned about logic when they made their faith commitment, I don't see why logic would influence them now. Although, I say again, that I hope it would have an impact.

That would be to assume they knew about logic. Maybe they were just raised with a certain belief.

 

[Brady111]

That would be to assume they knew about logic. Maybe they were just raised with a certain belief.

It's funny you should say that. I was in the hospital recently, with an extended stay; and I got to know some of the care givers there. One young man was just finishing his BA in in some medical field. At one point I asked him, if he had taken any logic classes. He said, "What is logic." I began to giggle, thinking he was joking, until I looked at his face. It was obvious by his expression that he was asking a serious question. I was so stunned, I really didn't know what to say. To think that someone could complete a BA degree without knowing what logic referred to was a possibility that I never even considered.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Not only would they need logic, but they would probably need to be familiar with specific skeptical counterapologetics in order to undermine their specific beliefs. It's not eveyone that can, by themselves, confidently counter the likes of the cosmological argument(s) etc.

Maybe, for certain people, skepticism is a luxury they can ill afford. For some it would mean ostracism from a tribe, insult and abuse, perhaps even death. Or maybe they would have to face losing a sense of beauty and otherness in an otherwise soul destroying and banal workaday world. With that in mind, maybe Heidegger is preaching from a pulpit far removed from the exigencies of certain lives. His "horizon" is more of academia rather than certain zones of real street where faith is more than paper belief in a world of free press. In fact somebody told me that Heidegger was not even a sincere theist, but rather used the idea of God to enhance his quest into "being".