-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:36:30 -0400
Subject: [TruthTalk] Is Faith Rational?
JD wrote:
> ... I am going to confirm that circular reasoning
> is one of several forms of "illogic."
Circular reasoning is completely logical. For example, if I say, "you will
either get an A or not get an A on this exam," this is an example of
circular reasoning. There is nothing illogical about this statement. It
just does not say anything.I found my old debates notes. Man -------- nearly 40 years ago !!!! Yes, I am whinning. The above has nothing to do with "circular logic." It is a simple statement of two possible and
opposing realities. Circular is saying A = B and, therefore B = A. Under any book on logic
(as related to statistical logic or debate logic) - this is illogical and is called "begging
the question."
A more common example might be, "Natural selection is the survival of the fittest." If we ask what the definition of "fittest" is and the reply is, "those who survive," then the phrase is circular reasoning. There is nothing illogical about it. It just does not tell us anything useful. The conclusion has a logical necessity of being true.
You, apparently, do not believe in such a thing as illogic except as to whether some idea is actually
right or wrong. If put into a syllogism, the above would be illogical for two reasons -- a two premise
syllogism and begging the question. As it stands in the above, it is only a statement of fact and a definition.
JD wrote:
> To me, circular logic is seen in the process of assuming
> that which is in question. I once rejected arguments made
> from circular reasoning, not understanding the importance
> of faith and its relationship to considered "realities."
> Torrance puts it this wise and says it better than I :
> "..... we should seek to understand Christ within the actual
> matrix of interrelations from which he sprang as Son of David
> and Son of Mary ...." AND "..... in the light of what he is
> in himself in his internal relations with God.........that is in terms
> of his intrinsic significance disclosed through his self-witness and
> self-communication to us in word and deed .......................
> When we adopt this kind of approach .. we find that progress in
> understanding is necessarily circular........."
> To me, it is "irrational" because the analytical cannot present us
> with a full understanding of all that is involved. It is "irrational"
> because we cannot know of the reality apart from faith.
> I speak of "irrational" from a secular -- none faith - point of view.
We cannot define faith the way the world defines faith. Of course we can. They know nothing
of faith. They know nothing of faith in God. The big bang is a statement of faith.as are the various postulated "truths" in the scientific and mathematical worlds.
Do you go to the criminal to understand what righteousness is? Of course not. I have no idea why you are making this point. We must turn to
the spiritual among us, and to the Holy Scriptures, to understand faith. Faith is not the absence of rational thought as the wise of this world try to make it. Faith is a conviction of a reality that logic has yet to reach an understanding about. I agree fully with this last
statement. But this side of validation, we only have our faith. That is what you are saying
and -- surprise, surprise - that is what I am saying. so we live by faith and not logic
because, in your words, "... logic has yet to reach an understanding about [sic]." Faith is completely rational and logical. Faith will never contradict reason in reality. There are only times when faith appears to contradict reason. Jesus walks on the water. Irrational? Illogical? Not at all. It is only an unexpected observation based upon our most commonly held assumptions about the conditions in which it happens. Logic is not involved because it has not yet reached
an understanding about. So you contradict yourself in your own words. (is this really that important?) JD wrote: > The incarnation and the incarnate Christ, for example, > cannot be understood analytically IMO. Why not? Only because you don't understand it analytically? Isn't that my point????????? JD wrote: > The Being that changed form while remaining God, He who > accepted our form and our limitations remains fully God and > fully man. I accept this to be a fact. I "understand" it via faith. No, you do not "understand" it via faith. You accept it by presumption, the counterfeit of faith. How do I know this? Because you are bringing this up as an example of how faith is irrational. It appears that you simply tell yourself that it must be true because you trust certain sources by which this knowledge came to you. Well, right now, that is all we we have since "logic has yet to reach
an understanding about."
Real faith reaches out into the spirit world and apprehends with certainty a reality that might be hidden from the natural mind. With the help of God, the mind might then be able to understand such things analytically, but many times it cannot articulate these mysteries without ambiguity, even though it does understand it rationally. So we understand but cannot articulate that understanding which means the rest of us
must accept your understanding of that which cannot be articulated, in this case, by faith apart froma logic that is yet without understanding. Sounds pretty clear to me.
JD wrote:
> I have no alternative way of knowing, in this case.
> The Incarnate Christ, for me, is as much the subject
> of faith as is the unseen God of the Ages. Christ did
> not move God from the abstract to the "real" in disregard
> of faith. It is all understood through faith. We accept the
> self-revelation of God and really should ask for nothing more.
> What is wrong with this ---------- if I need correction
> (G, Lance, Bill, David et al) I am open, as always.
What is scary What is scary is this post !!!!!! about this is that you make faith out to be a form of knowledge that is irrational. Such a notion is betrayed by the very universe we live in, when we observe its orderly array, the way the planets and stars function, and the nature of the chemical and biological processes that we observe in creation. If you accept that faith is irrational, you open yourself up and everybody else up for all manner of deception. There is no method by which false ideas can be put down. A person, when shown to be wrong in his thinking, can always resort back to the idea that it is by faith that he accepts an irrational and illogical viewpoint. That is a scary place to be. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
