4 ms·

> The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old Nah. > Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed a

by ajuc 8y ago

> The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old Nah. > Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29 > He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:20 Christianity at least was always about (blind) faith. And I'd argue all abrahamic religions were like that. Let's not forget the start of the all these religions - Abraham blindly believing god so much that he tried to kill his son. Or maybe try Hiob's story (I believe in English it's Job?). God killed his family to win a bet with the devil, and Job was supposed to keep his faith because he will get a new better family in the end. Or the wife of Lot who was changed into a salt pillar because she dared to look back at the cursed city (damn LGBT, it ruined Sodom ;) ) instead of blindly believing the god and going away. There's lots of such stories in the Bible - the message of "shut up and believe what you're told" is clear.

foldr 8y ago
Fideism has been repeatedly condemned by the Catholic church, FWIW. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm
- ajuc 8y ago
  > A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority. That's a different position than "religion is a matter of faith". IIUC it's more like "everything is a matter of faith". And in matters concerning religion - at least the Catholic church still believes in papal infallibility.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > And in matters concerning religion - at least the Catholic church still believes in papal infallibility Papal infallibility is actually a rather new dogma (and, on the age scale of the Catholic Church, even somewhat new as a general belief), and it means a lot less than a lot of people (especially outside the Church) think it means, because it applies only on special circumstances and only on specific subject matter; there's a very small number of pronouncements to which it is generally held to apply (and I believe only two that are absolutely unquestioned), and several more to which it has been argued to apply (as well as one very frequent act to which it has been argued, but is not generally accepted, to apply: canonization of saints.)
  - foldr 8y ago
    I think you may have misread. It's clear that fideism is being discussed in the context of Christian belief in the article I linked: >... before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself. See e.g. the following for further discussion. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67580/what-is-the-fideism-rejected-by-the-catholic-church https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67580/what-...
    - ajuc 8y ago
      From your link: > All the truths you list above, which are beyond the capabilities of human reason alone to discover, can only be known through faith. See, for example: "Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?" (Summa Theologica I q. 32 a. 1). > Just because there are truths beyond our human natural reason, that doesn't mean faith is not an intellectual virtue grounded in reason. This debate seems to be orthogonal to our debate. They are arguing whether faith is a feeling or a thing you can reason about. But they all agree faith is required to believe in catholic dogmas. And I fail to imagine how you could think otherwise, religions make lots of assumptions about god, and the proofs of existence of god I've seen were all flawed, and even if they weren't - they would only prove the existence of something, not the existence of a personal god with any particular properties. I especially liked the proof that went: "all things are perfect to some degree, therefore there must be a thing that is the most perfect, and that's by definition god" :) I was a devout catholic when I heard it the first time, and still it seemed so fishy to me :)
      - foldr 8y ago
        It's not in any way an orthogonal debate. The Catholic Church clearly condemns blind faith in the main tenets of Christianity. That is, it condemns the idea that one should believe unreasonable doctrines through faith alone. >Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God. >... >Revelation, indeed, is the supreme motive of faith in supernatural truths, yet, the existence of this motive and its validity has to be established by reason. Whether or not certain arguments for God are valid or not is beside the point. The point is that rational grounds for believing in God's existence are regarded as a necessary foundation for faith. Catholicism also condemns Rationalism, so faith is considered essential too, but it's not the blind faith you were referring to in your earlier post. You believe in the trinity through faith but your faith is grounded in a knowledge of the reliability of the relevant revalation(s).
humanrebar 8y ago
It's worth noting that, at least in the New Testament Greek, "faith" also translates as "trust". It is an emphasis on knowing and trusting God himself, not subscribing to a particular dogma. Jesus clearly ridiculed people who leveraged dogma for the sake of control, vanity, or out of ignorance. In other words, Jesus blessed people who trust him though they didn't meet him. He didn't exactly expect people to say "Jesus... nice name. I think I go apologize to my wife now." The expectation was always that Christians would be a people who taught and encouraged each other to understand Jesus and trust him. In fact "blind faith" itself is a reference to Jesus mocking folks with ignorant dogma.
CelestialTeapot 8y ago
"There's lots of such stories in the Bible - the message of "shut up and believe what you're told" is clear. " You've picked some of the best stories that illustrate if god existed, he'd be a moral thug and sociopath...

by ajuc 8y ago

foldr 8y ago

Fideism has been repeatedly condemned by the Catholic church, FWIW. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm

ajuc 8y ago
> A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority. That's a different position than "religion is a matter of faith". IIUC it's more like "everything is a matter of faith". And in matters concerning religion - at least the Catholic church still believes in papal infallibility.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > And in matters concerning religion - at least the Catholic church still believes in papal infallibility Papal infallibility is actually a rather new dogma (and, on the age scale of the Catholic Church, even somewhat new as a general belief), and it means a lot less than a lot of people (especially outside the Church) think it means, because it applies only on special circumstances and only on specific subject matter; there's a very small number of pronouncements to which it is generally held to apply (and I believe only two that are absolutely unquestioned), and several more to which it has been argued to apply (as well as one very frequent act to which it has been argued, but is not generally accepted, to apply: canonization of saints.)
- foldr 8y ago
  I think you may have misread. It's clear that fideism is being discussed in the context of Christian belief in the article I linked: >... before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself. See e.g. the following for further discussion. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67580/what-is-the-fideism-rejected-by-the-catholic-church https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67580/what-...
  - ajuc 8y ago
    From your link: > All the truths you list above, which are beyond the capabilities of human reason alone to discover, can only be known through faith. See, for example: "Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?" (Summa Theologica I q. 32 a. 1). > Just because there are truths beyond our human natural reason, that doesn't mean faith is not an intellectual virtue grounded in reason. This debate seems to be orthogonal to our debate. They are arguing whether faith is a feeling or a thing you can reason about. But they all agree faith is required to believe in catholic dogmas. And I fail to imagine how you could think otherwise, religions make lots of assumptions about god, and the proofs of existence of god I've seen were all flawed, and even if they weren't - they would only prove the existence of something, not the existence of a personal god with any particular properties. I especially liked the proof that went: "all things are perfect to some degree, therefore there must be a thing that is the most perfect, and that's by definition god" :) I was a devout catholic when I heard it the first time, and still it seemed so fishy to me :)
    - foldr 8y ago
      It's not in any way an orthogonal debate. The Catholic Church clearly condemns blind faith in the main tenets of Christianity. That is, it condemns the idea that one should believe unreasonable doctrines through faith alone. >Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God. >... >Revelation, indeed, is the supreme motive of faith in supernatural truths, yet, the existence of this motive and its validity has to be established by reason. Whether or not certain arguments for God are valid or not is beside the point. The point is that rational grounds for believing in God's existence are regarded as a necessary foundation for faith. Catholicism also condemns Rationalism, so faith is considered essential too, but it's not the blind faith you were referring to in your earlier post. You believe in the trinity through faith but your faith is grounded in a knowledge of the reliability of the relevant revalation(s).

humanrebar 8y ago

It's worth noting that, at least in the New Testament Greek, "faith" also translates as "trust". It is an emphasis on knowing and trusting God himself, not subscribing to a particular dogma. Jesus clearly ridiculed people who leveraged dogma for the sake of control, vanity, or out of ignorance. In other words, Jesus blessed people who trust him though they didn't meet him. He didn't exactly expect people to say "Jesus... nice name. I think I go apologize to my wife now." The expectation was always that Christians would be a people who taught and encouraged each other to understand Jesus and trust him. In fact "blind faith" itself is a reference to Jesus mocking folks with ignorant dogma.

CelestialTeapot 8y ago

"There's lots of such stories in the Bible - the message of "shut up and believe what you're told" is clear. " You've picked some of the best stories that illustrate if god existed, he'd be a moral thug and sociopath...