Prof. Tim wrote:
>Jake wrote:
>>>>It doesn't really matter to me what faith is based on - it matters to
>>me what it is. Faith is exempting in principle some representation(s)
>>from rational criticism.
>
>Okay, back up a step! You're employing circular logic based on your
primary
>set of assumptions again. Before you say another word: STOP! THINK!
>QUESTION!
>
>It's time for Show & Tell now.
>
>Let's mull this one over for a bit, "Faith is exempting in principle some
>representation(s) from rational criticism." Hmmm... Okay...
>
>Now say I wanted to rationally scrutinize this here assumption--how would I
>do it? [snip]
Jake wrote:
>>From my point of view, you are being entirely too tentative. This is
isn't
>rocket science here. Your take on it is as entirely legitimate as mine as
>long as we are in agreement.
But we aren't, Jake. That's the point.
>Using formal logic might be a way to clear things up if they get too muddy.
Muddy is very good way to describe your ablity to think objectively about reason and faith. Are you afraid of clearing the waters a bit, Jake? If reason is supreme, what do you have to fear?
>But ultimately the process is just informal everyday common sense.
No. You a wrong. The seductiveness of "informal everyday common sense" is EXACTLY what rational scrutiny was invented to protect us FROM. Don't you realize that? "Informal everyday common sense" tells us a lot of thing that don't hold up to the light of day. Your assumptions are one of those. I can see why your afraid to scrutinize them, they're like dear friends you've known forever and grown comfortable with. It'll be tough for you to give them up--even after you've discovered that they're holding you back.
>I see two questions, one is the DEFINITION of faith, and the other is
whether
>"Faith" under a particular definition can be good.
No, there was only one question **I** asked, Jake. Again, rather than listening to what I said, you're telling me what you think I should have said. Here again is what I said:
>Let's mull this one over for a bit, "Faith is exempting in principle some
>representation(s) from rational criticism." Hmmm... Okay...
>
>Now say I wanted to rationally scrutinize this here assumption--how would I
>do it?
Not two questions, just ONE. It goes something like this:
How do we rationally scrutinize the statement, "Faith is exempting in principle some representation(s) from rational criticism."
Do you have that now, Jake? Do you know what _the_ question is now? Or do I have to post it in another five more e-mails?
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've got it this time. (But just to be sure, here it is again: How do we rationally scrutinize the statement, "Faith is exempting in principle some representation(s) from rational criticism." ) Now, if you want to slip out a side door and not address this question one more time, like you have every time I've asked it thus far, that's fine with me. If you don't think that particular representation is open to rational scrutiny, that okay with me too.
But by your own definition it proves that you believe it out of faith. Understand?
>I have already offered my definition. You could offer some definitions
>of your own that you think I should be considering.
I think we should be considering yours, Jake. Yours is the one being held above and beyond rational scrutiny.
>We can call my defintion "Faith J" for Jake since that is the one I
>operate on unless someone offers a clear alternative.
Do you see the irony in the name you gave it, Jake? "Faith J" for Jake. That's pretty funny! For it truly is your faith, Jake; a faith you refuse to challenge, even when asked directly.
Should a Christian operate on the principle that "Jesus is the Son of God and he saves me from sin" until and unless "someone offers a clear alternative"? Or should they question their own faith and discard it if it does not hold up to the light of day? I've been saying that your faith in your assumptions is the same as theirs are in their assumptions. And I've been asking you to prove to me that it isn't. You aren't, Jake. In fact, with every post you write you're tangling yourself deeper and deeper in the web of your own unexamined beliefs. Just answer the question, Jake. Challenge your faith! Here, under the bright light of all our big brains, answer this question:
"How can I rationally scrutinize the statement, "Faith is exempting in principle some representation(s) from rational criticism."
>Right now I will say that Faith J is my default definition,
I know, I know...
Try working in something other than defalt setting for once Jake. You're not an automaton, dispite the fact that you seem quite comfortable acting like one. Would you prefer to choose comfort over growth? Many do. The faithful are quite numerous, indeed.
>Once we get our definitions straight, we can move on to whether faith can
be a
>good thing.
Once we get our defintions straight we won't need to ask whethter faith is a good thing. We'll see it for what it is; a tool. One with both strenghts and weaknesses, like every tool.
But first we'd have to get you to abandon your pre-conceived notions--your faith--and open up the discussion to what faith _could_actually_be_ if we hadn't already blinded ourselves with our own definitions.
If your defintion is the best one, it'll float to the surface when all is said and done, you'll have your good friend back by your side again, all warm and fuzzy. But there's always a chance he won't rise to the top, that someone else will prove to be a better, more acurate description of the real world. You may lose that familar friend if you begin this process openly. I can see why you're scared of it. I understand completely.
And right here, at this point, you'd much rather attack my characterizations of you than question your assumptions, that old friend of yours. But you'll resist that unconscious urge because you value rational thought over your instinctive defensiveness. As well you should.
>There I would think that assuming the negative might make some
>sense. Really, however, I think that this binary (A,~A) is a little
>simplistic for my tastes. I like throwing out examples instead.
Examples to prove or disprove you universal statement? Really, Jake, you know better than that.
>But if that informal way gets too muddy, we can always go back to
>formalizing things.
The informal way is too muddy. Abandon it now! Rational thought should not be "informal" or "muddy". Now Faith, on the other hand...
>Beyond the definition problem,...
We aren't beyond "the definition problem". That IS the problem. Address it!
"How can I rationally scrutinize the statement, "Faith is exempting in principle some representation(s) from rational criticism"."
How, Jake? How?
-Prof. Tim,
whose asked the same question five times in this post, but suspects Jake
will still find a way not to challenge his own assumptions and continue his
life blissfully unflective through the power of his generious faith.