Christian Theology II:
The application of Christ’s unconditional sacrifice is conditionally proportional to our unconditional trust in Him.
Philosophy:
Skeptics have stolen uncertainty (the lack of rational certitude) from its rightful owners: those dispossessed of unfaith.
Evolutionary Analysis:
...The resulting degree (or degrees) of uncertainty demands a methodological system upon which every scientist must make simplifying assumptions. This system is called a bias; bias is usually inextricably linked with our religious experience (or lack thereof), our worldview, and therefore inescapably, our picture of origins. In other words, we have come to the circular conclusion that inquiry into origins is necessarily carried out by application of a bias, which is itself formed by our concept of origins...
8 comments:
John, I'm a bit befuddled by the number of words with more than 3 syllables can you simplfy?
On Philosophy
I take "those dispossessed of unfaith" to mean those who have lost the capacity for doubt. What makes these folk the rightful owners of uncertainty?
By the way, if the phrase means anything else, then elaboration is required to free it from pure mysticism. You would have to explain who dispossessed these unfortunates and under what circumstances.
I suppose some explanation is in order.
First: I believe that there is a Faith which leads to God, and a subsequent Faith which is generated by our encounter with God. The second type of Faith is invested with a sort of experiential certainty that reflexively justifies the first Faith. I'm talking about the first Faith: the process by which we encounter God at first.
"dispossessed of unfaith" may be seen, by reflection, as "possessed of faith." Faith is usually seen as a "putting on" of some quality. My obtuse double negative was an attempt to show that faith is the "putting off" of rational certitude, the acceptance of empirical uncertainty. If you accept the validity of this reflection, it must be observed that the "possession of faith" is different from a "lost capacity to doubt". I believe in individual moral responsibility; "loss of doubt" would entail absolute certitude, not the mystic capacity of some other entity to strip you of doubt.
Faith (the first faith, see above), is definitionally uncertain (Heb 11:1), if you accept my definition of uncertainty (see blog). Uncertainty is therefore the possession of those dispossessed of unfaith. Whereas uncertainty is the definitional portion of the faithful (first sense, again), which results in the establishment of a philosophical system with answers, Skepticism uses uncertainty in a less epistemologically ethical manner: they can batter down philosophical systems which provide answers as fast as they come up. I say: "No Fair." Society needs answers; Uncertainty should be used constructively, not as a nihilistic atom-bomb.
thanks that helps a bit though perhaps my difficulty in following the train of thought has most to do with aging synapses, and having slogged thru too many days with hurting people who need simple answers. I do remember enjoying philosophical perambulations once, but that seems a long time ago
Dad,
simple answers are the best. I will try harder to find them.
Dear Howes, the dialogue following the discourse was equally elucidating. Please continue sharing, this quality is rare, and hard to find. - A Regular Subscriber.
I agree that there is something intrinsically noble about constructive acceptance of uncertainty. Personally, I define faith differently, but this is of little consequence at the moment. For now, I'd just like to make a distinction between active and passive approaches to uncertainty.
Now that I understand what you meant by "dispossessed", I understand (and agree) with your point. I think, however, that "dispossessed" is manifestly lacking in active meaning. It implies having lost something.
It is true that the double negative "dispossessed of unfaith" is mathematically equivalent to the positive formulation of "embracing uncertainty", but the two actually express very different things in real life
This difference is analogous to the difference between saying "I rode home" and "I drove home". In both cases, the endpoint is the same, but in Philosophy, the way you arrive at a position is just as important as the intrinsic value of the position itself.
Faithful thinkers earn the right to uncertainty, not by accepting it (any credulous, intellectually servile idiot can do that)but by actively engaging it and wrestling with it.
Ultimately, the honest doubters and the faithful thinkers are in the same active, honest, searching camp.
My understanding, therefore, is that it is those dispossessed of either faith or unfaith who unfairly (and stupidly) accept either certainty or uncertainty.
I believe we're looking at two sides of the same coin.
Imagine Kierkegaard's scenario of complete dialectic equilibrium: a point where you've argued yourself to a standstill which favors neither side. Faith is a voluntary leap from absolute certitude to absolute trust.
Can't you see that the man who leaps has both lost and gained something? While "credulous and servile idiots" certainly can and do relinquish certainty, there are many faithful thinkers who likewise choose to let go as a product of the ultimate realization of empirical futility. Of course the path to our conclusions is important; it might even be more important [than the conclusion]!
Perhaps you have taken me to mean that the man of faith was pushed off the cliff. Given the context of my original (admittedly obtuse) statement, Skeptics would be loathe (let alone unable) to steal and warp such an absurd epistemology. No, I meant that the man of faith personally chose to be dispossessed-- he actively let go.
In my opinion, honest doubters are different than skeptics. The thrust of my original statement was against skeptics, not against those who continue to honestly struggle at the top of the cliff.
As I said, I think we're representing the same coin. In my understanding, Faith is both an active personal possession and dispossession. The former is often emphasized to the neglect of the latter, resulting in a caricature of Faith that smacks of egoistic acquisition, instead of dependence upon divine power.
Post a Comment