Faith and Reason

Ergo Sum said... You are quite a challenge! I love the intellectual joust!

ME: thanks! :)
7:44 PM

Ergo Sum:
Well, you have made two different statements concerning our efforts at understanding God. First you said, "one can rightly NEVER say ANYTHING of God..." Then you say, "we can never FULLY get at the essence of Him, we can merely come to a continually greater awareness of Him."THe two statements have very different implications. Initially, I used your first statement as a premise and logically built my argument. By the first statment, one can NEVER say ANYTHING rightly of God. In other words, one ALWAYS does say WRONG things about God...(OR, whenever one makes an effort to say ANYTHING about God one is ALWAYS WRONG). This is the implication of your first statement.The second statement now allows more room for discussion. It says that one can say SOME things rightly about God, but NOT everything TOTALLY. I fully and clearly understand this view and subscribe to this perception assuming the existence of a real God. Thus, as a scientist would try to understand physical experiences in increments, I try to understand (as much as is possible to my weak and finite brain) the concept of God in little increments of logic and rationality. THe reason I use logic and rationality as my method of investigation rather than acceptance based on faith is because I believe (similar to what Aquinas believed) that any concept of God SHOULD BY DEFINITION include the attributes of a perfectly Intelligent, perfectly Rational, and perfectly Logical Being. THus, a potential Being possessing such infinitely beautiful logic, infinitely profound intelligence, should atleast in some tiny and small way be perceivable to us by our serious attempts at being rational and logical to understand that Being (or come closer to an understanding of It).Contrary to popular neo-didactic thinking that Rationality and Faith do not necessarily contradict but are complementary, I believe that right from the most basic premise, rationality and faith enter into major conflicts.The basic and fundamental first principal of the Rational (or scientific) method is to assume a hypothesis and work towards disproving or falsifying that. One can never begin a hypothesis of negation and then prove its veracity, i.e. prove something is not true by showing that it has no evidence of being true. As a concrete example, I cannot assume that God does not exist and say there is no proof of God's existence and therefore He does not exist. This is wrong.I have to begin with a positive hypothesis and then DISPROVE or FALSIFY it. Thus, I begin by saying, Assume God exists. Therefore, going by what the definition of such an entity is that does exists... He should be this.. He should be that... He should whatever... Based on the first principal of positive hypothesis, you build a coherent, logical, rational argument derived from self-evident truths, apriori elements, axioms, or verifiable evidence. If all of your arguments lead you to a hypothesis contrary to the one you started out with, then you MUST DISCARD the initial hypothesis and revert to the Null hypothesis. Thus, a logical analysis of the concept of God leads me to major contradictions and therefore I must reject the hypothesis that God exists and accept the null hypothesis, or I must reject my essential definition of God.Now, Faith. Faith is the exact opposite of the rational method I just described. The method of Faith begins as such: Believe that God exists. Then show that God exists. Then express wonder at the fact that God exists. Then admire the fact that God exists.Faith starts out with the hypothesis that needs to be proven and assumes it is already TRUE! It then merely tries to JUSTIFY the "truthfulness" of that hypothesis.Aquinas, among other doctors, displayed this appalling laziness of thought. In their effort to reconcile faith with reason and put on a facade of intelligibility upon mysticism, they propagated this false notion. THe method works as such: Faith -- God exists and He has created this Universe. Then "rational proof": This Universe is so intelligent and orderly, surely there is an intelligent God that made all of this. THerefore, God must exist because the universe that we just assumed is so orderly and that we just assumed was made by God is the proof that God made the Universe and therefore must exist!!
11:48 AM

Me: i am sorry.my fault.by rightly i meant fully...accuretely.more later-no time now to write...again sorry my fault.
12:37 PM

ergo Sum: I believe (similar to what Aquinas believed) that any concept of God SHOULD BY DEFINITION include the attributes of a perfectly Intelligent, perfectly Rational, and perfectly Logical Being. THus, a potential Being possessing such infinitely beautiful logic, infinitely profound intelligence, should at least in some tiny and small way be perceivable to us by our serious attempts at being rational and logical to understand that Being (or come closer to an understanding of It).

Me: well said. i completely agree!!!
3:03 PM

Ergo Sum said...
A logical analysis of the concept of God leads me to major contradictions and therefore I must reject the hypothesis that God exists and accept the null hypothesis

Me: YOUR REASONING SEEMS "RIGHT ON." I have nothing to say- i agree. I also think very possibly the contradictions you have come across in you research and investigation as to God's existence may still have explanations. lets keep investigating, hmm?
3:07 PM

Ergo Sum said...
Now, Faith. Faith is the exact opposite of the rational method I just described. The method of Faith begins as such: Believe that God exists. Then show that God exists. Then express wonder at the fact that God exists. Then admire the fact that God exists.

Me: hmmm, i disagree with your definition of faith. faith is acceptance of what is. faith is not a blind thing. faith is 'the conviction of things unseen' well? where does a conviction come from? one must see evidence in order to be convinced. this evidence CAN and should include reason and logic, not exclude it. IF one is convinced, convicted, it must come from reasoning...reason leads to faith and faith should to reasoning...like aquinas!! he questioned everything about the faith that he could possibly come up with...but he was taught the faith and THEN questioned...but it can go either way i could question first and then accept...wither way their needs to be present a willingness to ask all the questions before accepting blindly..and so is every believer responsible for this..and must be ready to "give an account" logically, for what he believes...does this makes sense? i know i am very unclear and incoherent so forgive me for that...!! sorry!
3:13 PM

Ergo Sum said...
Aquinas, among other doctors, displayed this appalling laziness of thought. In their effort to reconcile faith with reason and put on a facade of intelligibility upon mysticism, they propagated this false notion. THe method works as such: Faith -- God exists and He has created this Universe. Then "rational proof": This Universe is so intelligent and orderly, surely there is an intelligent God that made all of this. THerefore, God must exist because the universe that we just assumed is so orderly and that we just assumed was made by God is the proof that God made the Universe and therefore must exist!!

Me: i am pretty sure you have something wrong with your idea of thomistic thinking...i will do some more research on his "proofs"...i know nothing off my head right now. i disagree with aquinas on a few points becasue he was wrong about some things. the point is...he may have had a flawed reasoning about something that you have seen and i haven't. if he did in this particular instance, the point i am making is just because he may have reasoned falsely in an instance doesn't mean God doesn't exist. it may imply solely that his particular "proof" or progressionof reasoning went off. also i think we should re-examine his actual thinking on this matter, as well. can you provide a quote of this particular "laziness of thinking." we should allow him to speak fo rhimself, rather than make claims and not investigate his actual writing?