tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8858648209241030386.post8116649716112585045..comments2023-04-03T05:38:34.494-07:00Comments on Faith Like a Man: Losing FaithRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17980477656146061585noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8858648209241030386.post-17726428179691096072012-12-27T19:14:07.323-08:002012-12-27T19:14:07.323-08:00Yes, I think that's right. Thanks for reading,...Yes, I think that's right. Thanks for reading, aunt Debbie!Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17980477656146061585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8858648209241030386.post-65560898893196925402012-12-27T16:39:05.643-08:002012-12-27T16:39:05.643-08:00I see your point. If you don't have a startin...I see your point. If you don't have a starting point of experience with a person or entity, there is nothing to extrapolate from or to. Still, "faith" is often misconstrued to mean believing something with no factual basis. In some of the Psalms, King David is in despair, and he reminds himself of God's works in the past, and on that basis gains courage. Paul encourages Christians to look to the events of Jesus' life (especially the resurrection, which many of them were witness to) as a foundation for confidence in their future. So in these cases, faith is based on fact. But without the foundation of facts or solid belief in facts, faith makes no sense. Right?Debbie Blanchardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8858648209241030386.post-78065450519095105502012-12-18T12:42:50.834-08:002012-12-18T12:42:50.834-08:00Thanks for both your comments.
Re: what Anonymo...Thanks for both your comments. <br /><br />Re: what Anonymous said - what you're saying seems to be begging the question, in my opinion. Faith is based on a track record, God has a track record, therefore faith is based on that track record. The existence of God is assumed, not shown. Any assumptions I make about my wife's behavior is based on direct experience with her on the same plane of existence. God doesn't have that luxury. To extrapolate anything about God or the Bible, I'd first need to believe he/she/it exists, and the the Bible has anything to do with his/her/its existence. I believe none of these things, so there's little for me to extrapolate without first establishing Gods' existence.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17980477656146061585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8858648209241030386.post-7833398355173361122012-12-18T12:19:44.591-08:002012-12-18T12:19:44.591-08:00You say that "faith by definition does not in...You say that "faith by definition does not involve the known." I think that is a mistake. Faith is based on the known. How do you know your wife will be faithful? She has a track record of being faithful. When she promises something, you believe her. It's not a random choice to believe something unknown. You believe her because you know her character from past experience. I'd say the same thing about the things we are asked to believe in the Bible. God has a track record of faithfulness. We extrapolate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8858648209241030386.post-28223691758127223892012-12-18T10:03:20.831-08:002012-12-18T10:03:20.831-08:00Hi Ryan,
I've likewise had trouble reconciling...Hi Ryan,<br />I've likewise had trouble reconciling any non-rational forms of knowing (eg. non-scientific) with rational knowledge. It's really hard to believe that both ways of knowing exist, separate from the other, or that a single brain could effectively use both ways of knowing without exploding, or at least sounding fickle and wacky. <br /><br />Like you, I explored mystical elements of this or that religion, looking for--I think--magic. But for every magical discovery, I felt compelled to crosscheck it with my rational brain. I didn't/don't, however, feel the need to crosscheck my rational discoveries with my magical discoveries, and I wish I did. This would allow me to believe that "faith" is more than a compiling of evidence. But, IMO, so far that's all it is. <br /><br />For a moment, I thought I could get on board with Derrick Jensen, as he explored alternate ways of knowing (in contrast to science) in pursuit of his "destroy civilization" ambition. (See "A Language Older Than Words," for starters.) I agree with plenty of his conclusions, but still don't see how I can have faith in anything that isn't accompanied by empirical evidence. Sadface.<br /><br />Thanks for the blog!BFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230404123372357104noreply@blogger.com