[lit-ideas] Re: Faith
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 15:33:46 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 5/16/2005 12:23:34 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Faith
>
> At 11:39 AM 5/16/2005, you wrote:
> >Paul Stone wrote:
> >
>
> I disagree. There's always a reason. The reason you like chocolate ice
> cream is because you DO. That's your preference. That is a decision you
> made when you compare the two. Whether you actually enunciated it, at
some
> point in your life, you made the Homeresque decision "MMM Chocolate". You
> don't need to know WHY you love something to have a reason for that love.
A.A. I don't particularly want to get involved in this discussion, but this
strikes me as very imprecise. The definition of reason is knowing why
something happens. From Merriam Webster online for reason: 1 a : a
statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were
quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act
soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense;
especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion
or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing
that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the
real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene>
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in
orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3)
: SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers
A.A. Not knowing why you love something is equal to having no reason for
your love. Unless we're writing our own dictionary.
I
> would, however, go a little further and say that your love for chocolate
is
> NOT faith-based. You are not devoted to Chocolate. You don't think about
it
> that often. You don't rule your life according to Chocolatism. There are
no
> chocolate tenets. Predilections of taste [even in lovers] are not very
> appropriate to explaining faith.
A.A.Faith might offer a reason, but it's circular: God says, do X. The
reason for doing X is because God said so. So, we like chocolate because
it tastes good, but we believe in God because he tells us to. Put another
way, if we dare defy G-d, our noses will fall off. Regarding K's young man
preferring God over his girlfriend, sounds to me that his was the perfect
excuse. The real reason was he didn't want to marry his girlfriend.
Andy Amago
>
> To be 'faithful' to your husband or wife is not an ironclad, prescribed
> assignment. Like I've said in the past, whatever you and they agree is
your
> mutual rule base is your spousal faith. This should have very little to
do
> with belief or religious faith, and more to do with both of your
> "preferences" each which have their origins in some kind of 'reason' that
> you formed some time in your life. And... if it DOES have to do with your
> faith, (which in millions of cases it does) then THAT's the reason that
you
> are with the person. It's probably not the reason you love them. In fact,
> you probably DON'T love them. It's profoundly ironic that something is so
> apparently baseless in reasons, gives a reason for each and everything
that
> you should, must, should not, must not do.
>
>
> >In _Stages_, Kierkegaard tells the story of a young man who is engaged.
He
> >loves the woman very much but feels he can't both love the woman and love
> >God. He breaks off the engagement justifying it to himself that she is
> >better off this way. K. argues that the young man is acting
irrationally,
> >demonic is the word K. uses, because he fails to integrate his love for
the
> >woman and God. The young man would have had a happy faith, K.'s term,
if he
> >could only have seen that love of God requires the integration of faith
with
> >the whole of one's life. Here, the love the young man has for the woman
and
> >God is neither rational nor irrational. The issue of rationality arises
> >when it comes to fixing the place this love has in his life. Happy
faith is
> >the ability to have faith and be rational.
>
> This is NOT a good explanation. And the "reason" is because it really is
> inexplicable. I think Erin is mistaken, Kierkegaard was NOT more clear.
> Mystery need not be something without a reason. That reason can remain
> hidden and still exist; but of course that is an unprovable hypothesis.
> Let's say I have faith that everything has a reason.
>
> >"Apparently, I suppose with faith, any degree of rationality MUST be
> >completely ignored. This explains to me how intelligent people (and
> >especially scientific people) can possibly be religious. It can, in fact
be
> >the ONLY explanation."
> >
> >Actually, no. For Christians, the rejection of rationality is a
rejection
> >of God. I realize that this is not an uncontroversial claim but I would
> >assert that Western science was made possible because of the Christian
> >embrace of nature and rationality.
>
> Like I said, the only way you could be a rational human being and still
> have faith is if there was no REASON to have faith. You can be faithful
to
> your faith just because. But that's the reason. There you are off the
hook
> and as you are wont to say: Q.E.D. There is no reason to have faith but
> there is faith to have reason.
>
> p
>
> ##########
> Paul Stone
> pas@xxxxxxxx
> Kingsville, ON, Canada
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
