Nature of Faith

The Nature Of Faith Wright-Up

So this isn't going to that interesting to read. This more for me to have summarise all the key ideas to do with the faith side of our syllabus in one place. (it's (really) really long). Also sorry about how its got all compressed I'll try and fix that.

Propositional Faith  

·         Propositional faith is the view that there is an objective reality to which we can ascribe the term God to.

·         Within this reality we can make claims about this God which can be objectively true. For example; Despite not having firsthand experience it would still be possible (within propositional faith ) to say 'I believe that God is an objective omnipotent being'

Non-Propositional Faith  

·         Non-propositional faith describes a trust in God that may be held even when evidence or experience seem to point against it.

·         This is often faith which must be based in some personal knowledge of God and not simply in the acceptance of the facts about him.

This would suggest knowledge of God that has come through a religious experience (revelation ? ) as opposed to simply following the religious doctrine.

·         Some would say that this is the most meaningful type of faith , since faith is not just believing things to be true but rather participating in a relationship with the object of faith i.e. God

·         Non-Propositional Faith means taking a risk, this is a risk characterised by subjective knowledge. Religious faith after all requires speculation about the matters beyond that of which science can prove.

Kierkegaard- Postponement Theory

·         Postponement theory maintains that religious faith depends on a commitment that requires religious believers not to abandon their faith even when it is seriously challenged. For example challenged by the problem of evil.

·         When rational arguments to support their belief fails the believer must take an intellectual leap of faith that enables them to hold onto their faith. This also applies when experience challenges the faith of the believer.

·         Kierkegaard used his idea of an intellectual leap of faith idea for belief in God in the first place. He believed  that we can only intellectualise God so far at the end of the day we have to take a intellectual leap of faith with our reason and come to believed in God. Kierkegaard believed that religious experiences are something that helps us take this 'leap of faith'

Kierkegaard is saying that we should not postpone our belief because of contradictory evidence or to not believe because of a lack of evidence but rather take this leap. The postponement theory could also be seen as a 'suspension of judgment, since in our contingent mortal life's the existence of God cannot be decisively proven we should not live sceptically as if God doesn't exist.

This leads us to

Fideism

·         Fideism is the view that religious  beliefs cannot be evaluated by reason, the believer must be take a risk on order to accept the paradoxical nature of faith.

·         This would be a counter point to the arguments of Anselm and Aquinas who try to prove and provided evidence for Gods existence. Indeed Anselm uses reason ( A- Priori ) alone to try to prove Gods existence . Anselm representing faith seeking understanding  uses reason to try to make belief in God more reasonable.

Kierkegaard -Passion Theory  

·         Passion theory of faith is meant to illustrate that reason is not an appropriate foundation for faith.

·         Kierkegaard argues that religious faith is not about having the required knowledge but instead having an intense passion. Kierkegaard said that the more risk and sacrifice involved, the greater the passion of faith.

For example

If Gods existence was strongly probably then the faith would be inevitably weakened, and in Kierkegaard's eyes less valuable.

Certainty is therefore not desirable for a life of true faith.

Again Anselm would disagree with this (I think ) I don't think him seeking reason would undermine his faith after all wouldn't reason give rise to more faith in scholars like Anselm.

Bliks

·         The term blik sounds like a south African saying black and was created by R.M. Hare a an English moral philosopher.

·         A blik is a way of looking at the world that is neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

·         Normally a blik would be meaningless but it influences the way in which we interpret the world and how we live our lives. For example I expect my TV to turn on when I push the power switch and I expect that my Mum is in fact who see claims to be.  

R.M. Hare uses the 'parable of the lunatic don' to illustrate this theory.

A don one day comes to believe that all the other dons are out to murder him. No matter what the other dons do to try to convince him otherwise fails, if they try to be nice to him and make him a cup of tea he instead sees it as they have poisoned his tea and are trying to kill him that way .No matter what the other dons do they are unable to convince the mad don that they are not plotting to kill him, the mad don always view what they do as part of the plan to kill him even if they are being kind to him.

What Hare is trying to show is that nothing will no matter how hard the dons try will count against the lunatics belief.

Hare argues that nothing will count against that of the religious believer. The believer will see any evidence no matter what in a religious way just the same as a non religious believer will see it in a non-religious way.

Ludwig Wittgenstein- Language Games

·         Wittgenstein understood faith as a process of 'seeing as' or 'experiencing as' (very similar to bliks )

·         Just as one human may see a piece of art as representing the primeval subconscious, trapped in a post-modern society another human may see the piece of art as a panting of a can of beans. This is similar to how humans perceive the world differently  .

·          A language game is the view that when we speak we play these language games, each games has its own set of rules and each word within in the context. For example the word 'weed' may have a very different meaning to a Gardner, scientist and teenager.

·         As a result of this neither the atheist nor the theist will be able to conceive each other that there evidence is more reasonable and as a result will promote the evidence quite differently

·         As a result it does not seem to matter which side has what facts, faith reason or evidence as in the end neither side is able to fully conceive what the other is saying. That feeling you have that tells you that the evidence definite is the same feeling someone of a completely polar view possesses. 

·         This links to the A02 questions of the quantum physics and Taoism on weather science and religion can ever be viewed the same. My answer remains the same ; while scientists can be religious and vice versa the actually intrinsic qualities of each discipline  only appear similar as a result of cosmetic similarities the way reasoning happens between the two are however far to different for either to have anything in common .    

Anti-Realism and Non-Foundationalsim

A Realist approach to faith is the assumption that a statement is true because it corresponds to the state of affairs that it attempts to describe in an objective reality. Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality and that every new observation brings us closer to understanding reality (I assume what it is trying to say is that the more we observer the closer we get to understanding what is actually there ).  Realism can be seen as the doctrine that believes the objects of scene of perception have existence an existence independent of our act of perception. I.e. The universe has, does and will exist independent of our obsevation of it. This appears to be yet another school of thought that quantum mechanics has put its middle finger up to....  since experiments such as the double slit experiment has shown that the act of observation has an effect of the state that the partial resides in.        

Anti-realism on the other hand does not attempt to make statements cohere with an objective reality but claims 'truth depends on what is agreed within the community- which in turn depends on the language game being played.

 I think this view is crap as we just have to look to scientist history to see that just because lots of people (i.e. the scientific community ) thought something to be true it didn't necessarily mean that it was objectively true. The most recent example being the 'neuroplasticity '  of the brain despite its almost complete rejection in the 50's and 60's by most neuroscientist. I guess though when you think about it in terms of a large group of people something. As far as that group is concerned in that time what they believe to be true (contingently) might as well be true objectively as they are not aware of what the objective truth actually is.

Religion belongs to its own language game. As a result to submit religious claims to scientific testing would represent a misunderstanding of how those claims are used and of their context

After all language games are self contained and with its own claims do not require justification

However to then apply religion to anything scientific in turn is also wrong for example teaching creationism as a scientific theory or religion having influence upon things such as law

When atheists say 'God does not exist' they are not contradicting the theists who say that God does exist but are instead saying that they are not playing the same language game. It is not the question of right verse wrong.  

While I think this whole language game thing is kinda cool and could be right (just as it could be wrong ). I don't believe that even if it is right that it is a way that we can think as a society. Beyond the arm-chairs life is not so simple (although Wittgenstein famously subjected students  to deck chairs in his office ) , language games are hard to distinguish with many multiple subdivisions within that game. Language games to me appear to be what sub-genres of metal tell us about music as a whole, music like society just doesn't work as a term if we segregate each specific genres. What I'm trying to say is that life may (or may not ) be made of language games but we shouldn't life our lives as if it is as it stops much needed dialog between the two and leaves us with a society unable to communicate on key issues independent of what is objectively right .

If religious faith is a blik or language game, it cannot therefore be verified or falsified, it is not dependent upon philosophical justification, This is the principle of non-foundationalsim.

(yes there is more still, actually I wonder if anybody reads this far if at all I doubt it...) hears a picture of a catbeard

http://www.catster.com/files/20130523-cat-beards-7.jpg

Also has anybody ever noticed at the beginning of NWA's video to 'Straight outta Compton ' there's a guy walking with his shoes on fire ? It's really strange they never explain it....

It's also interesting to see how over a decade how rap went from peaceful hippies protest 'we love each other lets all get along' to really violent angry ' things are bad and need to change. also fuck the police' kinda like the hippy movement into puck I guess.

Anyway

Foundationalsim

Foundationalsim is the fascinating view that religious beliefs must be justified by reference to other beliefs.

This could mean that our belief must be backed up with evidence for example St Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument. His belief that could existed was reference to his belief that :  God was the first cause, Infinite regress is absurd and so .

Form the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy  

A little reflection suggests that the vast majority of the propositions we know or justifiably believe have that status only because we know or justifiably believe other different propositions. So, for example, I know or justifiably believe that Caesar was an assassinated Roman leader, but only because I know or justifiably believe (among other things) that various historical texts describe the event. Arguably, my knowledge (justified belief) about Caesar's death also depends on my knowing (justifiably believing) that the texts in question are reliable guides to the past. Foundationalists want to contrast my inferential knowledge (justified belief) about Caesar with a kind of knowledge (justified belief) that doesn't involve the having of other knowledge (justified belief). There is no standard terminology for what we shall henceforth refer to as noninferential knowledge or justification.

Non-Foundationalsim

Non-foundationalsim is the view that foundationalsim itself cannot itself be justified because by reference to other beliefs. Religion is as a result a basic belief which itself provides the foundation for which other beliefs rest upon . Religion to non-foundationalists does not need to be proven or demonstrated.

William James

James understood faith as 'the will to believe'. We do not apply scientific methodology to every aspect of our lives and James argued that this is particular true of religion.

Religious beliefs to James where unavoidable whether we believe or don't believe and significant to our life's (Momentous).

Pascal

Choice	If Correct	If Incorrect
1) Believer that God exists	Eternal Bliss	Extinction No Gain No loss
2)Believe that God does not exist	Extinction No gain No loss	Eternal loss Punishment

 The problems with this are obvious

1.      Eternal punishment linked to the problems of the Augustine theodicy suggest that evil has a place that is built in the very matter of the universe.

2.      It would be wrong to live our life's in a moral way simply because of a reward at the end of it. Our worship of God is not through any real passion or desire to come to know God but to rather avoid  eternal punishment (then again is it possible to make a truly selfish act ?).   

Its over !!!