Religion and Ambiguous Language

[Dre Khipov]

Something I have readily admitted to. It is sad, however, that ambiguity has led you to a place where you seem to no longer want to hear what anyone has to say. It feels as if you've reached a point where you dismiss people before you even ask a question.

I think that's the most frustrating part. When I talk with professional scientists, doctors, or engineers, there's generally an understanding of the language gap. They use two sets of lexicons, one for internal communications, which is more a necessity of efficiency, and the other one is a loosely analogous lexicon to describe various ideas to the public.

The paradox of religion seems to be a rather puzzling issue of "Evangelizing the world", yet there tends to be quoting "scripture" as direct poetry and point of "proof of concept", and ideas that carry incredible amount of ambiguity that any thinking person tends to pause with "does this person really understand this, or is it mere repetition?".

People generally accuse me of playing semantic games when I do this, but I tend to ask people what do they mean by X or Y.

It tends to aggravate religious people for some reason. There's a lot of "Don't pretend like you don't understand... A child can understand it..., etc". But I really do want to know.

 

[Dre Khipov]

So, as a thought experiment here, let's dissect a common concept:

Holy Spirit will reveal it to you

Please explain how it works in terms of what we know about human brain and physical reality with a couple follow up questions.

1) How does that happen? Is it a feeling, or a common realization that just happens?
2) How can one differentiate between ordinary and "Holy Spirit" realization in that case?
3) What does that mean on the level of our physical experience? Does Holy Spirit alter neurons in your brain?

I'm sure other can contribute to the above questions, but I'm really interested to know what the unpacked version sounds like.

 

[Resha Caner]

So, are you going to deny that the "range of interpretation" in abstract statements and "poetry" is A LOT wider then the "range of interpretation" in pretty clear and straightforward statements?

This statement is pretty ambiguous, so I'm not going to confirm or deny anything. Poetic phrases (like all forms of communication) can be simple or complex. I hope you would agree it would be unfair to compare a complex poetic phrase to a simple prose statement and draw a conclusion.

For someone who claims knowledge and reason as their basis, you seem ready to jump to quick judgments. Before we could start confirming or denying such statements as yours we would need to select a message, agree how it can be expressed in poetry and prose with equal complexity, and then present those phrases to a sample group to determine if one presents the message more successfully than another.

My suspicion is that prose is better at expressing some messages, poetry others, and mathematics yet other messages. And there are probably further variables to consider beyond those.

When people supposedly from the same religion can't even agree on what their scripture says, how could I, as an outsider, ever be expected to side with either one of them?

I'm not asking you to take sides. And thinking there is some thing called religion that is the root of this problem would be an error. Problems of interpretation and communication are human problems that appear in every human endeavor, not just religion. Your opinion that one is worse than another isn't going to convince me of anything, so you'll have to try harder.

Yes.

And are you willing to admit that some form of the theorem would apply (at least conceptually) to communication between beings and to the information we extract from the material world?

 

[Resha Caner]

I think that's the most frustrating part. When I talk with professional scientists, doctors, or engineers, there's generally an understanding of the language gap. They use two sets of lexicons, one for internal communications, which is more a necessity of efficiency, and the other one is a loosely analogous lexicon to describe various ideas to the public.

The paradox of religion seems to be a rather puzzling issue of "Evangelizing the world", yet there tends to be quoting "scripture" as direct poetry and point of "proof of concept", and ideas that carry incredible amount of ambiguity that any thinking person tends to pause with "does this person really understand this, or is it mere repetition?".

People generally accuse me of playing semantic games when I do this, but I tend to ask people what do they mean by X or Y.

It tends to aggravate religious people for some reason. There's a lot of "Don't pretend like you don't understand... A child can understand it..., etc". But I really do want to know.

I understand your frustration and it is perfectly valid. I'm not trying to deny that all the things you list happen ... though don't hold up engineers as an example. I am one, and they are notoriously poor communicators. The ones you see in the public forum are likely those chosen for the job ... or someone you've established a relationship with. So give theology the same consideration. Don't listen to engineering spokesmen and think all engineers speak well, and then talk to any random person calling themselves Christian and think Christianity a confusion of ambiguity.

Some combination of developing a relationship with a Christian so you understand what they say and plowing through the works of the great Bible theologians is the best approach (and I don't know where you're at in that respect). But realize the best you can hope for from such a venture is understanding. Don't expect to "find God" that way.

 

[Dre Khipov]

I understand your frustration and it is perfectly valid. I'm not trying to deny that all the things you list happen ... though don't hold up engineers as an example. I am one, and they are notoriously poor communicators. The ones you see in the public forum are likely those chosen for the job ... or someone you've established a relationship with. So give theology the same consideration. Don't listen to engineering spokesmen and think all engineers speak well, and then talk to any random person calling themselves Christian and think Christianity a confusion of ambiguity.

Sure, but that's part of my frustration actually, and I'll explain my background below so it may be more clear.

The confusion doesn't stem from laymen misinterpreting these ideas. The confusion stems from religious professionals who tend to throw the lexicon around without any due explanations of how these things really work in reality, what the limits are in terms of any given hyperbole or metaphor.

The congregation usually "amens" and just runs with it.

Some combination of developing a relationship with a Christian so you understand what they say and plowing through the works of the great Bible theologians is the best approach (and I don't know where you're at in that respect). But realize the best you can hope for from such a venture is understanding. Don't expect to "find God" that way.

I went a fairly close to a seminary-level courses , which was a requirement in a fundamentalist school that I went to. So, none of the general concepts are new. I'm not saying any of this out of general ignorance as to what these concepts mean.

The problem generally is the religious system that maintains the ambiguity as a guard against collapse of the system itself in terms of cognitive dissonance and reality of the subject matter.

Thus, theism , and especially Christian theism, becomes a very disreputable philosophical position. Even when you get to "high-level" philosophical discussions on Christianity, there's an aura of fundamentalism that's very difficult to shake, and that aura is maintained by the sudden switch of language.

Someone like Bill Craig can discuss Christianity on pure ground of philosophy, and then will switch to "Holy Spirit will reveal to you" type rhetoric, and it's a meaningless rhetoric apart from explain some viable mechanics to an every day person so that they are able to form some viable conclusions instead of filling that ambiguity with just about anything, and then "amening" the next time they hear it from the pulpit.

Sure, at the seminary level there are various positions and ideas as to the actual reality behind the language, but when pastors arrive to their local congregations, all of it seems to go out of the window for the sake of generic concepts... because when pastors really begin unpacking the possibilities, it makes people really uncomfortable to find out that the "certainty" that they have isn't in reality very certain at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

The congregation usually "amens" and just runs with it.

Indeed many do. But that's the fault of the layperson, not the minister or the theology. Church is much more than listening to the sermon and then going home to watch football. But if there is a minister who is only preaching and not doing the teaching (which does not mean formal lectures in a classroom), he is failing as well.

And some ministers will fail. They're human. Again, that has nothing to do with the validity of the theology.

I'll explain my background below so it may be more clear.

Thanks for doing that. It helps.

Don't fault Craig too much. He's a product of American Christianity - something I'm not fond of. Sure, Craig has his faults as well, but people are attracted to celebrity, and celebrity is not Church. It's fine to have pillars who stand above the crowd and shine a light on the major issues, but if someone is going to do that he needs to be sure he also has the workers on the ground to back him up - something the "TV evangelist" style often fails at.

Luther's brilliance never ceases to astound me (though he had his faults as well). He could argue theology with the most learned and then turn around and boil it down to the simple essentials that lay people need. So, don't disparage those simple essentials. Confessional Lutheran churches dedicate themselves to the simple essentials laid out by Luther, and that's about all you'll hear preached on a Sunday morning. For some that's enough, and don't disparage the simple in faith. For others it's not enough and they raise a challenge. Don't disparage those who raise the challenge. For those who want to go deeper, I think Lutheran theology is up to the challenge.

And is it is significantly different from what I suspect you learned in your seminary classes (though you didn't name the seminary, so I could be wrong). You'll get no, "The Spirit will reveal it to you," in a Lutheran church. Though, if all you do is listen to the Sunday sermon you may think that's what you're hearing. In reality, if you push Lutheran theology far enough and ask question upon question upon question you will instead get a very terse reply. Though challenges can mean a person is seeking, they can also mean a person is avoiding (or some other thing), and that can't be discounted. There does a come a point when, like it or not, you do have to admit the problem is you ... or that it's just going to take a long time to get an answer, or some other reply you don't like.

What I hope you would find in a Confessional Lutheran church is that the Church will walk with you for as long as it takes.

[edit]

... it makes people really uncomfortable to find out that the "certainty" that they have isn't in reality very certain at all.

FYI, my story is somewhat the opposite of yours. Though Christ has always been a part of my life, I was long a very devout believer in science. About 10-15 years ago I had my crisis of faith in science. In short, science is still as good as it always was - I just expected too much of it. As a result, my faith is stronger. Everyone has doubts about everything, and that will never go away, but of all things what I am most certain about is Christ.

 

[ananda]

My hope is science, religion and philosophy can all combine, to Science which also allows for God and Philosophy ...

Yes, that was my point, that it has been done ... in Buddhism

 

[katerinah1947]

Yes, that was my point, that it has been done ... in Buddhism

Hi,

And since I am primarily a scientist, and primarily a research type of scientist, do you have a science background, so that I can calibrate your level of accuracy a little more.

If what you said is verifiable and provable, to me, like another piece of work I have done on a religious item that would be significant and also pleasure able.

Are you a scientist, philosopher or a religious person?

LOVE,

 

[zippy2006]

But, eventually, you have a large group of followers that parrot metaphorical concepts that are claimed to be understood, but end up being void of meaning. Modern science actually isn't immune to this either.

It happens in religion, modern science, teenage meanderings, and language use generally. I should think that our modern age has become so emotion-centric that vague clichés abound even more than in the past. So what is the issue?

As I see it, the problem with this thread is that you are just plucking out any number of religious clichés and asking us to give some kind of precision to them. Like any cliché, they don't have precise meaning. Precision would require context, elaboration, and perspective (as different flavors of Christianity have differing theologies that interpret certain Biblical concepts differently). The fact that the more uneducated often make use of clichés and are less able to elaborate or drill into their surface-level talk is common to all disciplines. Religion may be especially susceptible insofar as its object is legitimately more mysterious and elusive than many other disciplines, but it is not fundamentally different.

 

[Dre Khipov]

It happens in religion, modern science, teenage meanderings, and language use generally. I should think that our modern age has become so emotion-centric that vague clichés abound even more than in the past. So what is the issue?

I wouldn't say that cliché is an issue. Cliché tends to be an internalized cultural stereotype that's so overused that it's eye-rolling. For example, in sports "Let's give a 100% tonight", or "Defense wins championships" type of thing. It's a typical use of language that we generally understand in context of culture in general. These are fairly simple to explain if we don't. For example, it's difficult to misinterpret "Time will tell". It's vastly different than "Holy Spirit will reveal the truth", although ironically it's virtually identical in meaning

When someone says things like "Holy Spirit will reveal the truth to you, all you have to do is listen", or "I've changed when I met Jesus"... it's not really clear as far as the dynamics of the meaningful reality behind such metaphors or hyperbolas. The person who says it may understand it (I doubt they do so completely), but people on the receiving end tend to take it in whatever shape they want.

In modern sense there's a vast difference between a cultural cliché and a religious metaphor that's appealing to mystery.

As I see it, the problem with this thread is that you are just plucking out any number of religious clichés and asking us to give some kind of precision to them. Like any cliché, they don't have precise meaning.

It's not a cliché issue. The issue is with vague language that's seldom explained.

Precision would require context, elaboration, and perspective (as different flavors of Christianity have differing theologies that interpret certain Biblical concepts differently).

Then there should be elaboration, context and perspective. It should be telling that I'm very well versed in Biblical narrative, and to this day... I have no idea as far as the mysterious dynamics of "Revelation of truth by Holy Spirit" when it comes to how we actually get to learn new information. It's not a cliché ... there's another combination of two words that comes to mind

The fact that the more uneducated often make use of clichés and are less able to elaborate or drill into their surface-level talk is common to all disciplines. Religion may be especially susceptible insofar as its object is legitimately more mysterious and elusive than many other disciplines, but it is not fundamentally different.

Well, generally you don't hear people quoting Quantum Mechanics or Relativity in everyday conversation, pretending to understand the deeper meaning behind these concepts. Most of them will generally admit that they don't really understand and are not qualified.

With religion you have the opposite of that. You have people talking about complex philosophical ideas as though it's an everyday reality, and that they understood the mysteries of this Universe and human experience by listening to someone spouting out small chunks of a 1000 year old extinct language translated into a loose version of modern vernacular. And just like with British accent, the aura of the language itself makes it sound very "wise" and "revealing"

I really think it's time to drop the facade and begin exploring these things with some grounding in reality we actually live in.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Luther's brilliance never ceases to astound me (though he had his faults as well). He could argue theology with the most learned and then turn around and boil it down to the simple essentials that lay people need. So, don't disparage those simple essentials.

I really don't disparage the positive aspects of religion. The problem is that language IS the bases for our mental model of the world. If that mental model is driven by lack of understanding, or incorrect understanding... then you have people who are disconnected from reality that is here and now. Their expectations of each other and solutions to the problems will not be grounded in reality then, but in their faulty or vague perception of how things work.

I don't think we can overlook that.

The point with Luther is that he wasn't really afraid to challenge the status quo when he saw an obvious problem. Luther should have been just a link in a reformation chain, and he was to a certain extend, but religious orthodoxy tends to exist to maintain power under guise of "preserving the truth". There are plenty of people, with John Spong referenced in this thread being an example, who try to relate Christian experience in some pragmatic terms... that's not tied to "fountain filled with blood" type of songs that are really bizarre if you really think about it.

There's a pragmatic Christian reality that can be very real and positive and can't be denied. But it gets lost in a dogma that has very little comparative value in pragmatic reality.

Whether Jesus was born of a virgin or not will not help you to be a better human being. I don't think that's the central part of the story at all. Yet, details like these tend to be the dividing factor that really drop a large "turd" in the "punch bowl" of religion (forgive the crude metaphor) and then churched wonder as to why no-one wants to drink the free punch.

Though challenges can mean a person is seeking, they can also mean a person is avoiding (or some other thing), and that can't be discounted. There does a come a point when, like it or not, you do have to admit the problem is you ... or that it's just going to take a long time to get an answer, or some other reply you don't like.

That's what psychics do though. If they get a "hit", then they get the credit. If they didn't, then something must be wrong with you or your memory. They are not at fault.

I don't discount some legitimate points that are made, but it's difficult to relate certain "mystery" beyond to honest "I don't really know, but ..." type of explanation.

My point in all of this is that it's time to focus on pragmatic aspects of religion that do matter and that can create positive changes in immediate communities. And leave certain "dogmatic applications" that supposed to be "life-changing" and are not... behind. People can believe these as a choice, but that shouldn't be the central narrative.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

It is through the non ambiguity of scientific discipline that, what is called The God, had me experience and Find Him, through, but.

The last person that I dealt with on words have a specific meaning and no other, which although opposite of your rather valid observation and complaint, they were vastly in trouble with understanding, because of that staunch adherence to that idea, that is easily shown to be false, except to him somehow.

Do you have his problem, but in reverse? Are you under the impression that no on can talk unambiguously about God, because of the falsity of their supposed understanding, or worse yet because they really don't understand what they are saying?

If, I define a mystic of God, as one who God has talked enough to that they still remember how God talks and therefore can still relate that to others, then I would say from what I know of talking to them or listening to them, that ambiguity to me, is not there with them.

What is there only, with some who listen to them, is a refusal to listen and discern objectively, like a research scientist in any field of endeavor would do.

But yes, lots of people talk about God, who know actually nothing, or much false information, about Him.

Merry Christmas, to all of you, and much much much more and then some, here. It is tomorrow, from here. It is December 24th here. Tomorrow is Christmas Day.

LOVE,
All and all of us.

 

[Resha Caner]

Whether Jesus was born of a virgin or not will not help you to be a better human being.

The virgin birth is important, and dismissing it indicates to me you're missing the point. The whole thing about becoming a "better human being" sounds like Social Gospel to me, which isn't Christianity. You don't need Christ for that. If that's what you're looking for, any religion - or a variety of self-help authors from your local book store - will do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One of the most irritating things that I find discussing the religious topics with other people is the fact that a lot of religious concepts are wrapped up in a rather ambiguous language that people fill with their own concepts and ideas. Then, this language is thrown around as though everyone is on the same page, but when asked to deconstruct the meaning, people tend to struggle a bit.

When you understand the problem, it's sort of like pointing out a flaw in your favorite movie that you then notice in every scene and it spoils it for you , but for any religion to move on... that flaw has to be recognized and addressed.

1) Our modern lives demand precise language for accurate meaning.

In the past, the ambiguity was the cornerstone of wisdom. You'd see enigmatic personalities left and right, and the more ambiguous they were, the more wisdom they seemed to hold.

But, eventually, you have a large group of followers that parrot metaphorical concepts that are claimed to be understood, but end up being void of meaning. Modern science actually isn't immune to this either.

Some religious examples that I find most irritating:

God is love - What does that mean? It seems like a very imprecise way to define God. It's sort of like saying "My dad is freedom". It doesn't make much sense if one doesn't unpack the meaning.

God's love in our hearts - same thing. It seems that these are appealing to hopeless romantics in people rather than actually convey meaning.

Sinful Nature - That's a whopper of enigmatic concepts.

Blessing - It seems like a spiritual-sounding placeholder that means "anything good happened to me or other people"



I could go on and on with these, but the point being... one of the ways to yank people out of false idealism is to have them try to explain their beliefs to themselves. I think that there is reasonable faith these days, but it gets drowned and overcrowded and mixed with a lot of meaningless nonsense that tends to all be packaged as "religion".

Thus, I think that the best way to deal with the issue is to call out people on the metaphors they are using.

I generally say "If you didn't have this phrase or word, what other combination of words would you use to say the same thing? I'm trying to understand what you mean here exactly" There's a lot of nonsense that gets attached to emotional semantics, and it leaches off these emotional labels and metaphors.

Hi Dre,

Yes, you could "call people out" on their semantic use of religious metaphors, but to press people to their cognitive limits over the subject of faith, when they're not educated to deal with issues involving linguistics, semantics, or the study of Analytical Philosophy, could be somewhat disingenuous on your side.

Should we expect the common Christian to understand the deeper complexities of language that gird their assertions of faith? To what depth should we expect him or her to go, especially when not everyone has the mental constitution to read and comprehend a book by someone like the late Langdon Gilkey?

[Edit: Okay--I'm reading your dialogue with Resha, and I see the focus of your frustration. Yes, I too have encountered similar patterns in the construct of "professional" evangelical thinking, where a resistance exists to delving into the analytical aspects of the language used to express faith. I think a lot of this is 'emotional defense,' because the way in which typical evangelical thoughts on faith are structured requires some sense of axiomatic "certainty," otherwise, they find it difficult to carry on a justification for their faith. I understand some of this; no Christian wants to be vulnerable to a state in which faith falls apart and becomes meaningless or invalid.

Another side to this, I think, is represented in the following question: Is it God's "will" for us to understand everything He has done, is doing, or will do? How we answer this question will often affect how we think we can affirm our personal faith, even if we're "professionals."]

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi Dre,

Yes, you could "call people out" on their semantic use of religious metaphors, but to press people to their cognitive limits over the subject of faith, when they're not educated to deal with issues involving linguistics, semantics, or the study of Analytical Philosophy, could be somewhat disingenuous on your side.

Should we expect the common Christian to understand the deeper complexities of language that gird their assertions of faith? To what depth should we expect him or her to go, especially when not everyone has the mental constitution to read and comprehend a book by someone like the late Langdon Gilkey?

[Edit: Okay--I'm reading your dialogue with Resha, and I see the focus of your frustration. Yes, I too have encountered similar patterns in the construct of "professional" evangelical thinking, where a resistance exists to delving into the analytical aspects of the language used to express faith. I think a lot of this is 'emotional defense,' because the way in which typical evangelical thoughts on faith are structured requires some sense of axiomatic "certainty," otherwise, they find it difficult to carry on a justification for their faith. I understand some of this; no Christian wants to be vulnerable to a state in which faith falls apart and becomes meaningless or invalid.

Another side to this, I think, is represented in the following question: Is it God's "will" for us to understand everything He has done, is doing, or will do? How we answer this question will often affect how we think we can affirm our personal faith, even for "professionals."]

2PhiloVoid

Hi,

And considering it is the lowly that God normally delivers information to about or for Him, then the hampered one is the educated one, if the educated one cannot do both, be lowly in all ways and still have that education.

LOVE,

 

[Resha Caner]

Should we expect the common Christian to understand the deeper complexities of language that gird their assertions of faith?

[Edit: ... I think a lot of this is 'emotional defense,' because the way in which typical evangelical thoughts on faith are structured requires some sense of axiomatic "certainty," otherwise, they find it difficult to carry on a justification for their faith. ... Is it God's "will" for us to understand everything He has done, is doing, or will do? How we answer this question will often affect how we think we can affirm our personal faith, even for "professionals."]

Some astute observations, Philo. I had considered a lengthier reply to Dre, but was concerned such would only cloud what I consider the most important point. Christianity is centered in the person of Jesus, and is really only distinct from other religions for that reason. Everything else is merely an attempt to describe that encounter, and so will use language that sounds much the same as any other religion. Once one starts to analyze the language in the hopes of finding the "mystery" (or a societal cure), one has embarked upon a fruitless exercise. It's like trying to understand how an automobile works by examining the smoke coming out the tailpipe.

I do understand the frustration. Your comment that implied we don't need to understand everything God has done, while legitimate, will only sound like an excuse to unbelievers. And, admittedly, many Christians turn the "mystery" of Christianity into an exercise in fortune telling. Dre is right that many are too quick to ascribe what they perceive to be good things to an answer to prayer and bad things to the devil. But that is the beauty of Christianity. Whatever faults our understanding may possess don't endanger us because it is God who is doing the work.

Personally, I only ascribe "mystery" to the how's, not the what's. In other words, how God births faith through Baptism is a mystery. I don't try to discern whether that birth of faith was an answer to anyone's prayer or not. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. My certainty doesn't come from mysteries because that would indeed be a very thin thread on which to hang one's hope.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi,

And considering it is the lowly that God normally delivers information to about or for Him, then the hampered one is the educated one, if the educated one cannot do both, be lowly in all ways and still have that education.

LOVE,

Good point, Katerinah! (...and Merry Christmas!)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Some astute observations, Philo. I had considered a lengthier reply to Dre, but was concerned such would only cloud what I consider the most important point. Christianity is centered in the person of Jesus, and is really only distinct from other religions for that reason. Everything else is merely an attempt to describe that encounter, and so will use language that sounds much the same as any other religion. Once one starts to analyze the language in the hopes of finding the "mystery" (or a societal cure), one has embarked upon a fruitless exercise. It's like trying to understand how an automobile works by examining the smoke coming out the tailpipe.

I like your analogy, Resha, and if I've understood you correctly, I think you're right about the inherent limitation in how referential correspondence transpires through the religious language we attempt to express. As you said, the center of our faith is found in the person of Jesus.

I do understand the frustration. Your comment that implied we don't need to understand everything God has done, while legitimate, will only sound like an excuse to unbelievers.

Well, I'm not really intending to imply that we don't "need" to understand everything--it would be nice if we could. Although, if it isn't God's intention for us to understand everything, then we will have to learn to be content with what He chooses to reveal to us. God does have His secrets. Thus, while we may want to understand all that God has done, we probably shouldn't expect Him to condescend in revealing "all in all." In fact, I'm not even sure He will reveal "all" to us at the Consummation (however, and in whatever way, He fully works it out.)

As far as unbelievers are concerned, I'm sure your right that they will squirm and holler that all of this kind of thing sounds like an "excuse." But, if the epistemological indices in the Bible are what they are, then with God's help (or calling), unbelievers will have to learn and accept whatever it is He's willing to give at an informational level.

And, admittedly, many Christians turn the "mystery" of Christianity into an exercise in fortune telling.

Yes, but I would warn them against doing so. If they attempt to do so, perhaps because they perceive God's Spirit in an event, then I would recommend extreme caution in the interpreting of the phenomenon in question, without pretense to the notion that they've received a comprehensive message.

Dre is right that many are too quick to ascribe what they perceive to be good things to an answer to prayer and bad things to the devil. But that is the beauty of Christianity. Whatever faults our understanding may possess don't endanger us because it is God who is doing the work.

I agree with this in a general sense, but we have to be careful with the assumptions we make about where we think our intellects might actually take us on a cognitive level.

Personally, I only ascribe "mystery" to the how's, not the what's. In other words, how God births faith through Baptism is a mystery. I don't try to discern whether that birth of faith was an answer to anyone's prayer or not. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. My certainty doesn't come from mysteries because that would indeed be a very thin thread on which to hang one's hope.

Like you, I too ascribe "mystery" to the how's, but I am also tempted to do so with at least some of the what's as well. However, I don't want to give the impression that I've gone completely Kierkegaardian with everything, because I haven't. It's just that I don't think any epistemology can get us to the face of God (Jesus) by itself; God has to reach down and do "His thing" for any one of us to react in faith. There has to be both a temporal facet and a mysterious one working in tandem for us to believe.

So, I'd say that in many ways, you and I are on similar wavelengths as to the basic construction of faith.

[Edit: I'm in the process of reading all of the responses you've so far made to Dre since you always have some good insights, and somewhere along the way, I learn something. ]

Good talking to you, Resha. (...and Merry Christmas)

2PhiloVoid

 

[katerinah1947]

Good point, Katerinah! (...and Merry Christmas!)

Hi,

Yes. Merry Christmas!

LOVE,