Let's define "faith"

Archaeopteryx said:

Faith isn't like that though. People can go from having faith to not having faith, or vice versa.

Click to expand...

I don't see the connection.

lesliedellow said:

I couldn't tell somebody what the aura preceding an epileptic fit is like, although I certainly know what it is like. That is just the limitation of language.

Click to expand...

You can't tell them exactly what it is like, I have heard many people describe it.

Like here:
http://www.epilepsy.com/node/962742

Which of our experiences do you think we could put into words in an exact manner?

variant said:

Which of our experiences do you think we could put into words in an exact manner?

Click to expand...

"I missed that bloody bus again this morning," seems reasonably exact. It can be exact because the words denote shared experiences.

I can recognise the element of truth in that description of an aura, because I have had the same experience, but, for somebody who has not had that experience, a word like "tingling" might suggest something akin to pins and needles, and that would be misleading.

lesliedellow said:

"I missed that bloody bus again this morning," seems reasonably exact. It can be exact because the words denote shared experiences.

Click to expand...

Regional colloquialisms do not denote shared experiences.

Was the bus painted red? Was it a mass murder scene each morning? Or is the bus disliked for being on time in relation to the tardiness of the disgruntled rider?




How many cultural and regional colloquialisms are used in the bible?

Colter said:

If anyone is interested in the debunking of Rands pile of primacy of existence this link systematically disembowels the philosophy and demonstrates the shell game played by Randites.


January 26, 2014

Rand's Primacy of Existence Argument Refuted



"Ayn Rand’s primacy argument is basically an illogical atheist rant dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. As I’ll show, Rand eschews the most basic logical principles, offers a specious and false dichotomy, and presupposes materialism in the definitions of her philosophical argument (I use the term “philosophical argument “very loosely in the case of Objectivism).

By age 13, Ayn Rand had declared herself to be an atheist, as noted in a New York Magazine article. The same article declares that, “she repeatedly withheld or distorted facts in order to feed her own mythology.” This quote is not surprising to me at all. I’ve come to see how Rand withholds critical information in her philosophical definitions in order to promote atheistic materialism. Rand’s primacy argument highlighting her specious definitions of consciousness and existence may be likened to a rigged election in which two fraudulent candidates are presented and both stand for basically the same agenda."

Rand's Primacy of Existence Argument Refuted

Click to expand...

Colter,

I would need fifty pages to catalog all of the misrepresentations, errors and outright falsehoods in this article by Rick Warden. Fortunately I don't have to do that, even though it would be a good exercise, because there is a fatal flaw in Mr. Warden's and your arguments against the primacy of existence principle.

In your zeal and haste to smash the Objectivist axioms you and Mr. Warden failed to realize two crucial items. The principle and the axioms it rests on are true and they are axioms. You must accept them and use them in any attempt to refute them, as you are about to discover. If you or Mr. Warden had bothered to learn what the axioms and the primacy of existence are first you would not have made this error. But you didn't. You acted on faith and you proved my point that faith is a declaration of war on reality better than I could have hoped for.

In his book, Objectivism, The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Leonard Piekoff makes a brilliant demonstration of why the axioms are inescapable. I will paraphrase it here since I don't have the exact quote handy. It is a condensed dialogue between A the defender of the Objectivist axioms, and B, an objector. In this dialogue the defender, playing devil's advocate, rejects the argument against the axioms by rejecting the concept of "disagreement".

A: Your objection to the axioms is invalid. There's no such thing as disagreement. People agree about everything.

B: That's nonsense, people disagree about all sorts of things. You know that.

A: How can they? There's nothing to disagree about. After all nothing exists.

B: Of course things exist, that's ridiculous. You know that.

That's the first one. You must accept the axiom of "existence", that whatever exists, exists even to utter the term "disagreement". To continue.

A: I still say your argument is invalid. People are not conscious beings able to hold ideas so how can they disagree.

B: They are conscious beings. You know that. They hold all kinds of ideas.

That's two. You must accept and use the axiom of "consciousness", that consciousness is perception of what exists, to utter the term "disagreement". To continue.

A: But why should the fact that two people disagree about an idea be a problem? Why can't two people who hold contradictory views on an idea both be equally, objectively right?

B: You know why. A contradiction can't exist in reality. After all things are what they are. A is A.

That is three. Identity. A thing possesses a specific nature and only that nature. You must accept the axiom of "identity" to utter the term "disagreement". Now I will add the validation of the axiomatic nature of the primacy of existence principle.

A: But if I don't want there to be such a thing as disagreement, then there won't be.

B: Of course there will be, that's absurd. Reality won't conform itself to your or anyone else's wishes. You know that. Things are what they are and do what they do independent of anyone's consciousness.

That's four. You must accept and use the principle of the primacy of existence to utter the term "disagreement". As soon as anyone says "it is" just that much, the whole of the Objectivist metaphysics is implicit and its corollary in epistemology, objectivity, is too.

There is no escape from the axioms. They are self evident and implicit in all knowledge. By rejecting them you are declaring war on reality itself. By rejecting them you only end up affirming them.

There is really nothing left to say on the subject.

Chany said:

I think you don't understand what I am arguing.

I understand that the rationalist epistemology and neo-Platonic view upon concepts has problems when we try to compare it to facts of reality and that it makes assumptions about reality. I actually agree with that. I don't think minds can operate without brains.

My argument isn't that Christian epistemology and metaphysics are without problems when compared to what we know. My argument is that, from the standpoint of pure logical axioms, some definitions and conceptions of the Christian God cannot be dismissed. That is, some definitions of God cannot be dismissed by purely logical axioms alone.

Click to expand...

Yes all of them can. You don't understand the principle of the primacy of existence and its implications. You say you agree with it and then contradict yourself. We don't define things into existence. That is the primacy of consciousness writ large. If any concept violates one of the basic axioms it is invalid and all of the concepts of God, even the deist one, do.

The fact that someone can conceive of something doesn't make it possible.

Archaeopteryx said:

The same could be said of Christianity: that it copied and extended various elements of other religious traditions with a view to correcting all the "mistakes" made by its antecedents.

By the way, Mohammad made no claim to divinity.

Click to expand...

Mohammad was not divine and what I mean by he came to correct the christian version was that he was a prophet of God. He said that Jesus was just a prophet as well so he was just the last prophet that came to set straight the way to God. But I am not totally up to date with Islam. But I am pretty sure that they use the same God basically with many of the same prophets but then change things to suit their religion. In other words its not a totally new religion but piggy back off the Christian belief.

There may well be some similar things in Christianity but I dont think they have copied anything. Many of the things Jesus said and done were fulfillment's of prophecies that were made a very long time before the new testament and so it is more likely that other religions have taken some of the Christians Gods message and used them. Plus the bible has over 300 prophecies that are not mentioned by other religions. There are many aspects to it that make it unique and its own religion.

RDKirk said:

A friend of mine who spent 12 years in a Muslim country rather successfully evangelizing Muslims points out that the Koran gives more credit to Jesus than we may think. They accept, for instance, the virgin birth. The Koran itself also presents Jesus as having been the greatest of prophets, actually surpassing Muhammad (Muhammad's place is as the "sealing" prophet--the final prophet).

So the Christian speaking to a Muslim is actually starting from a very good position. But the major stumbling block for Christians talking to Muslims about Jesus is that we tend to hammer "official doctrine" in front of scripture scripture, often instead of scripture. Much of what the Koran says about Jesus is "they [Christians] say about him..." instead of primary assertions about Jesus, so they are inoculated against "official doctrine"... but not against scripture itself.

His method: Sit down with a Muslim and simply read the gospels, then Acts, then Romans. Don't speak a word of "official doctrine," just read the scripture and discuss any questions that arise. If the Muslim stuck with him to the end of all this, he would simply ask, "Do you believe what we have read?" He reports that 100% of those who stayed with it that far were baptized.

Click to expand...

I can understand this as from what I have seen Muslims are very big on reading the scripture. The Koran has more importance than anything. So when you say they give Jesus much status then they would know that He was also a prophet and listen to His words or the words spoken about Him. Because they place so much importance of the word then they will listen more intently and the message of God will come through. We could get a lesson out of this as well.

Any definition of the word needs to make sense of the way it's always been used. Many people think it means "to believe in something without evidence", but that would render meaningless common and ancient usages such as "being faithful to your spouse" - what, I have no evidence that my spouse exists? Or is being faithful nothing more than knowing that she's at home while I'm schtuping the babysitter at a cheap hotel? Of course not.

If faith is something like "believing in something that you know ain't true", then it could not have been used of Abraham or Moses. Both of them knew for a fact that God existed, because they spoke to him! They knew that he existed, they had absolute proof that it was true and the word used for their response was faith.

So that definition is a distortion crafted during the enDarkenment by those who wished to discredit the word.

What faith REALLY is, is "an act of the will by which one adheres to another who is known".

The Hebrew word aman is translated as “believe”, “trust”, “have faith”, and also “support”, “nourish”, and “make lasting”. A derivative word is omenat, meaning “pillars” or “supports of the door” as in 2 Kings 18:16. Another cognate is emunah, which is “faithfulness” or “trust”, as in Exodus 17:12 where God brought victory to Israel as long as Moses would hold his hands up. Aaron and Hur held up his hands so that they “remained emunah until sundown”.

All of these illustrate that faith is an action that we take, it's about both what you believe and what you do.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses this by saying that faith is an act of the will in which one turns toward God and away from sin; in which we decide that we will cooperate, with our intellect and will, with the divine grace that God gives us to enable us to comply with the moral law; it is a free response of the human person to the initiative of God; it is a personal adherence of the whole man to the God who reveals himself. It is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God." For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. "The righteous shall live by faith." Living faith "work through charity."

These are all actions, things we do in obedience to God. Thus the Apostle Paul says in Romans 1:5 "Through Him we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith...” See that word: obedience. Obedience is about what you do, the actions that you take. This obedience is the essence of Christianity: submission to the Eternal One who was enfleshed, and through that submission being brought into union with Him so that we may participate in His divine life.

We are not able to do this work by our own effort because of the effects of original sin. Each and every time we turn toward God and away from sin it is because God gave us at that moment the grace to be able to do it. It is completely and totally due to the grace of God, who enables all of us at some point in our lives to perform the work of freely responding to Him by performing the "obedience of faith". At that moment we truly have the choice that Adam had, to submit to God or submit to ourselves, and we only have that choice because of God’s grace.