From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: On faith (was: ... least common denominator)
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:58:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec29.133212.27356@cass.ma02.bull.com>,
ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) wrote:
> >I agree, if he [Tillich] wanted to make his point that faith supersedes
> >rationality/irrationality, he had to use rational tools for this.
> > 
> >If this was the case, faith would be taken for granted, and the 
> >discussion was not needed at all! 
> 
> I don't follow what you mean here. I'm more of a Barthian than
> a Tillichiler, so I don't really know what T. may have meant.
> But what could be meant by 'faith transcending rationality' ?
> (I think 'supercedes' is connotatively wrong, at least). If 
> a religious faith were held to transcend rationality, what else
> could be said about it? I suppose this goes off into mysticism,
> and farther from my original point that there can be a 
> rationally held religious faith, analogous to hopeful trust in
> a person, but Kent's approach would seem to rule out all
> transcendence, categorically, which seems excessive. Doesn't
> QED transcend the Newtonian physics one learns in junior high?

Note that in the case of QED we are still dealing with rational
ideas -- even if they are strange indeed. In the case of something
transcendental you are suddenly working in a domain that you don't
have the right perspective of. I would agree if we could explain
the concept of faith using rational and logical means. However when
someone has to shake their hands and talk about meta- or transcendental
issues, it's like what Martin Minsky elegantly stated:
"We say "gestalt" when things combine to act in ways we can't explain"

Anyway, talking about metaphysical and transcendental issues is like
being a blind or acutally any man that tries to describe colors. He has an
interpretation, but he could never be sure that the end result is something
universal.

> Which has him agreeing with Kent's characterization of religious 
> faith. The distinction between what may be meant by 'faith' is
> what got us all going down this line to begin with. A 
> rational religious faith would not be the same as a rational
> faith in gravity, except as pertains to their rationality, 
> and the attitude of trust one would take, having decided for
> the specific belief. 

Note that we have many attributes most of us have faith in.
But even if medieval people had faith in a flat Earth does not
constitute that this concept is true. All we could say is that
if we experience something, and it feels right for us, then
we have a justification that it's real for us. It does *not*
imply that it's real for mankind, though. Remember that the
brain is a pretty serious machine that could cause all kinds
of stray emotions and feelings based on chemical disturbances.
Already this notion would counter-attack issues related to
stating the reality of the world.

If someone has faith in a religion, that's fine. There's a big
step to the next level of universal faith, if that will ever
happen.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan