Philosophy Now Forum

"Are any of these dispositions "better" or "worse" than others?"

Speaking only for me: those that favor me and mine (that I can align with in agenda) are A-Ok by me; those that don't can kiss my keister.

Kinda said all this up-thread.

henry quirk wrote:"Are any of these dispositions "better" or "worse" than others?"

Speaking only for me: those that favor me and mine (that I can align with in agenda) are A-Ok by me; those that don't can kiss my keister.

Kinda said all this up-thread.

Got it. Well, maybe you're a true Nietzschean, in a way, even though, as you say, you don't personally know the man.

Immanuel Can wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:I am asking nicely...you don't have to answer if you don't want.

I'm not being difficult...I'm just trying to give you a frame of reference for an answer.

We know our spouses, children and friends. We are not *absolutely* sure they exist (after all, we have those lovely thought experiments about brains in vats, and so on ), but most people do not think or act that way on a daily basis. Most of us are content with 99.999 % certainty, and don't worry much about whatever small amount of uncertainty issues from the thought-experiments philosophers generate.

Well and good, then.

What level of certainty do you suppose we should expect IF the Supreme Being were real? What would you consider reasonable?

Again...honest question...no cynicism implied.

Okay....you're reference is noted. But you still haven't answered my question. ..and I can't possible answer yours until you answer mine.

Do you have any doubt that God exists?

artisticsolution wrote:Okay....you're reference is noted. But you still haven't answered my question. ..and I can't possible answer yours until you answer mine.

Do you have any doubt that God exists?

I am proceeding to do so. But unless we establish a correct context, an understanding of what epistemology entails, then the word "doubt" is going to be misunderstood, as I use it. And, of course, I wouldn't want a misunderstanding we can prevent in advance.

My point so far is that to say "no doubt" about X or Y is simply not possible to us. There is literally NOTHING that we cannot doubt, even the existence of our loved ones or the external world itself. So I'm seeking to establish an appropriate modesty in our epistemology of doubt. And at the same time, I'm trying to establish what your question is really asking. For if you mean, "Do you believe with no possibility of doubt that X, or Y," then you would be asking for something no person could ever honestly answer "yes."

And yet, as you and I both recognize, we human beings really DO think we know some things, even to a point at which we no longer sustain any reasonable doubt about them. So then, if your question is, do you believe in God to that degree, my answer is certainly "Yes." But if your question is, "Do you believe in God the way none of us can actually believe in anything -- i.e. without any possibility of doubt, even theoretically?" -- then I would respond, respectfully, that your question would simply be naive: you yourself couldn't possibly meet that epistemic standard for anything...not even your own loved ones.

How would you like to proceed from there?

henry quirk wrote:"so now your saying 99# of the time, people love."

Nope.

Read again...

"This concept you have of self preservation is not consistent with your concept of taking up arms to protect you and 'yours'."

Yes it is if you take into account how one is disposed to see the world, him- or her-self, and how much one might be invested in those he or she loves.

Obviously, I'm talkin' about the individual, not the species.

Some folks will self-preserve through the sacrifice of every-thing and -one, including those they love; others will not.

And some folks, many folks, don't or can't love.

Do us both a favor: read what i write, not what you think I write; stop cherry pickin' and take my posts in context (of the thread and my other posts).

I am reading what you are saying but I think you are exaggerating for effect. I am not doubting that some love and some can't...or power or no power. I am just saying...

99% of the time you have to take up arms? Really? Come on...

One keeps an eye open for the ideal (and a loaded shotgun on hand for the other 99% of the time).

artisticsolution wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:I am enjoying this thread very much. I have to admit Immanuel, I like the way you can hold you own when so many do not hold the, same views.

If ignoring questions, and putting people who ask them on ignore is 'holding your own", it is not worthy of praise.
I'm surprised you fall so easily for his squirming flim-flam.

Why not ask him to say what a 'true christian' would do in one or two moral situations?

Hi Hobbes, I don't believe that one has to combat everyone to make a point.

I am not agreeing with everything Immanuel says, but he is in a debate with all of us and not losing his cool like most. You have to admire that. At least I do.

But then I can't get behind the mentality, you either with us or against us.'

And about asking him what a Christian would do in 2 moral situations...what do you think the whole point of this thread is?

Who is "all of us"?
He's not debating me. He lost his cool because I put clear and difficult questions to him, which he first avoided, then obfuscated, then ignored. So- dah no, no admiration from me.

The whole point of the thread is one that he has ignored. Maybe you had not noticed?

How to be a TRUE CHristian.


http://viz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/201 ... elical.jpg

Immanuel Can wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Okay....you're reference is noted. But you still haven't answered my question. ..and I can't possible answer yours until you answer mine.

Do you have any doubt that God exists?

I am proceeding to do so. But unless we establish a correct context, an understanding of what epistemology entails, then the word "doubt" is going to be misunderstood, as I use it. And, of course, I wouldn't want a misunderstanding we can prevent in advance.

My point so far is that to say "no doubt" about X or Y is simply not possible to us. There is literally NOTHING that we cannot doubt, even the existence of our loved ones or the external world itself. So I'm seeking to establish an appropriate modesty in our epistemology of doubt. And at the same time, I'm trying to establish what your question is really asking. For if you mean, "Do you believe with no possibility of doubt that X, or Y," then you would be asking for something no person could ever honestly answer "yes."

And yet, as you and I both recognize, we human beings really DO think we know some things, even to a point at which we no longer sustain any reasonable doubt about them. So then, if your question is, do you believe in God to that degree, my answer is certainly "Yes." But if your question is, "Do you believe in God the way none of us can actually believe in anything -- i.e. without any possibility of doubt, even theoretically?" -- then I would respond, respectfully, that your question would simply be naive: you yourself couldn't possibly meet that epistemic standard for anything...not even your own loved ones.

How would you like to proceed from there?

I am such a procrastinator today! I have so much to do and yet this is an interesting discussion!

Please do not be afraid, I am not trying to 'catch' you in any disbelief of God. I just wanted to know, if you are willing to be honest with me. As some Christians I talk to, refuse to be honest with me (I don't think because they are dishonest people per se, but that Man made Christianity/religion has become their 'false' idol instead of God...more to come about this subject later).

I love my sister, but I don't agree with everything she says just because she is my sister. I can love her, but not think like her.

The other night (the 4th of July) she was spouting her racist views (which I cannot get behind and she admits is wrong but that 'she can't help being racist' ...which btw...I know exactly why she is a racist but that is for another thread) anyway, when she was spouting her racist nonsense, a little while later, I said to her,

"You know, there is a good way to tell if you believe something you say is right or if you know deep down it is wrong."

She replied, "How?"

I said, "All you have to do imagine you died, and are being judged for your sins, then imagine you were telling your firmly held beliefs to God."

She insisted she could tell God anything!

I said, " Really? Could you look God directly in the eye and say, "God, why did you make the f'n N.....?"

She was silent.

Christians say a lot of things they don't give much thought to. Yes, so does everyone else...the difference is, Christians should know better.

So now, I will tell you true, that I do not know what is in your heart. I can only take you on your word, because that is what I believe is right. It doesn't mean I have to follow you...or think you are right in your beliefs, I just have no way of knowing what is in your heart so I can either tell you you are full of shit or tell you that I don't know where you are coming from. I choose telling you the truth, which is I don't know where you are coming from.You could have some type of experience that I have not experienced yet or even never will. I don't know. All I can do is be honest with you and tell you, I don't know 100% that there is a God because I have not had your experience. And that you can fool me, but if there is a God, you can't fool him. So best to be honest with him and me...correct? If I am going to be honest with him, I can't tell you I believe he exists with all certainty. That would be a lie. Now do you see where I am coming from? If God commands me not to lie, then I would be not be following his word if I told you that I believe in him 100%?

Now, having said that... in the beginning of this thread. You said, God told you to judge...that "you will know them by their fruits"... you say he wants you to judge...How can you be sure that is what he truly wants or if that is what YOU truly want? As the Bible is pretty direct in this instance and there is compelling evidence that scriptures keep saying to not Judge...and the 10 commandments tell us to live they neighbor. so are you sure that is what God wants or is that what religion has told you to believe? Knowing that you can't know anything 100%....you have said as much even if you still haven't answered my question directly for whatever reason...(fear of getting caught or fear I will judge, or whatever ...etc? )...will tell you that you cannot know what another knows. So how can you, without a shadow of a doubt, know what relationship God has with another?

Like I said, people talk shit. You can't take them at their word because they know not what they say sometimes. If man made Christianity/religion is telling you one thing when God is telling you another...then....

( and Hopefully you will understand what I said here now)

artisticsolution wrote:
You are very mistaken when you are leary of me...as the title 'Christian' or Christianity has little to do with God or Jesus and everything to do with society and man. In the bible Christianity was a new thing...the church leader was Jesus..and his heart was pure. Now, very few follow the teachings of Jesus, instead they follow the teachings of man made Christianity...You do a great disservice to non Christians by closing your eyes so tightly...

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Who is "all of us"?
He's not debating me. He lost his cool because I put clear and difficult questions to him, which he first avoided, then obfuscated, then ignored. So- dah no, no admiration from me.

The whole point of the thread is one that he has ignored. Maybe you had not noticed?

Okay...'debate' was not the right word...'conversation' is better...right?

by 'All of us' I mean, all of us here in this thread chatting back and forth.

About losing his cool...I haven't picked up on that...maybe I missed something? and you are correct that he hasn't answered some questions but then neither have i. So , why not point out that I have done the same as him?

Mannie,

How about instead of labeling me as 'Nietzschean' you just take me as I am? That being: Henry Quirk.

#

Art,

I think you confuse hyperbole for metaphor.

When I say 'One keeps an eye open for the ideal (and a loaded shotgun on hand for the other 99% of the time)' I simply mean that there are folks everywhere lookin' to use you as a resource to further themselves (at your expense). They'll take your money, your life, your property...they gladly plant the seeds of their agendas in the soil of that precious real estate (between your ears)...against such folks you had best self-defend (by being the gatekeeper for your head, through safeguarding your shit, by way of -- when the circumstance arises -- the shotgun [or its equivalent]).

I'm surprised I have to explain this.

henry quirk wrote:Mannie,

How about instead of labeling me as 'Nietzschean' you just take me as I am? That being: Henry Quirk.

#

Art,

I think you confuse hyperbole for metaphor.

When I say 'One keeps an eye open for the ideal (and a loaded shotgun on hand for the other 99% of the time)' I simply mean that there are folks everywhere lookin' to use you as a resource to further themselves (at your expense). They'll take your money, your life, your property...they gladly plant the seeds of their agendas in the soil of that precious real estate (between your ears)...against such folks you had best self-defend (by being the gatekeeper for your head, through safeguarding your shit, by way of -- when the circumstance arises -- the shotgun [or its equivalent]).

I'm surprised I have to explain this.

Lol...sry for making you have to explain. Okay...hyperbole.

Trust me...I so get what you are saying, as I have experienced first hand what you say...

artisticsolution wrote:Please do not be afraid, I am not trying to 'catch' you in any disbelief of God. I just wanted to know, if you are willing to be honest with me.

No, no fear. I'm happy to chat. But I often find that as a Christian, I have to be careful to move in small steps. The reason is that so many of my interlocutors have strong ideas about Christians -- some, perhaps from experience, but as I find, a lot more from the mass media or from the shallow characterizations of what's called the "New Atheist" set, Dawkins et al. When I probe, I find most people who hold the strongest opinions know the least about Christians in general, and usually nothing about me in particular. So even before we can discuss, I have to clarify for them who I am and what I stand for...or what Christians actually believe, on the whole.

Now, that's clearly not your situation: you have your sister specifically in view. But, of course, I do not know her, and I'm not her and can't represent her views unless they just happen to fit with the Christian mainstream. About that, I can only guess.

As some Christians I talk to, refuse to be honest with me (I don't think because they are dishonest people per se, but that Man made Christianity/religion has become their 'false' idol instead of God...more to come about this subject later).

For what it's worth, I agree entirely. Man-made religion, of any flavour, is indeed an issue. And honesty is a virtue.

I love my sister, but I don't agree with everything she says just because she is my sister. I can love her, but not think like her.

I get that.

I said, " Really? Could you look God directly in the eye and say, "God, why did you make the f'n N.....?"

Wow. Did she say that? Hmmm. Well, I guess you could ask her if she thought Jesus Christ said the same sorts of things, couldn't you? And I well understand why she was silent.

Good for you: I'm actually enthusiastic about that. You made her think. And that's hugely important, especially for someone who claims the name of Christ. Far too many people take that name without thinking. You might have made her a better person -- and Christian -- by your comment.

Christians say a lot of things they don't give much thought to. Yes, so does everyone else...the difference is, Christians should know better.

Yes, I agree...I do. Christians should have a higher standard.

But did you ever ask yourself why? Why should Christians be held to a moral standard above anyone else, if they're just like everyone else?

I think we all know, though -- I mean any thinking Christian or any thinking person in general -- that claiming that Name is to call on yourself a very high responsibility to follow through. It is a task so high that Christians generally fail at it -- as do I: but when we come to our senses, we humble ourselves, ask forgiveness, and go on because we believe in that standard too. If you sister does that, as we can hope she will, you've been a great help to her in taking the next step God requires of her in her thinking.

And that you can fool me, but if there is a God, you can't fool him. So best to be honest with him and me...correct?

Absolutely.

If I am going to be honest with him, I can't tell you I believe he exists with all certainty. That would be a lie. Now do you see where I am coming from? If God commands me not to lie, then I would be not be following his word if I told you that I believe in him 100%?

Yes.

But there's something we're forgetting here, and maybe it's time it came back up. It's the concept of faith.

Now, I recognize that its mere mention is going to set off howls of resentment from some quarters, and that's just fine. For many people, the New Atheist set have defined the concept into imbecility, and then teed off on it. Then they declare victory and depart the field, all the time puzzling why some people remain unconvinced, and then reassure themselves that this is just further proof that they are "the Brights," as they call themselves, and the rest of the world is composed primarily of superstitious dullards. So the word's been badly abused, and it will be hard to reclaim it's Biblical meaning for public use; but maybe not impossible, and maybe it's particularly necessary at this point in our conversation.

More on that to come; but first I'll have to know what you think the word "faith" means. Maybe you can share your personal understanding with me about that in your next message.

Knowing that you can't know anything 100%....you have said as much even if you still haven't answered my question directly for whatever reason...(fear of getting caught or fear I will judge, or whatever ...etc? )...will tell you that you cannot know what another knows. So how can you, without a shadow of a doubt, know what relationship God has with another?

Well, let's deal with the "judging" issue first. I think my response might catch a piece of this question for you, now that I know your circumstances a bit better.

There are different kinds of "judging." One is when a justice officer puts a sentence on a criminal. But another is when a "judge" at the flower show awards a prize to a particularly fetching bouquet. Now in that second instance, the "judge" does not pass sentence on the criminality of the flower-arranger, nor does his "judging" carry a penalty with it. Nor is he "judging" whether or not the flowers really ARE flowers. Instead, he's being discerning as to quality: he's assessing if this bouquet is a better or worse example of flower arrangement than the other candidates.

Christians have no call to judge each other as to their eternal state. That's God's call. But they do have a direct commandment from Christ to be discerning as to whether or not other putative "Christians" are acting as better or worse examples of what Christ would have them to be. They are called to decide if person X or Y is being Christlike or unchristian. And that's particularly important in any society in which the word "Christian" tends to be invoked loosely, as it is in ours. For many bad patterns of Christian will coexist with the good ones; and it will take a wise and discerning eye to know which ones to emulate, and which ones to avoid emulating.

The upshot of that is this: that I pass no judgment on your sister as to her sincerity or her ultimate status as a Christian or not; but I do not hesitate to say that Christ would not have called people by the "n" word, and would not endorse shooting Mexicans at the border. I can go one step further, and safely say that no "Christian" who makes such statements is acting in the spirit of Christ. And that's as far as it goes -- or needs to go.

In fact, Christians cannot avoid making those kinds of "judgments": for each of us is responsible to study the character of Christ and emulate it. So we are to think about Him a lot, and by relating to Him, to discover which of the actions available to us -- or modelled by others -- are truly Christian. Apart from this sort of "judging," living as a Christian would be impossible for anyone. So no wonder Christ encouraged us to judge the quality of a person's profession of faith by their actions.

Like I said, people talk shit. You can't take them at their word because they know not what they say sometimes. If man made Christianity/religion is telling you one thing when God is telling you another...then....

By rights, God wins. Every time. As Peter said, "We must obey God rather than man." So that's that.

Now, back to the "what we know" issue, since I don't want to seem to have dodged that. Philosophers know that all human knowledge, apart from the purely abstract, like maths and symbolic logic, is inductive. "Inductive" means, among other things, "probabilistic." That is to say, people don't "know" things 100%. Even Descartes famous cogito argument has come under critique on this point: that absolute certainty, the kind that Descartes hoped to find, is simply impossible...for any question anywhere, anytime (except, as I say, for self-referential, internally-complete symbol systems).

Therefore, when you ask me, "Do you have any doubts about the existence of God?" I say, "Sure: but less than I have about practically any other matter on earth, and nothing so severe that it gives me a moment's agonizing."

Now, there was a time when that was not true for me. When I was younger, I went through a great deal of existential searching and a few dark nights of the soul. But ironically, all the searching was what made the finding possible; and all the dark nights drove me all the harder toward daylight. My early doubts made urgent my searching, and then enabled me to think through things to the level I now have.

I'm still learning; but doubts as to the existence or goodness of God? I don't really have those anymore...I've found Him real and faithful in so many situations, it's just impossible to sustain skepticism..doubt has become less useful than it used to be, as He's put my doubts to rest one by one.

The poet Robert Browning talks sagely about this. He points out that people actually choose between two styles of living: a life out faith, shot through occasionally with doubt; or a life of doubt, punctuated by moments of reluctant faith. The person of faith faces moments of uncertainty, of course; but the person who is a skeptic is in a worse position: for he finds that his doubts, such arid companions as they are, are not even ultimately sustainable. Like the people in the poem, "'There Is No God,' The Wicked Saith," by A.H. Clough (which I posted elsewhere) skeptical mankind cannot help himself in a moment of fear, or love, or beauty, or grandeur, from feeling the sneaking suspicion that there's much more richness to life than he actually knows. And his poignant disappointment makes his faithlessness very painful. So one can live in doubt or in faith: but there's not much doubt in my mind which is the richer state.

As an aside, I actually think that one of the things that causes so many modern people NOT to seek God is that so few of them grapple with the darkness. Instead, moderns can now flip on the TV or jet off for a vacation. In the Developing World, where I've spent a great deal of time, I don't find that people dismiss the existential search for meaning with the alacrity you see in the West.

We are not more secular because we're "wiser"; we're more secular because we have more alternatives and distractions to save us from the imperative of deep introspection. We're more secular because we have too many substitutes in our lives for real meaning.

Nietzsche thought that was true. When he said, "God is dead," he really was implying "God is irrelevant." For Nietzsche did not think there ever really WAS a god, so one could not literally be "dead." He thought instead that our whole sense of need for that concept had been supplanted by a modern spirt of self-sufficiency. And I think he was correct about that. But, of course, our lack of a feeling that we need God will not make a literal, living God suddenly disappear, nor will it change the fact that ultimately we DO need God. We'll just get more empty and know less about what we're missing.

But I write too long here, and catch too many threads. Let me pause, for I surely owe you a chance to interject here.

henry quirk wrote:Mannie,

How about instead of labeling me as 'Nietzschean' you just take me as I am? That being: Henry Quirk.

For sure. I was just noting a harmony in your views, not accusing you of being unoriginal.

Immanuel Can wrote:
More on that to come; but first I'll have to know what you think the word "faith" means. Maybe you can share your personal understanding with me about that in your next message.

I am glad you asked me that question. I was getting to that...after we had hashed out the God and Jesus topic....lol.

Faith is belief. Faith is believing what you feel is truth. Faith is belief in the absurd/impossible.

I did a quick search and found this. Whoever wrote this shares my views on what K thought of faith. Of course I like the way K said it better, but I think this is more understandable in general.

http://www.sorenkierkegaard.nl/artikele ... 0Faith.pdf

Kierkegaard and Faith
Kierkegaard's conception of faith was not congruent with the mainstream view held by
most religious people. Kierkegaard has been known as the "Christian Socrates" because
of the way he challenged traditional beliefs like Socrates did. Kierkegaard's faith is one of
an individualistic re-choosing of faith in the impossible.
Kierkegaard thought that many Christians held an inauthentic faith that relied on doctrine
and obedience. He wanted to get away from that and maintained that the movement of
faith is up to each individual and his or her personal relationship with the impossible. He
believed that what many people called "faith" was actually "hope" because with hope
there is a probability for something to be true, whereas true faith is believing in
something even though one knows it is impossible and there is no reason for one to
believe in it. Hope does not have any relevance in the realm of impossibility, only faith
does. There is an abandonment of reason when one chooses to have authentic faith.
Kierkegaard maintained that faith was higher than reason. This means that reason has its
limits and faith begins where those limits of reason are found. This choice of faith is not a
one-time thing, according to Kierkegaard. One must make the movements of faith over
and over again and constantly re-choose to abandon reason and believe in the
impossible. This re-choosing is cyclical and no developmental progress is made, one just
re-chooses the exact same thing over and over again.
The mainstream Christian view would see faith as being higher than reason as well,
however, it probably does not include a constant re-choosing of faith that gets one
nowhere, but only to where one started. Kierkegaard held that the leap of faith had to be
done over and over again because to believe the impossible simply requires this neverending
re-choosing. The ideas of "fellowship" and community are also key aspects to the
traditional Christian view. Church brings people together and allows them to discuss their
beliefs and take comfort in the fact that others believe the same thing that they do. Many
people go to church for this very reason, to see that others believe the same thing they
do.
Kierkegaard thought that all notions of "fellowship" were a distancing from true faith. To
be in a community of people requires a certain level of rational discourse, that is,
expression. One needs to communicate what they think and what they believe in. This is
an adequate way to discuss issues that involve everyday reason and solving practical
problems, but according to Kierkegaard, true faith cannot be communicated because of
the solitude that faith requires of each individual.
The very nature of faith as an extremely personal choice renders it incommunicable to
others. Solitude is necessary for one who believes in the impossible because there is no
way he or she can find adequate expression for what he or she believes. For this reason,
Kierkegaard rejects the church as an adequate setting for faith because of its reliance on
community and fellowship.
Also, faith cannot be taught. Listening to a clergyman discuss issues such as faith is fairly
worthless because faith is something that can never be thought. One cannot teach
another how to give up on impossible and then accept the impossible as being true. One
cannot learn such a thing either because it is up to each individual to make the leap of
faith.
Another important concept, touched on earlier, is the dichotomy of authentic and
inauthentic faith. Authentic faith is an active faith in that the movements of faith are
chosen again and again. Active faith is for the individual in his or her own solitude to find
meaning. Inauthentic faith is inactive and complacent. Complacent faith is faith for
comfort's sake. Comfort comes from the community and the idea that others believe
what one also believes.
Faith for Kierkegaard was much different from the traditional Christian view of faith. One
must re-choose faith in the impossible and that renders one to a solitary existence within
the realm of faith. To embrace everything in the temporal world because of the belief in
the impossible is not really a traditional Christian view either. Fellowship requires rational
discourse, but faith is inexpressible. Faith is something for each individual and his or her
relation to that which is impossible, not something that brings comfort and complacency.

Read this again,

Faith is something for each individual and his or her
relation to that which is impossible, not something that brings comfort and complacency.

This is where the fear and trembling comes in for Christians...

It is what our nightmares consist of....the fact that we stand alone in judgment of God and hope that Jesus will defend us and the holy spirit has been in our heart from the beginning.

My dear sister, who is Christian and racist, does not hate anyone, however, she might not have the capability to understand things fully. No fault of hers, it is the way God made her. She has been like this from day one, chasing after us saying, "Me too! Me too!" She feels comfort running with others....being part of a church where she can see other's behavior and act accordingly. She has no idea she does this, and what if I were to tell her? Would I be the one to trample the snow? Would I be responsible for her 'awareness' so that she can see her sin more clearly and thus be judged more harshly?

I don't know, but that I do know in the past I have brought certain things I know to her awareness and she has never quite understood the concept of personable responsibility when it comes to right and wrong.

Once, when we were having a discussion about right and wrong, she turned to her husband and said, "Donny, is it wrong to do this?" I said, "Donny will not be able to defend you on judgement day. You will be alone."

The church will not be a proxy for their parishioners sins, so when God asks you if you had faith, and you reply YES! with pride, and then he asks you, were you able to move that mountain I spoke of? Will you still be so confident of your 'faith' in front of God?

Would it not be the honest thing to say, "I doubted you, everyday of my life."

It is the honest thing for me. I have tried to move a mountain with faith. I can't do it....lol.

We know we have not had the faith of a mustard seed, if we believe the bible, because if we did, we would be able to say to the mountain," 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

We are all infallible, Relying on Christ to save you, might be in your heart, your faith in that might be true, but why then...would anyone still be afraid of judgment day? Is it that there is a little bit more you have to do as a Christian than to accept Jesus as your savior?

artisticsolution wrote:I am glad you asked me that question. I was getting to that...after we had hashed out the God and Jesus topic....

Glad to oblige.

Faith is belief. Faith is believing what you feel is truth. Faith is belief in the absurd/impossible.

I think you are articulating a widely-believed definition among skeptics of Christianity. The New Atheists love it, because it hands them a free 'win.' Kierkegaard accepted something like it because he was reacting against the sterility of the religiosity of his day, and yet made some rather rash extensions on the concept that very few Christians were happy to embrace. But there are probably a few highly-emotive Christian groups around that would still accept some version of your definition. But most would not.

William Lane Craig has a much more typical Christian definition of faith, and one that is far more rational. He says, "Faith is continued belief in what you have good reason to believe already." And that would be my definition as well, and the kind of definition that the vast majority of Christians would accept. After all, what am I doing on a philosophy site if I don't think faith can be articulated rationally?

So you and I would have to decide: are the atheists the ones who are positioned to tell us what Christians really believe "faith" is, or are the Christians the ones who can tell us? And should we go with the emotive-minority view, a sort of Kierkegaardian view, or should we go with what most Christians actually think they are doing?

I think the answer to that has got to be pretty obvious, don't you?

But what's the application here? Well, working with the second definition of "faith," the only one I think is credible, it would provide a response to your earlier concern about 100% certainty. If NOTHING is 100% certain, it cannot trouble us much if that also describes our knowledge of God. Is it possible that all Christians (including your sister and me, of course) are drugged fools, and they are believing in things which simply do not exist? Only on a statistical improbability so fine that no rational person needs to worry about it. It's the same sort of extreme improbability with which we might believe the world could be a cube, or gravity could cease to work in the next five minutes...possible, yes, but so minutely as to be unreasonable to think about.

It's far more likely to think we're believing something we think we have on at least SOME evidence. Very few people in this world are so far gone that they believe without any warrant at all; and there are far too many Christians -- and far too many rational ones -- to think that's the case. More likely, they are taking a view they think is plausible and consonant with evidence, and are continuing to believe that.

And yet they describe it by the word "faith."

So if "faith" is unwarranted belief, irrational belief, absurd belief, then you would have to conclude it's not really what Christians do, and they're simply mistaken in their use of the word. Then, as William Lane Craig wryly suggests, we would simply need to coin a new word: not "faith" he says, but "schmaith," which we would now define as "belief in something for which you believe you have good reason already," and say that Christians are practicing "schmaith" not "faith."

That's a silly game, though. Why don't we just consider the possibility that "faith" doesn't mean to Christians what you may have been assuming it means?

Faith is something for each individual and his or her relation to that which is impossible, not something that brings comfort and complacency.

Well, you seem to be denying Marx's idea that religion is an opiate or soporific drug; and that's probably good, since it's not the kind of definition a thinking Christian is going to recognize. I think it's easy to think that because Christians, by definition, believe in certain miracles ("the impossible"?)...such as the Resurrection...that they must be credulous fools, sustaining their hope on pure wishful thinking...but I think this fires so wide of the mark that an argument of that kind is simply going to seem like spurious hate-mail to most Christians.

In fact, it's because the cynics fire so wildly wide that Christians in general continue to dismiss their arguments. They're so full of desire to win for their side that the New Atheists don't bother to look at their subject matter carefully. For example, look how routinely they blend all "religions" by general statements. It's as if they're too dumb to see the difference between an ISIL terrorist and a Mennonite farmer. Or that they can't tell a Buddhist from a Hindu, a Taoist from a Zoroastrian or an Orthodox Jew from a Wiccan. It's bizarre and silly...and it continually amazes me that the so-called "rational" atheist set doesn't call them on it immediately.

If it were any other scientific matter, the New Atheists could not get away with it for a day. Their "scientific" peers would instantly knock holes in their arguments immediately, pointing out their gross mental error of polluting their sample. The media would excoriate them as -phobic bigots, and ordinary people would simply dismiss them as irrational. But that doesn't happen. And you've got to wonder why.

Because after all, it not just unfair...it's unscientific. To begin a scientific inquiry with an entrenched contempt for your subject matter and a burning desire to dismiss it is not going to lead to any good scientific results. But for some reason, that just doesn't seem to occur to anyone, least of all the New Atheist set. Funny, that.

So I would say to the New Atheists, "Calm down, and you might have a chance of hitting something with one of your shots; you're too frenzied and unfocused at the moment."

And the "faith" issue is surely an excellent example of that. Their dismissive remarks haven't really produced the wholesale "enlightenment" for which they hope, because they're just shooting wide.

But enough on "faith" for the moment. We'll get to why God wants it, if the discussion ever gets there. I don't want to bore you.

My dear sister, who is Christian and racist, does not hate anyone, however, she might not have the capability to understand things fully.

Fair enough. There are simple folks, well-intended followers in every area of human life. We're not all made to be leaders. But even for her, it would be a great service if you could help her see the incompatibility of her strong views with Christianity. You'd at least help her to be a better follower.

No fault of hers, it is the way God made her. She has been like this from day one, chasing after us saying, "Me too! Me too!" She feels comfort running with others....being part of a church where she can see other's behavior and act accordingly. She has no idea she does this, and what if I were to tell her? Would I be the one to trample the snow? Would I be responsible for her 'awareness' so that she can see her sin more clearly and thus be judged more harshly?

Well, what if you could show her actually how to do better?

Here's a bizarre thought for you: what if you were God's provision for her to help lead her on to the next step in her thinking, and thus to deliver her from mistakes she's making, and ultimately to give her a better relationship with God and a higher standing morally speaking? Wouldn't you want to do that for her?

I don't know, but that I do know in the past I have brought certain things I know to her awareness and she has never quite understood the concept of personable responsibility when it comes to right and wrong.

You see, you could help her with this. Because she needs to realize that we must all stand before God, and every person must give an account himself/herself. ( as seen in 2 Corinthians 5:9-10, Romans 14:9-11)

Surely you wouldn't want her to wander into that situation unprepared, would you? Not when you could help her.

Once, when we were having a discussion about right and wrong, she turned to her husband and said, "Donny, is it wrong to do this?" I said, "Donny will not be able to defend you on judgement day. You will be alone."

Excellent Biblical scholarship on your part. Well done.

The church will not be a proxy for their parishioners sins,

Catholic background, I'm guessing?

We are all infallible, Relying on Christ to save you, might be in your heart, your faith in that might be true, but why then...would anyone still be afraid of judgment day? Is it that there is a little bit more you have to do as a Christian than to accept Jesus as your savior?

This part, though, is a bit theologically and grammatically cluttered. I'm not quite sure what it means. I realize "infallible" means "incapable of error," but there is no Scriptural warrant for thinking we're that. The "in your heart" part is also a shard of sentimentalism not found in the Bible, so hard to decipher. What it means for a faith to be "true" is a bit ambiguous, so far as I can tell right now, because it can mean "true faith" or "faith about the truth." A small difference, maybe, but important.

But there is one clear idea that comes through to me, and maybe I can help with that. A Christian has no reason to fear Judgment Day. I do not say so because of my own smug self-confidence, or anything else like that. I say so only on the authority of the Ultimate Judge Himself, who bluntly said the same. For in John 5:24, Jesus Himself says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."

The Greek text there is even more definitive about this question than our English translators are capable of being, since the original Greek renders more definite verb tenses: so that we could more labouriously anglicize them as, "is (now) passed, "has (now already) eternal life" and "is (now and ongoingly) passed out of (the realm of) death into (the realm of) life."

So even if you are not a Christian yourself, if you are happy for her to remain as she is, you might be a great help to her not to feel anxious about the Judgment Day, and to have more faith in her situation. And it's just possible that if she realizes how compassionate God has been to her, she may be inclined to be more compassionate and less hostile to others.

It might be worth thinking about. There are some situations worth leaving alone, but I doubt this is one of them, since you could potentially do her so much good. Meanwhile, you're unlikely to do her any harm by telling her what she, as a Christian, really ought to know, because God's already said it to her.