[lit-ideas] Re: Faith
- From: Brian <cabrian@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:32:04 -0500
On May 16, 2005, at 9:54 AM, Paul Stone wrote:
>> perhaps the most rationalistic and modern of faiths? As always,
>> the issue
>> is not whether one is being rational or not but where one starts
>> from. And,
>> as Kierkegaard most thoroughly demonstrates, where one starts from
>> is not
>> itself determined by an act of reason.
>>
>
> This is very interesting although seemingly incompatible. Can there
> be ANY
> acts but rational (i.e. decisive) ones?
Of course. That is impetuous or impulsive behavior.
> Apparently, I suppose with faith, any degree
> of rationality MUST be completely ignored.
How so? Why are they mutually exclusive?
> This explains to me how
> intelligent people (and especially scientific people) can possibly be
> religious.
Yet, is this hypothesis confirmed by religious people themselves?
Have you heard religious scientists say that rationality must be
ignored? I doubt it. You can't on the one hand say you are trying
to understand faith and then posit that faith MUST be what you think
with imperfect data.
> It can, in fact be the ONLY explanation.
Why? Because it is the only one you can think of or the only one
that's been offered? The latter certainly isn't true.
> I'm very interested in this, but every time I try to bring up the
> subject, those of you who ARE religious get offended. I mean no
> offense, I
> need an explanation.
I'm not offended. Let's talk.
Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
