3 ms·

Faith is the belief in what you can't prove. From a strictly rational point of view, it's a kind of madness, and the gospels explicitly point it out. To use a

Faith is the belief in what you can't prove. From a strictly rational point of view, it's a kind of madness, and the gospels explicitly point it out. To use a source I'm sure you know, in I Corinthians 13 there is an apparent contradiction: even if you act piously, you act in vain if if you don't feel love. The religious experience is emotional and visceral, not logical. It comes before codes and rules. From this perspective, Pascal's Wager is irrelevant: if you don't follow a moral code because you believe in it, then you won't fool anyone, much less an omniscient God.

aik 16y ago
I'm not familiar with this contradiction. Could you explain further? Where does it mention it's important to "feel" love? I've always thought it says "have love" - as in your pious nature is pointless unless you are capable of loving; as in it serves no purpose because it will not be acted upon. Similar to the idea that knowledge is pointless unless used. Or ideas are pointless unless executed...
- rubinelli 16y ago
  You're correct in that it uses the term have instead of feel, but my understanding is that it's the other way around: "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." In other words, if you act only because you expect a reward in the after-life, or because you want to show how pious you are, or simply because you are self-destructive, you aren't practicing true charity. I believe this is a deontological argument, but I'm not really equipped to discuss theology or ethics.
  - aik 16y ago
    I'm still not understanding. Christianity isn't a works-based religion, and so the passage referring to "profit" on an eternal scale wouldn't make sense. By "profit me nothing", I understand it as meaning: personally I am not in any way becoming a 'better' person through the good works that I am doing (regardless of whether the consequences are good), because I myself am not doing them for the right reasons (that's where the deontological part comes in). I've never understood this as meaning one should have good intentions because one will be rewarded in the after-life. Anyway, we're digressing. If you agree that it says "have love" (or charity), why in the first place would you take it as "feel"? They're two very different things.
    - rubinelli 16y ago
      I agree with your interpretation, and I was just extrapolating and making some logical jumps in the process. The point is that, from this point of view, a person can't rationally choose to be good. She can go through the motions, but if she doesn't have the gift of unconditional love (agape, the original Greek word), she's just losing her time. My take from this is that the act without the gift (which is internal and emotional, hence "feeling") is just as moot as the gift without the act (as described in Matthew 5.)
revolvingcur 16y ago
I'm not sure your example proves your assertion. This isn't sarcasm, I simply don't follow your reasoning. I will acknowledge, though, that the scriptures certainly do assert (Hebrews 11:1) the distinction between faith and proof. I was using the word "prove" ironically. My actual contention was that believers lack not just proof, but also reason. They act certain, but cannot explain their certainty except with self-referential argument. It was this inability to maintain coherence that finally undid my faith.
- rubinelli 16y ago
  I see. The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so. There's no logic to follow here. So how can people be so sure? As I said, it's because they believe deep down in their emotions, not in their logical mind. You can't be convinced; you have to be converted. EDIT: What I'm trying to say is that Christianity isn't meant to be intellectually satisfying. It's about flesh and blood, as you can see from the Holy Supper. Christians ritually eat the Messiah to be united with Him.

aik 16y ago

I'm not familiar with this contradiction. Could you explain further? Where does it mention it's important to "feel" love? I've always thought it says "have love" - as in your pious nature is pointless unless you are capable of loving; as in it serves no purpose because it will not be acted upon. Similar to the idea that knowledge is pointless unless used. Or ideas are pointless unless executed...

rubinelli 16y ago
You're correct in that it uses the term have instead of feel, but my understanding is that it's the other way around: "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." In other words, if you act only because you expect a reward in the after-life, or because you want to show how pious you are, or simply because you are self-destructive, you aren't practicing true charity. I believe this is a deontological argument, but I'm not really equipped to discuss theology or ethics.
- aik 16y ago
  I'm still not understanding. Christianity isn't a works-based religion, and so the passage referring to "profit" on an eternal scale wouldn't make sense. By "profit me nothing", I understand it as meaning: personally I am not in any way becoming a 'better' person through the good works that I am doing (regardless of whether the consequences are good), because I myself am not doing them for the right reasons (that's where the deontological part comes in). I've never understood this as meaning one should have good intentions because one will be rewarded in the after-life. Anyway, we're digressing. If you agree that it says "have love" (or charity), why in the first place would you take it as "feel"? They're two very different things.
  - rubinelli 16y ago
    I agree with your interpretation, and I was just extrapolating and making some logical jumps in the process. The point is that, from this point of view, a person can't rationally choose to be good. She can go through the motions, but if she doesn't have the gift of unconditional love (agape, the original Greek word), she's just losing her time. My take from this is that the act without the gift (which is internal and emotional, hence "feeling") is just as moot as the gift without the act (as described in Matthew 5.)

revolvingcur 16y ago

I'm not sure your example proves your assertion. This isn't sarcasm, I simply don't follow your reasoning. I will acknowledge, though, that the scriptures certainly do assert (Hebrews 11:1) the distinction between faith and proof. I was using the word "prove" ironically. My actual contention was that believers lack not just proof, but also reason. They act certain, but cannot explain their certainty except with self-referential argument. It was this inability to maintain coherence that finally undid my faith.

rubinelli 16y ago
I see. The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so. There's no logic to follow here. So how can people be so sure? As I said, it's because they believe deep down in their emotions, not in their logical mind. You can't be convinced; you have to be converted. EDIT: What I'm trying to say is that Christianity isn't meant to be intellectually satisfying. It's about flesh and blood, as you can see from the Holy Supper. Christians ritually eat the Messiah to be united with Him.