{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4571", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 4571, "subject": "Information, etc OT", "messages": 4, "voices": 2, "first": "2006-04-19T17:29:41+00:00", "last": "2006-04-20T20:11:58+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<7414711.1145467781990.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2006-04-19T17:29:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc OT", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Alright then, I shall unabashedly walk out into the weeds..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris said:\nThe problem you get into there is ...When you say that [\"love\" and\n\"altruism\" are] evolutionary tricks, you have not explained love or\naltruism, you've claimed that they do not exist and gone \non to replace them with two homonymous terms. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agreed. However...\nIn recent years the natural origin of altruism has become an\nextremely popular branch of evolutionary biology, complete with its\nown ecosystem of competing theories naturally selecting for grant\nmoney and attention. I've never before met a 'secular' who claimed\nsuch scientists were engaged in a lark. Perhaps you are the first." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but many other \"seculars\" who are not particularly \ninterested in \"faith\" don't accept this view. All that aside, I think that \nthe modern secular view is, like Dan'l said, that faith and reason are \ncomplementary. After all, you have to get your first principles from \nsomewhere, and Reason can't give them to you. Faith is one place you can \nstart from." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, Faith is one place to start from...but I said: to observants all such\nsources of first principles are matters of Faith of one sect or another.\n\nThere's two things going on here in the alternate or \"moderate\" secular\nview of Faith as you describe it. \n\n1) While, it does view Reason and Faith as complementary, it ascribes to\nFaith the role of mental caulking for gaps that Reason cannot or *has not yet*\nfully delineated. That's not a great difference from the secular position I\ndescribed. \n\nOf course, if one means by that that \"God gave us a brain and expects\nus to use it\" then it is totally beside the point since the most literal-minded\nfundamentalist believes that. \n\n2) It is true that many seculars retain a firm belief in the *objective\nreality* of transcendence, but in doing so they are taking advantage of a\nreligious heritage to which (one can reasonably argue) they have no right.\nWhen one diminishes Faith as superstition, as a \"God\"-meme, as device\nto ameliorate our moral, emotional, or human definciencies, as mental caulk,\nor as George Carlin described it \"like lifts for your shoes\", it is inconsistent\nto simultaneously latch on to something as subjective as Love or Altruism\nas uniquely transendent. Someone in that case might not admit that he is\nchoosing to do something flatly *contrary*, not complementary, to Reason\n(as he would define it under other circumstances), but he is." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's not my habit to make strong statements like this, but I'll go out on a \nlimb and say that while [the view of Faith that James Wynn described]\nis distinctly modern - in fact it's the one Kierkegaard railed against - it is\nonly \"faith\" in a degenerate sense, and certainly captures little of the\nprimordial meaning of the word. What you're describing is simply\nunreflective belief, which is a set that is not co-extensive with faith." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't consider the observant view of Faith as I've described it modern\nat all, nor am I certain it is the faith Kierkegaard railed against (although\nI am well aware that the view of Faith I have ascribed to seculars is very\nmuch *derived from* Kierkegaard and Existentialism). I confess I am\nignorant of the \"primordial\" meaning of Faith you are talking about.\nHowever, surely the Egyptians truly believed they would literally be\njudged by Osiris. Surely the Icelanders of the sagas believed they\nwould actually share in a special favored fate for dying bravely in battle. \n\nThe Faith of observants I've described is also not unreflective at all. It\nis starts with a first premise (as you agree all must do) --in this case\nI'll continue to use seven-day Creationists as an archetype-- that the\nBible, all of it, is plainly true in the original text, that the writers\ndid not intend to deceive, and then to come to a conclusion based\non a reading of of the first chapter of Genesis that the mostly like\nintention of the author was to describe seven 24-hour days\n(this despite lots of evidence contrary). It is no more unreflective\nthan to start with the premise that the universe consists entirely\nenergy influenced soley and uninteruptedly by natural forces,\ndespite the fact that he persists in attesting his love for his girlfriend\nor his country.\n\nMy point is that observants (as I'll persist in calling them although I\nrealize many secular-minded people attend church regularly and many\nwho do not attend still believe in revealed Truth) believe Faith and Reason\nwill *validate*, not merely complement, each other...that they both exist\nequally in the *objective* world, as do \"means and motive\" to\ncriminal investigator. Their Faith IS a continuous intellectual\nendeavor. However, their Faith tends toward the Scholastic view of\nFaith and Reason: they are adamantly against\ngiving human *reasoning* a trump over Revealed Truth (or Faith),\nsince they argue (rightly, it must be admitted) that\nhumans can rationalize absolutely anything." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "it would be better I think to say \nthat [Hume] claimed that our *real* criteria for what we call \"certainty\"\nin the daily course of our lives is not quite so strict as rationalists\nsuppose. Science has come to grips with this quite easily - you won't find many \nscientists claiming the necessary, absolute truth of their theories." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heh, heh, heh. I've heard many secular scientists *remind* us that science\ndoes not ascribe absolute truth to its theories...but only when comparing it\nfavorably to religion. As a voracious reader of popular scientific literature,\nI am pretty certain that that caveat is not mentioned otherwise.\nOne only needs to look at the current Climatology debate or read\ntranscripts of conferences on competing Darwinian theories to see that,\nfor those who make a name for themselves in research-related endeavors,\nhubris in advertising one's theories and pig-headedness and nasty politicking\nin defending them are the norm. One does not get grants or attract attention\nto one's published articles by concluding \"Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm right\". \n\nI've yet to read an article by a scientist (I might have missed it) in which any\nconsideration is given to the fact that scientists themselves (the fields they\nstudy, the conclusions they draw, and the overall scientific consensus at\nany given time) are as subject to environmental pressures and natural\nselection as the colors on a butterflies wings. \n\nThe science writer Richard Dawkins came up recently. Nothing in his books\nbetrays any self-doubt on the subject of Religion. He is an extreme example\nof a typical mindset.\n\nOn the subject of Hume, both Francis Shaeffer and Alan Bloom (\"Closing of the\nAmerican Mind\") have fingered Hume as a prophet of skepticism toward Reason\nhowever both name Neitzche as the one who irretreivably stripped human\nunderstanding of its pretenses. Schaeffer said he \"crossed the line of despair\".\nBloom (writing over a decade later to a different audience) said he \"pulled the\nfloorboards from the basement and found nothing underneath\", even when\napplying his own theories of human understanding to his theories themselves.\n\nI don't agree that Science has truely come to grips with concept that there\nis no empirical reason that human observation is anymore valid than\nmitochondrial observation. Secular scientists merely ignore it, since they\nhave to. It is simply not an issue for observant scientists since most believe\nhumans were created by a reasonable God who made them to appreciate\nhis work. It certainly would become an issue if educated people affirm, as a\nmatter of course rather than idle speculation, that the concepts of human\nobservation and understanding belong in the category of abstract nouns\nlike \"God\" and \"Soul\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In any event Reason does not become unreasonable by starting from a premise \nthat itself has no rational justification - if that were so, logic could \nnever have gotten off the ground even with the ancients. The same charge \ncould be levelled against the very first geometers and mathematicians, it's \nnot characteristic of the modern age." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, no! I don't agree with this at all. The ancients were of course notorious\nbelievers in the trancendency of Reason. It was --like the definition of a\ntriangle-- beyond justification, and therefore beyond subjective influence.\nThe Pythagoreans in fact believed that mathematics itself was\na trancendent, holy thing, full of divine secrets. \n\nHmmm...I sense here the presence of unknown preconceptions\nabout observants that I will not be able to allay in an email.\n\nJ" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-20T03:36:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc OT", "in_reply_to": "<7414711.1145467781990.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "James said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In recent years the natural origin of altruism has become an\nextremely popular branch of evolutionary biology, complete with its\nown ecosystem of competing theories naturally selecting for grant\nmoney and attention. I've never before met a 'secular' who claimed\nsuch scientists were engaged in a lark. Perhaps you are the first." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am I suppose what you would call an anti-church Christian (not against one \nparticular denomination, but all the organized forms on general principle). \nAs such I admittedly make a very poor example of either \"secular\" or \n\"observant\". That said I wasn't strictly speaking for myself.\n\nYou're correct in that it's sort of popular to think in terms of \nevolutionary biology. But *very* few people, in secular circles or \notherwise, are particularly comfortable with the aftermath of the whole \nSocial Darwinist phase. And on a more abstract level the philosophers who \ndeal specifically with such issues are very cognizant that evolutionary \nbiology gives an account of \"what we DO\", but that \"what we OUGHT to do\" (if \nanything) is another question which scientific theories don't really speak \nto. There are arrogant and ignorant scientists out there, of course, but I'm \nnot especially concerned with them here any more than I would be any other \narrogant or ignorant person." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, Faith is one place to start from...but I said: to observants all such\nsources of first principles are matters of Faith of one sect or another." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps. And perhaps they're actually right about that... but only if what \nthey mean by \"faith\" is a weaker notion than I prefer." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "1) While, it does view Reason and Faith as complementary, it ascribes to\nFaith the role of mental caulking for gaps that Reason cannot or *has not \nyet*\nfully delineated. That's not a great difference from the secular position I\ndescribed." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have to say that this is absolutely not what I was getting at, and I think \nthat this misunderstanding probably gets right to the root of our \ndisagreement here. It is not at all a matter of filling in gaps; the roles \nof the two are not even of the same type at all. The important point is that \nReason alone is *empty of content*. Nothing at all can be concluded from it \nalone - nothing - if you want to talk about gaps, it is ALL gap and no \ninformation. Actual content is dependent on your axioms." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My point is that observants (as I'll persist in calling them although I\nrealize many secular-minded people attend church regularly and many\nwho do not attend still believe in revealed Truth) believe Faith and Reason\nwill *validate*, not merely complement, each other..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't at all dispute that there are a lot of people who think so, and who \nhave thought so, going a long way back. However I think such people paint \nthemselves into a corner in which there is nothing left to have faith IN: \nyou are left with only flat, known facts. Recall that you (rightly) brought \nup the biblical quote calling faith \"the evidence of things UNseen\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "equally in the *objective* world, as do \"means and motive\" to\ncriminal investigator. Their Faith IS a continuous intellectual\nendeavor. However, their Faith tends toward the Scholastic view of\nFaith and Reason: they are adamantly against\ngiving human *reasoning* a trump over Revealed Truth (or Faith),\nsince they argue (rightly, it must be admitted) that\nhumans can rationalize absolutely anything." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, just to fit this in with what I said above about the suspected focus \nof our disagreement, I think that when most people talk about a conflict \nbetween faith and reason, what they really mean by \"reason\" is combination \nof reason with certain everyday empirical assumptions/premises that we need \nto get by in our everyday lives - reason itself being empty of content. A \nconflict between faith and \"reason\" in that sense would be one where to \nbelieve in the object of faith would be rationally incompatible with the \neveryday premises which nonetheless one cannot dispense with. To continue to \nhold to both in the face of the rational impossibility of this is what \nprovides the real difficulty of faith." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Heh, heh, heh. I've heard many secular scientists *remind* us that science\ndoes not ascribe absolute truth to its theories...but only when comparing \nit\nfavorably to religion. As a voracious reader of popular scientific \nliterature,\nI am pretty certain that that caveat is not mentioned otherwise." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I've yet to read an article by a scientist (I might have missed it) in \nwhich any\nconsideration is given to the fact that scientists themselves (the fields \nthey\nstudy, the conclusions they draw, and the overall scientific consensus at\nany given time) are as subject to environmental pressures and natural\nselection as the colors on a butterflies wings." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I suggest Polanyi and Kuhn. These scientist/thinkers are not at all marginal \nfigures, and their thought has been more or less incorporated into the \nmodern idea of what science IS. This weighs more heavily with me than talk \nfrom guys like Dawkins, whose scientific work itself may be brilliant \nenough, but..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "One only needs to look at the current Climatology debate or read\ntranscripts of conferences on competing Darwinian theories to see that,\nfor those who make a name for themselves in research-related endeavors,\nhubris in advertising one's theories and pig-headedness and nasty \npoliticking\nin defending them are the norm. One does not get grants or attract \nattention\nto one's published articles by concluding \"Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm \nright\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, one shouldn't have to SAY it - it should be implicitly understood by \neveryone involved. After all, scientists do bother to spend the effort to \ntry and reproduce the experiments of their colleagues, so they seem to have \nsome grasp of the idea.\n\nOf course, whether they choose to make a point of relaying this to the \npublic is another point entirely. But I think they have to understand it \nthemselves perfectly well." } ] }, { "message_id": "<16115072.1145553304916.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2006-04-20T17:15:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc OT", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Chris said," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A conflict between faith and \"reason\" in that sense would be one where to \nbelieve in the object of faith would be rationally incompatible with the \neveryday premises which nonetheless one cannot dispense with.\nTo continue to hold to both in the face of the rational impossibility of this\nis what provides the real difficulty of faith." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you have described the \"secular\" view of Faith quite nicely here.\nIt is greatly influenced by the founding Existentialists who said that true\nFaith must be \"absurd\" -- by definition. But that definition of Faith is barely\neven concievable to modern observants and would not have been prior\nto mid-late 19th century." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You're correct in that it's sort of popular to think in terms of \nevolutionary biology." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is evidence of the robust quality of the theory of Natural\nSelection, the true engine of Darwinian evolution, that it useful\nfor explaining (though rarely predicting) activity in biology,\npsychology and the changes in teddy bears. Almost any field\nof research, really." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But *very* few people, in secular circles or \notherwise, are particularly comfortable with the aftermath of the whole \nSocial Darwinist phase." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Social Darwinianism is dead. I didn't say anyone was backing *that*.\nEugenics was never really gone...only dormant for two or three decades,\nbut that is not relevant, I think, to considering the 'secular' \nor 'observant' side." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And on a more abstract level the philosophers who \ndeal specifically with such issues are very cognizant that evolutionary \nbiology gives an account of \"what we DO\", but that \"what we OUGHT to do\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "(if anything) is another question which scientific theories don't really speak " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "to." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Observants will point out that what we ought to do is greatly determined by\nwhere we come from. That, I think, is at the heart of the debate over \"big-E\" evolution.\n\nI said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Yes, Faith is one place to start from...but I said: to observants all such\nsources of first principles are matters of Faith of one sect or another." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My point is that observants believe Faith and Reason\nwill *validate*, not merely complement, each other..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Chris said" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Perhaps... but only if what \nthey mean by \"faith\" is a weaker notion than I prefer.\nI have to say that [speaking of Faith as mental caulking for Reason] is\nabsolutely not what I was getting at, and I think \nthat this misunderstanding probably gets right to the root of our \ndisagreement here. It is not at all a matter of filling in gaps; the roles \nof the two are not even of the same type at all. The important point is that \nReason alone is *empty of content*. Nothing at all can be concluded from it \nalone - nothing - if you want to talk about gaps, it is ALL gap and no \ninformation. Actual content is dependent on your axioms." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it is very astute of you to identify this difference as an\nimportant key to this discussion. I wonder if you realize (as it seems to me)\nthat your definition of Reason in this context causes you to come to the\nsame conclusion about Faith? Let me explain.\n\nIf you tell me \"I think my wife doesn't love me anymore\" or \"My son\nadmires me\", those statements can be critically examined. I can\nrespond \"Why do you think that?\", and that question will make sense\nin our conversation. For observants, the statement \"I believe in God\"\nbelongs in that category. The observant has an effable definition of\nthe words \"believe\" and \"God\" that he can communicate to us. It does not\nrequire that he believe his definitions detail every thing about those words.\nHowever, it does mean that he will assert that he believes to be *untrue*\nany definition contrary to his definition. \n\nFor the seculars whom I am describing the statement \"I believe in God\"\nis simply not of the same category as \"I think my wife has fallen out\nof love with me\" or \"My wife thinks I hang the moon\". \nThus, they have a moral repugnance to \"supersessionism\" or\n\"absolutes\" in matters of Faith. \n\nAllow me to take the observant side and attempt to show its value.\nFor an egregious example, when Bishop John Shelby Spong used to\nchronically speak of \"the Christ\", it was NOT typically clear what he\nmeant by that. It was only clear that he was not referring to any 1st\ncentury Jew who was executed in Jerusalem, nor even to an unnamed\nprophsied leader expected by some Jewish adherants. \"The Christ\",\nfor him, had fallen into the category of ineffable qualities that mean\nmany things at once and never the same thing to two people.\n\nHere is how that sort of thinking can go seriously wrong.\nIn Monica Lewinsky's televised interview, she was asked\nif she felt any guilt over having an affair with a married man. Her\nresponse was \"Well, I'm not a religious person. I'm a spiritual\nperson. But I'm not a religious person.\" Exegesis: \"Religion\", for\nLewinsky, represented a communicable structure of sin,\nrighteousness, and a real live God whose existance requires\nsomething from us. To be \"Spiritual\" represented a respect for\nineffable qualities that have no content in themselves.\n\"I am a spiritual person\" might realistically mean only\n\"I believe in Love\" in which the words \"believe\" and \"love\"\nare not only undefined, but *cannot* be ultimately defined.\nWhile we can agree that her response and point-of-view was\nshallow, it was also philosophically correct. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't at all dispute that there are a lot of people who think\n[Faith and Reason will *validate*, not merely complement, each\nother], and who have thought so, going a long way back. However\nI think such people paint themselves into a corner in which there\nis nothing left to have faith IN: you are left with only flat, known\nfacts. Recall that you (rightly) brought up the biblical quote\ncalling faith \"the evidence of things UNseen\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, the quote says \"unseen\", not unknown. And in fact\nverifiable *knowledge* is an important underpinning to\nalmost the entire New Testament canon. I suspected this\nwas true and did a quick search on the words \"know\"\nand \"known\" in the NT. The fact that\nJesus of Nazareth lived and died in verifiable history and\ngeography was very important to early Christians, to the\n4th century seekers of relics, and to every religion that was\nfounded even in part on NT writings. It still is today. \n\nIt is also why the pagan authorities considered it\n\"superstition\" rather than \"religion\".\nYet, even such ancient pagans would not have considered the\nbasics of true religion ineffable even though they were often\nkept secret." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I suggest Polanyi and Kuhn. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks I'll check them out." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-20T20:11:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc OT", "in_reply_to": "<16115072.1145553304916.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "disagreement here. It is not at all a matter of filling in gaps; the \nroles\nof the two are not even of the same type at all. The important point is \nthat\nReason alone is *empty of content*. Nothing at all can be concluded from \nit\nalone - nothing - if you want to talk about gaps, it is ALL gap and no\ninformation. Actual content is dependent on your axioms." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "James said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think it is very astute of you to identify this difference as an\nimportant key to this discussion. I wonder if you realize (as it seems to \nme)\nthat your definition of Reason in this context causes you to come to the\nsame conclusion about Faith? Let me explain." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes and no. If what you mean is that the two are incomplete by themselves, \nthen yes; if what you mean is that Faith is empty of content, then no. What \nyou would lack if you take faith without reason is the ability to draw \ninferences - logical relations - between your premises. Your thought would \nhave content, but it would be \"blind\" in that your core premises would not \ngive you access to anything more than you already believed. Euclid's axioms, \ntaken in a vacuum so to speak, would not give you Euclidean geometry - but \nyou would nonetheless have the axioms themselves, even if you could \nconstruct no theorems from them.\n\nOf course, you never actually *do* run into one of these without the other.\n\nNote that this point really is mostly about the notion of reason, and not \nnecessarily the notion of faith (if one remains agnostic on the subject of \nwhether all axioms are taken \"on faith\", or whether faith requires something \nmore than what we do most of the time)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For the seculars whom I am describing the statement \"I believe in God\"\nis simply not of the same category as \"I think my wife has fallen out\nof love with me\" or \"My wife thinks I hang the moon\".\nThus, they have a moral repugnance to \"supersessionism\" or\n\"absolutes\" in matters of Faith." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, of course many people are not systematic about such things, but the \nlogically consistent version of what you're talking about is some kind of \nnon-cognitivism or emotivism, and it isn't so much about faith, it's about \nvalue statements and normative propositions in general (and thus the second \nsentence about love would get put in the same category as the first). Of \ncourse religious issues are value issues, but not all value issues are \nreligious, and this doesn't essentially have to do with faith. [This also \nconnects directly back with the evolutionary biology thing earlier, because \nan easy way to deal with the objection that you haven't explained normative \nconcepts is to claim that they're not really concepts, or at least not of \nthe same kind as our other concepts]." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "other], and who have thought so, going a long way back. However\nI think such people paint themselves into a corner in which there\nis nothing left to have faith IN: you are left with only flat, known\nfacts. Recall that you (rightly) brought up the biblical quote\ncalling faith \"the evidence of things UNseen\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, the quote says \"unseen\", not unknown. And in fact\nverifiable *knowledge* is an important underpinning to\nalmost the entire New Testament canon. I suspected this\nwas true and did a quick search on the words \"know\"\nand \"known\" in the NT. The fact that\nJesus of Nazareth lived and died in verifiable history and\ngeography was very important to early Christians, to the\n4th century seekers of relics, and to every religion that was\nfounded even in part on NT writings. It still is today." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Knowing that a guy named Jesus lived in about that place and time has little \nto do with having faith that said guy is the savior and son of God. His \ndisciples could see him, they didn't need faith to know he was physically \nthere; nonetheless they needed faith that he was the Messiah, which is \nsomething that could not be seen/proved.\n\nWhen you're holding a newspaper in your hand your evidence is right there in \nfront of you - you SEE it - faith is not required. When your mailbox is \nclosed and you have no evidence as to whether a newspaper is in there or \nnot, then you might nonetheless believe there was a newspaper in there. And \nif someone asked you why you believed that - on what grounds - you might say \nthat you simply have faith that there is. (Or, of course, if your belief \nisn't of that kind, then you might modify your statement and say that you \nbelieved there MIGHT be a newspaper in there, etc.)" } ] } ] }