![Cultish delusions [1213x1351 - 182KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/qHDfBL.jpg){kind=link}
Maybe we are just debating semantics here, but faith to me is 'blind trust' and 'true' is impossible in a moving system (our reality) so the phrase 'true faith' is at best an oxymoron.
Perhaps you were tyring to say that "if you have faith with absolute conviction and give your heart to fully to god" or something to that effect - but then we are still no better as the main problem here as highlighted by OP is 'belief in the myth of authority' and that applies to god and all religions no matter how 'true' you believe your god (idol) to be; or how convicted you are in your faith to him. Civilization will continue to be (((exploited))) for as long as people are willing to toss logic out the door when it comes to 'their faith'.
Logic is just about which conclusions follow from certain premises. The truth of the conclusions depends on the truth of the premises, and thus is a matter for something other than the science of logic to decide.
Faith can be a loose term and I understand confusion arising when I use it this way. We could say gnosis instead - a kind of knowing that does not necessarily depend on or reduce to discursive, rational thought. Intuition is of this sort. But there are likewise true and false intuitions, as there are true and false conclusions and true and false premises. Indeed, there is true gnosis and false gnosis. Rational argument can aid in shaping one's gnosis, but gnosis is not reducible to reasoning, since it transcends it.
My concern is dispelling with the illusion - that modernity exists to perpetuate - that faith, or gnosis let us say, is contrary to reason. No, it is not, and it can readily be aided by reason- but gnosus, ultimately just is something more than that admirable but merely natural faculty.
For instance, that there is a First Cause, a Prime Mover, a Pure Act, a Necessary Being, can be known by reason. That this Necessary Being also took on human flesh and chose to sacrifice Himself to enable us finite creatures to one day unite with Him - that is gnosis, and while this gnosus can be evidenced by certain facts, it ultimately exceeds the domain to which reason applies. That such a gnosis could be true should at the very least not be discarded as impossible; one might be surprised to encounter the Order that witnesses to its truth.
it seems like you are simply using roundabout logic & jibberish to downplay the reality that there is no proof or evidence of what you 'believe' (as defined by said reality in whereby you have no proof or evidence - hence relying on 'faith').
why not just cut to the chase and reject all ideas, beliefs, or faith based systems (and thus lies & deceptions) - particularly from those with zero repeatable, tangible hard evidence - offered by that of 'higher authority' (including your god idol) ?
Maybe then we could have a civilization that can withstand (((infiltration))) since the infiltration (and subsequent exploitation) is made only possible via the open door that is 'open mindedness' to ideas of another; the selfish act of giving away ones own authority and thus the empowerment of those who will assume 'godlike' power whether a rabbi who teaches you are 'chosen' and thus can rape & pillage the goy or a government who demands you pay taxes (so those taxes can be given to those 'chosen' to rape & pillage the goy).
History lesson: the Catholic Church is the only force this world has ever seen that effectively kept the Jews at bay long-term; it was only after turning away from the Church and embracing Reason as our "new God" in the "Enlightenment" that the Jews got a foothold - it was the post-Enlightenment Napoleon who first emancipated them, after all. Read .
You seem to have missed my point that there is, conceptually, certain knowledge that cannot be proven, given the fact that its subject itself transcends reason's scope. It is this knowledge, and this knowledge only, to which faith applies.
Furthermore, "belief" is one of the rational responses to propositions, along with knowledge, doubt, and opinion. The latter two assent or deny the proposition, while leaving room for the possibility of being wrong about the assent or denial. Knowledge leaves no room for error, since it is belief through demonstration. Belief is belief without demonstration, yet still leaving no more room for error than there would be with a demonstration. It is the difference between someone who has seen a proof of the Pythagorean theorem, and someone who just uses it. Both people are rational, since the one who "just believes" does so on the basis of natural faith in the mathematicians who encourage the theorem's use. Likewise, one may justify faith in Divinity claims on the basis of a tradition of witness testimony, the historicity of their recordings, and the subsequent recorded actions taken by those who actually witnessed and believed in the same faith. While not proof, it is evidence - just like the math student lacks knowledge of a proof of the theorem, and yet believes, since he has the evidence of competent authorities who make use of the same theorem. Of course you could say the situations are different, because they are; in the student's case, there is at least the possibility of learning the proof if they are so inclined. But this is my point. The subject / proposition to which we must assent in the former case is not actually knowable by reason, unlike the mathematical proof. And so evidence is the best we can do. No one asks that we have faith in the Divinity of Christ without any reason at all. Scripture itself implores Christians to be ready to give their reasons ().
The point is we must recognize the type of knowledge we are dealing with, and the available rational responses to the propositions we have. Knowledge (science) per se is not an option. Doubt is, and you choose that. I have faith. Both of our responses are rational.
One of us is right.
(post is archived)