Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

So you are saying that conventional Christianity does not believe that faith in Jesus and God is not necessary for salvation?

How did you get this from what I said? It doesn't follow at all.

You said that my definition of conventional Christianity and faith would not be recognized by any Christian.
I claimed that conventional Christianity believes that one must believe in Jesus/God to obtain salvation. Conventional Christians also think that faith needs no proof.

Conventional Christians also think that faith needs no proof.

That's the part you have wrong. Okay. Got it.

So you are saying that conventional Christians say that faith in God requires a proof that God exists?

raw_thought wrote:So you are saying that conventional Christians say that faith in God requires a proof that God exists?

Faith itself is the proof.
La fede è grazia ricevuta, non acquisita. (Faith is for grace received, not acquired).

So you are saying that conventional Christians say that faith in God requires a proof that God exists?

Well, if I can say so without sounding condescending, I'm thinking maybe your conception of proof sounds to me a bit epistemologically naive. "Proof," unless it's performed within a self-referential system like mathematics, is never absolute, but only probabilistic; and that's not even a contentious proposition in the philosophy of science.

In science, one performs a limited set of experiments, and then at some point one estimates how likely its outcomes are to be repeated, then trusts that your estimate is likely to be correct for future trials. But one never has absolute certainty, which would require one to perform the complete set of all trials. So it estimates probabilities only.

Probabilistic knowledge, whether scientific or theological, always involves a measure of faith. The important question is whether or not the faith is warranted.

Sorry, David, I skipped your post.

What do you mean by the quotation? "Grace received, not acquired"? I don't think I'm catching your drift there.

Immanuel Can wrote:

So you are saying that conventional Christians say that faith in God requires a proof that God exists?

Well, if I can say so without sounding condescending, I'm thinking maybe your conception of proof sounds to me a bit epistemologically naive. "Proof," unless it's performed within a self-referential system like mathematics, is never absolute, but only probabilistic; and that's not even a contentious proposition in the philosophy of science.

In science, one performs a limited set of experiments, and then at some point one estimates how likely its outcomes are to be repeated, then trusts that your estimate is likely to be correct for future trials. But one never has absolute certainty, which would require one to perform the complete set of all trials. So it estimates probabilities only.

Probabilistic knowledge, whether scientific or theological, always involves a measure of faith. The important question is whether or not the faith is warranted.

That has nothing to do with what I said.
I said that you are claiming that conventional Christians believe that faith requires a proof. You are now saying that there is no such thing as proofs.
I do believe in logic and syllogisms but that is unrelated to the question, do conventional Christians believe that faith requires a proof that God exists? You implied that they do require a proof that God exists to have faith that God exists. I disagee. I believe that conventional Christians do not believe that a person must have proof that God exists in order to have faith.

You are confusing belief with truth. I can say that Joe believes the earth is flat. I am not saying that the earth is flat.

Immanuel Can wrote:Sorry, David, I skipped your post.

What do you mean by the quotation? "Grace received, not acquired"? I don't think I'm catching your drift there.

Ok, I'll try to explain, it's a bit difficult to me putting down in another language; once I had a discussion with a priest, I asked him if faith is more important than deeds, he answered to me that deeds are made for faith, you could not make good deeds if you would not already have faith, so that faith is a gift.
God grants the Grace, that is the gift, Faith, and then you decide with your deeds about developing it, stoking it, affirming it or denying it.
You are to affirm your faith just loving your neighbor, whoever he\she is. Loving your neighbor is the proof of God's Grace descending on yourself.

raw_thought wrote:I live in the USA. Here Christianity is not as sophisticated. Most clergy here will tell you that faith in God/Jesus is the only path to salvation.

That's not necessarily unsophisticated. If by "faith" one means "trust" (what is being argued here) then American clergy are saying trusting in Jesus is the only path to salvation. To use what is probably a weak analogy, if you're short $500 for your rent and I say I paid it, but you don't have faith (trust) that I did, then it really sucks for you that you pawned your couch to help make rent. (I know, that's really bad, but it's the best I could come up with on short notice ).

Faith=trust? How can I trust you if I do not have faith that you exist?

We've got a bit of a language problem here that's interfering with logic. You need to define your terms strictly, then stick to them. Absent that, you get what logicians call a "shifting middle term" or "fallacy of amphiboly," and end up thinking things that just aren't true.

I said that you are claiming that conventional Christians believe that faith requires a proof. You are now saying that there is no such thing as proofs.

You need to use terms consistently, or you will confuse your argument.

No, I've been speaking of "evidence." In contrast, you've been speaking of "proofs." The two are not at all the same: evidence is probabilistic, and proofs are definite. You're making a category error there.

To clarify, there's no "proof" for anything inductive...only evidences that increase the likelihood of one thing being true or another being true. Faith requires evidence, and evidence is what is necessary for warranted belief in real life situations; but proof --a formal demonstration of accuracy -- is only available in maths and formal logic, and only then because they are self-refererential systems.

Clearer now?

Faith=trust? How can I trust you if I do not have faith that you exist?

Clear up your terms again, and your confusion will dissipate. You're now using "faith" as an equivalent for "belief," which would be correct; except before you were using it as a synonym for belief-without-proof, which is an incorrect definition, as you have seen. Let me suggest you stick with that new definition.

But then, your second question has already been answered.

Ok, I'll try to explain, it's a bit difficult to me putting down in another language; once I had a discussion with a priest, I asked him if faith is more important than deeds, he answered to me that deeds are made for faith, you could not make good deeds if you would not already have faith, so that faith is a gift.

Oh, I see. You're talking about the specifically Catholic doctrine known as "General Grace." Got it. I know about that.

You're doing pretty well in English. So what other language is your native one? Spanish, perhaps? I'm guessing, of course.

raw_thought wrote:Faith=trust? How can I trust you if I do not have faith that you exist?

"Trust" is a fun word that way, isn't it? It can refer to "firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something." This why was led to my response about the "unsophisticated" nature of American preachers (though I have to agree that many are, indeed, unsophisticated). It seems to me an American Christian could say "I have faith [complete trust or confidence in] in Jesus" or "I trust [firmly believe in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of] Jesus" and take those two sentences to be synonymous.

I think it's clear we've got some terminological slippage. Since I've been busy with our other thread, perhaps you could lay out how you're using "faith?"

Scroll back and perhaps your title* (that you randomly intitled yourself too) was not intitled?
* the phd dude