Is There A Practical Side To Faith?

[Shyone]

I had a thought the other night about "natural" and it's negation. OC wants the negation to be "supernatural" but I think that he is "unnatural."

 

Unnatural behavior and religion seem to feed off of one another.

Exactly.

 

To me, something is either natural or unnatural, and unnatural is the same as non-existent. Or like you used the word real. It's either real or it is not. Natural is real. Unnatural is unreal.

 

And religious people want supernatural to be real, but outside real, at the same time. I've noticed that many terms used by the apologists have double connotations. The mean A, but not A, depending on context. That way, the terms are always true, even when they're not. Time is time, unless it is un-time as in no-time (nontemporal). Begin only means begin when it comes to things that are pointed to having a beginning, but things that don't have a beginning won't have a beginning because that's how they defined the things they want to be non-beginning-ish. Space is only space when it convenient, and non-space is the thing that is outside of space, and it exists, but it's a space which is a no-space. It's amazing how many explanations of imaginary things they make up to excuse their belief.

That is a good display of the use of "the stolen concept" where the new concept depends upon the old concept but is only a negation of the original concept.

 

After God has been stripped of every natural property, mass, energy, space and time, he is effectively nothing.

 

Have you ever heard of "reification of the zero"? That is what has happened to God. Poor mythical creature. He used to be so... present. Moses could talk to him at a moment's notice. "What do we do now?" they ask. "God says..."

[Ouroboros]

That is a good display of the use of "the stolen concept" where the new concept depends upon the old concept but is only a negation of the original concept.

 

After God has been stripped of every natural property, mass, energy, space and time, he is effectively nothing.

I just realized: God as an asymptote.

 

Have you ever heard of "reification of the zero"? That is what has happened to God. Poor mythical creature. He used to be so... present. Moses could talk to him at a moment's notice. "What do we do now?" they ask. "God says..."

Thanks. I haven't heard that one, but I totally get it.

[Snakefoot]

That is a good display of the use of "the stolen concept" where the new concept depends upon the old concept but is only a negation of the original concept.

 

After God has been stripped of every natural property, mass, energy, space and time, he is effectively nothing.

I just realized: God as an asymptote.

 

I always thought if him as kind of a square, what with that whole no unauthorized fucking and everything.

[agnosticator]

I see god as a cipher, and God talk is much ado about nothing.

[Antlerman]

Have you ever heard of "reification of the zero"?

Good god, you're a Randian Objectivist! No wonder I feel like a splinter stuck under my skin! Too bad our old buddy Asimov hasn't been around here for some time. He'd get a woody!

 

Yes Ayn Rand very much dislikes those who I see the world closer to than her. Those like Sartre, for instance. It all makes sense now...

 

I can't see a meeting of minds forthcoming here, but the banter is fun...

[Shyone]

Have you ever heard of "reification of the zero"?

Good god, you're a Randian Objectivist! No wonder I feel like a splinter stuck under my skin! Too bad our old buddy Asimov hasn't been around here for some time. He'd get a woody!

 

Yes Ayn Rand very much dislikes those who I see the world closer to than her. Those like Sartre, for instance. It all makes sense now...

 

I can't see a meeting of minds forthcoming here, but the banter is fun...

Actually, I am not a Randian Objectivist, but I took some concepts from that school that I thought were useful. The fallacy of the stolen concept is one, and the other is the reification of the zero. Beyond that, I don't adhere to any specific articles of Randian Objectivism.

[OrdinaryClay]

But to your point of reliability in the object of faith. Yes, it's true that a country has fallible humans at the controls, and that it could change in its perceived value to you. But God is really no different - in effect. Even assuming God is infinite and unchangeable, being as intelligent as you clearly seem to be, I doubt for one minute you would argue that beliefs about God have never changed? How are you accessing God? Through what medium?

 

Just as "Country" is accessed through the medium of governments, "God" is accessed through religious institutions full of human interpreters. Without that, there would be no Bible. And that Bible is constantly undergoing interpretation as to its meaning, and practice, and utilitarian application. You can say the Bible is a living document, but in the same regard so is the Constitution of a Nation. That constitution doesn't change either. But it needs to be dynamically interpreted to the needs of a changing society.

 

It's great that God is unchangeable, but it's not God interpreting the meaning of this Constitution of God document. It's people. (Even assuming God himself was the sole author of the document in his name, or even at all in any direct fashion). There is, never has been, any unchangeable understanding of it. So how then is faith in that any more unchangeable then believing in Country? Unless you see that foundation as some sort of existential reality that does not rely upon interpretation of objective texts as foundation? I don't see a way around it.

Each of us chooses to allow the Bible to change. The Bible has been remarkably stable through the millennia. So in this sense the object of faith is not changing as it is with country. What is changing is the whim of those choosing to have faith. Sure we always change our positions. We always will. For those who don't the stability remains.

 

Eph 4:13-14

(13) And this until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;

(14) so that we no longer may be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the dishonesty of men, in cunning craftiness, to the wiles of deceit.

[OrdinaryClay]

Or do you feel it is necessary to have build that faith on the shifting sands of doctrinal interpretations?

I think my previous post answers most of my position here, but I should say that I do not consider all doctrinal differences as meaningful. The foundation which is God has much more unity then Christianity's critics allow.

[OrdinaryClay]

I think it's far simpler and less alienating for him to talk about it as a different layer or dimension of human reality, not as outside the universe itself. Supernatural is a confusing word to use.

 

Assume for the moment if one worships God and is given the Holy Spirit. They now have that living in them. Are they half-human/half-supernatural creatures living here amongst us, like invaders from space, except space from outside the known universe?

Most Christianity already teaches mind/brain dualism. I already admitted that the interaction with the natural was miraculous so I don't see the difficulty to be honest.

 

To me it is far simpler, to say that humans are opened to something that is part of all reality here, in this universe, and just as we use reason to naviagate life as opposed to simple impulse, this higher principle - let's say Love, that is part of this universe, is embraced as a higher standard of living coming from some existential truth. And as such, it is not 'supernatural', but in fact fundamental to existence.

 

That's much easier to try to reason or model in ones understanding than something that makes it sound like it came from the Cosmic Mothership beyond our galaxy.

What does it mean for "love to be part of the universe"?

[Antlerman]

Each of us chooses to allow the Bible to change. The Bible has been remarkably stable through the millennia. So in this sense the object of faith is not changing as it is with country. What is changing is the whim of those choosing to have faith. Sure we always change our positions. We always will. For those who don't the stability remains.

 

Eph 4:13-14

(13) And this until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;

(14) so that we no longer may be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the dishonesty of men, in cunning craftiness, to the wiles of deceit.

Here is a good point of discussion that will relate directly back to the OP.

 

When you say that the Bible has been remarkably stable through the millennia, do you mean the canon of scripture; what verses are in and what are out? That of course doesn't mean much to your argument. People's interpretations are always changing. Interestingly you choose to portray that change of view as a "whim", which I would not be so fast to label it with politically charged language that way. I would say that peoples views about it change out of necessity. If it was working as a whole, there would be no drive to seek new understandings from it, or away from it if need be. You seem to ascribe whimsical flights of fancy as to the reasons why people either modify or abandon previous views. I think that says more about that person's processing about why change happens, than any sort of critical thought about it.

 

But what I find very telling is this: "So in this sense the object of faith is not changing as it is with country." This betrays that the object of your faith is the Bible. You equate God and the Bible as equal- the same, "The object of faith". Some call this Bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible as God Himself. It takes a work of human literature, whether containing inspirational material or not, mythologizes it, then turning it into an Absolute on par with the person of God itself. I much prefer those Christians who see the Bible as "containing the Word of God", rather than being "the object of faith" on which their entire religious experience rests.

 

Again though, from Pelagius, to Augustine, to Luther, to Calvin, to Arminias, theological understandings of God change, and people's faith in fact, rests on those understandings. The Bible texts may have been chiseled into granite through church consoles creating an Object of their Faith (an idol by another description), but it all still resides in interpretation. So where really is that ground of faith, since you are dependent on interpretation? It can't be the Bible.

 

Is it a "stability" of faith you gain, as you put it? I would deny this is true at all. It is the trading of a dynamic nature for an illusion of security. To not change, is not a positive at all. To me, faith, is not about being an oak tree, but a willow tree; being able to bend with change from a grounded center with limbs that adapt to the environment, rather than standing tall in hard, fast resistance to the unstopped forces of nature driving into it. Stall tall, stand firm, be an oak; eventually you'll snap in half and shatter into splinters. Or to use evolution as a metaphor, you'll go extinct. This is not faith, but stubbornness resistance to change. It is placing the "object of belief" as the source of strength itself. It's idolatry.

[NotBlinded]

Again, assuming equal and strong belief in your faith of choice. From a utilitarian point of view a belief in God is stronger because the object of faith (an infinite God) is reliable. For example, a faith in country, is not reliable because the people in charge may change and you may become disillusioned by their choices. In this case the foundation of your faith is finite and the fickled will of men.

Hey, wait a minute. Aren't you the one that says that since God is supernatural, he isn't predictable? Doesn't that contradict what you just said above? He can be as fickle and changing as he wants in your definition of supernatural.

[Shyone]

Again, assuming equal and strong belief in your faith of choice. From a utilitarian point of view a belief in God is stronger because the object of faith (an infinite God) is reliable. For example, a faith in country, is not reliable because the people in charge may change and you may become disillusioned by their choices. In this case the foundation of your faith is finite and the fickled will of men.

Hey, wait a minute. Aren't you the one that says that since God is supernatural, he isn't perdictable? Doesn't that contradict what you just said above? He can be as fickle and changing as he wants in your definition of supernatural.

Slot machines are detectable but unpredictable. I see a similarity.

 

Gambling addiction and religion, praying for a better life.

[agnosticator]

Hey, wait a minute. Aren't you the one that says that since God is supernatural, he isn't perdictable? Doesn't that contradict what you just said above? He can be as fickle and changing as he wants in your definition of supernatural.

Slot machines are detectable but unpredictable. I see a similarity.

 

Gambling addiction and religion, praying for a better life.

 

Shouldn't someone offer a twelve step program for religion addicts?

[Shyone]

Hey, wait a minute. Aren't you the one that says that since God is supernatural, he isn't perdictable? Doesn't that contradict what you just said above? He can be as fickle and changing as he wants in your definition of supernatural.

Slot machines are detectable but unpredictable. I see a similarity.

 

Gambling addiction and religion, praying for a better life.

 

Shouldn't someone offer a twelve step program for religion addicts?

Maybe we are the 12 step program.

[Antlerman]

Hey, wait a minute. Aren't you the one that says that since God is supernatural, he isn't perdictable? Doesn't that contradict what you just said above? He can be as fickle and changing as he wants in your definition of supernatural.

Slot machines are detectable but unpredictable. I see a similarity.

 

Gambling addiction and religion, praying for a better life.

 

Shouldn't someone offer a twelve step program for religion addicts?

Maybe we are the 12 step program.

Very good points, and I agree. What this site really is is a convergence a of the 12 step-like recovery group, and the 7 stages of grief support group. That's this site. It's really quite incredible actually, and I'm glad to be a part of it.

 

BTW, maybe the next step in your recovery is admitting you're a closeted Randian Objectivist!