I often hear religious people say that freethinkers are proud people, leaning on their own human understanding. The faithful claim to be humble, acknowledging our limited wisdom and thereby surrendering mind and will to the Almighty, the Supreme Being of the universe.
At first it seems they have a point, but if we look closely we’ll see that it’s actually the other way around. While theists may appear humble before their God, they are actually quite contemptuous towards people who do not share their beliefs. I could not explain it better than a commenter who calls himself Pecier Carpena Decierdo:
Reason is humble, faith is not. Reason is open to the possibility that its claims are wrong, faith is not. Faith is cock-sure and certain, scientific reason is not. Faith makes claims to super-human knowledge, scientific reason does not.
The only knowledge human brains can contain is human knowledge, that is, limited knowledge. Because all we have are human brains with limited human knowledge, we cannot claim to be certain about everything. Yet faith, that archenemy of reason, makes people believe that they can be certain about things they actually know nothing about.
I just watched a one-hour video on how the universe could have literally come out of nothing by accident, negating the necessary first cause or creator. The speaker remarked that this shows just how insignificant we really are. And it is a humbling thought indeed.
Which leads us to ponder, what then, is the purpose of our existence if we came out of nothing by pure chance? I guess my answer will be that the purpose of our existence is to find a purpose for our existence. Existence precedes essence, and if we indeed came out of nothingness because of pure luck instead of being created by a deity, then I guess that would be the greatest and most generous and most humbling miracle of all. And since we are lucky enough to exist at a point in time and space where conditions are suitable for life, it is wise to open our eyes to the world around and not waste our finite days haughtily holding on to some eternal “truth” that demands suspending our reason. Surely we have better things to do here.
innerminds
Cola
sinisterspark
GabbyD
f241vc15
frank
taxx
element_115x
romainechester
Ryan Tani
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
hmmm…. faith does not make “claims to super-human knowledge”. further there is NO claim “to be certain about everything. ” there is only one claim — there is a God, based on what is communicated to us. there is no claim that we know the mind of God beyond what is communicated to us. Even in what is communicated to us, humility is constantly present — prayers are usually of the form “help me understand your will, etc…”
again, believers don’t have special knowledge, other than the central claim, and even this claim is part of what is communicated to us.
i also think that reason, true reason, is humble. Included in this humility is (or should be) the acknowledgement that the notion of God is beyond what reason can prove.
there are many things we cannot prove, and we should be rightly humbled by that.
but it is this sense that reason is NOT humble — the fact that we cannot prove something is not a reason not to try. it is this, this BELIEF that we can master the unknown, that makes reason not humble.
but i’m a-OK with that.
i also agree with your last paragraph. there is one word to describe it: self-determination. We determine for ourselves what we live for. This is true for believers too — the bible is full of people that had to choose for themselves whether to follow God or not.
I beg to differ. Plenty of believers do make special claims, particularly of the existence of heaven and hell, and of angels and demons. Many claim to even speak for their deity.
But even taking those out of the equation, just that one claim you mentioned – The knowledge of the existence of a god – is already a claim to superhuman knowledge in itself. So far there has been no credible evidence to show that a deity truly exists, yet many believers are willing to sacrifice almost anything, even their own lives and the lives of others, in defense of this central claim.
You said “the fact that you cannot prove something is not a reason not to try”. You’re quite right. Although, you have to temper it with reason. When claims are so far-fetched yet so lacking in evidence, why try at all? You’d just be wasting time, money and energy.
With regards to your statement “it is this, this BELIEF that we can master the unknown, that makes reason not humble.” I don’t think any of us, and certainly no respectable scientist, ever claimed that we will somehow master all the unknowns. If anything, science begins with the admission of ignorance, and the drive to turn that ignorance into knowledge.
what was very important in what i said was that humans cannot achieve this knowledge without it being communicated to us. my implication is, if it were NOT communicated, humans wouldnt know it, or even be aware of it.
to put it a little facetiously — we didnt come up with this ’sh_t’. all this knowledge was given to us, and the technical term for this is revelation. and it is ONLY because it was given that we know it. further, there is only one claim, and all the other stuff comes from that one claim. again, this one claim is given to us — human beings cannot find it on their own.
i totaly agree with the rest of ur comment. i only argue that science, in principle, says that the deepest mysteries of the universe are understandable by human beings. if u watched that video (entertaining) physicists have not been daunted by the size of their ambitions (cosmology is the most ambitious intellectual project by man).
@ Gabby: This one claim of yours, would you mind telling us how it was revealed/communicated to you?
gladly. as a christian, God reveals himself to me through the life, death and teachings of jesus christ, and by the magisterium of the Church.
@GabbyD,
That’s not even an answer at all. You didn’t say anything about how it was revealed or communicated to you by your deity.
This is exactly the kind of irrational, arrogant, and cocksure statements that believers make about their faith.
@harmless
hmm, now i’m confused. i’m asked a direct question about revelation and i’ve given a straight answer that any catholic who knows will say.
how is this not an answer? its crystal clear, is it not?
anyway, the original comment is the important one. humans didnt seek god out; God sought us out and communicates with us.
so there is no claim of extra-ordinary ability by humans. we know because we were told.
moreover, we KNOW we dont have extra-ordinary knowledge, and we ask for guidance ALL THE TIME.
thats it.
@GabbyD,
Again, that’s a non-answer. That reply of yours can be used by ANY religion to support their own god. Give me an answer that shows me that your particular Catholic god is the one who gave knowledge to humanity.
i dont get it.
like i said jesus’s life, death and teachings. i dont think “that reply of yours can be used by ANY religion to support their own god”…
unless everyone became a xtian last night?…
@GabbyD,
I was referring to this:
“anyway, the original comment is the important one. humans didnt seek god out; God sought us out and communicates with us.
so there is no claim of extra-ordinary ability by humans. we know because we were told.
moreover, we KNOW we dont have extra-ordinary knowledge, and we ask for guidance ALL THE TIME. “
@Harmless
yes, not being a member of other faiths, i suppose the same answer can be given.
but whats your point?
my point is exceedingly simple: the blog article saying faith is not humble is wrong. it IS humble, because the knowledge is not from man, nor can man figure it out for himself, but is given man.
if this is true for all religions, that only bolsters my point — not only is christianity humble, by any definition of the word, but ALL religions are.
@ GabbyD: Allow me to share with you what the deists say about ‘revelation’:
Revelation: The act of revealing or of making known. In the religious sense, revelation usually means divine revelation. This is meaningless, since revelation can only be revelation in the first instance. For example, if God revealed something to me, that would be a divine revelation to me. If I then told someone else what God told me it would be mere hearsay to the person I tell. If that person believed what I said, they would not be putting their trust in God, but in me, believing what I told them was actually true.
@innerminds
yes. this is a process called ‘evangelization’. testimony is provided, and the implicit assumption is that there is truth there. hence, there is danger here.
luckily, there are ways to discern deceit.
And you evangelize/testify and act as ‘witness’ to something based on hearsay after hearsay of stories passed on and translated from generation to generation?
yes. i wonder what the point of using the word ‘hearsay’ is…
Hearsay is not acceptable in the courts of law. Yet in the practice of your faith, you rely on hearsay and take it as the Word of God for guidance on the rather important things in your life. Did God talk to you and directly gave you instructions? If yes, then that is divine revelation. But if everything you ‘know’ about God comes from the Bible and the doctrines of the church, that is not divine revelation, that is hearsay.
hhmmm… first, and this is probably irrelevant to you, but if you have a problem with written information passed down through the time, then you have a problem with the study of history, anthropology in general. in addition to archeology, this is the ONLY way to get information about the past. christianity uses these methods all the time in understanding what happened 2k years ago.
it is undeniable that God operates thru history, so its ok to look at history to see it. i also have to say, that God can talk to us now, via prayer — got no objections to that, but it needs to pass a consistency test as well.
second, its not hearsay — the idea was that there were witnessess to the life and death of christ. thats not hearsay.
@ Gabby: Yes, I have a problem with information passed down from person to person because the reliability and accuracy of such information is already compromised.
You said that “it is undeniable that God operates thru history”. Care to state some historical facts to support this claim?
You said that “God can talk to us now, via prayer”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I understand, we talk to God via prayer, but not vice versa.
You said that “its not hearsay — the idea was that there were witnessess to the life and death of christ. thats not hearsay.” Let’s take a look at Wikipedia’s definition of ‘hearsay’:
“Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence.”
Now unless you were there to witness firsthand the life, teachings, and miracles of Jesus Christ, then what you believe in is all hearsay.
first, and this is important, why use the concept of hearsay is what is obviously not a juridical matter? why are we forcing a square peg into a round hole?
dont get me wrong — i like thought experiments. but lets make sure there is a prize at the end.
next, before we use the concept, lets agree on what it means. i agree sorta agree with your definition of hearsay. but its incomplete.
a specific example is useful: “the case of the color of kay’s car”
Objective: we are interested in knowing the color of kay’s car. if i say to you, “Kay told me her car is blue”. if you conclude the color is blue, you believed in hearsay. If i say to you “i read in kay’s blog that her car is blue”, if you conclude its blue, its hearsay. BUT (and this is key) if you conclude that i read a blog that says its blue, that is NOT hearsay.
i could have used a biblical example, but i like blue cars.
oh, forgot to add. if this is true: ” Yes, I have a problem with information passed down from person to person because the reliability and accuracy of such information is already compromised.”
then you know that most of our information is recorded about the ancient world, and to a lesser extent the modern world, is from oral tradition written/drawn. be careful you are not making too strong a statement. you’re liable to throw away all of history and anthropology.
Kate’s blue car is a perfect analogy:
“If i say to you “i read in kay’s blog that her car is blue”, if you conclude its blue, its hearsay. BUT (and this is key) if you conclude that i read a blog that says its blue, that is NOT hearsay.”
I agree with you that it is NOT hearsay to say that you read a blog, but to say that Kay’s car is blue based on what you read in the blog – that IS hearsay.
Let’s take a Biblical example:
We read at Luke 19:27 that Jesus said: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.” Now to say that we read this in the Bible is not hearsay, but the contents of the Bible (including this verse) is hearsay, unless Jesus himself told you directly.
Now as far as history of the ancient world is concerned, these are all hearsay, so it is not surprising for history books to disagree among themselves. However, the good thing is that we do not live our lives based on what kings said thousands of years ago, so it doesn’t matter how accurate our information is regarding ancient civilizations. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about the Bible and other ‘holy books’ because many theists take it as the actual Word of God and live their lives based on what was written.
A glaringly obvious difference between “hearsay” in world history and “hearsay” in the Bible is that history makes no fantastic claims. What’s so extraordinary about Ceasar crossing the Rubicon? Or of Napoleon being defeated at Waterloo? Those are much more believable than a guy who claims to be the son of an all powerful god.
@twin
thats not the point. the point is that both history and theology use the same techniques. if you dispute the use of it in one, you do so for the other.
@innerminds
hhmmm… i actually agree with what you said, so i’m confused as to your last sentence means.
lets me be explicit.
if i say “i read in the bible that jesus said X”, and you believed X based solely on this, you are right, its hearsay. although i’m still lost why hearsay is relevant, but i’ll go with it…
but, that doesnt matter. the bible is an eye-witness account of what happened in jesus’ life and times. in other words, you don’t have to believe me — read the bible!
oops. @harmless pala…
@GabbyD,
Yes, because it is the pinnacle of humility to claim that all the knowledge gained by humans; the Greeks (before your Jesus was even born), Hindus, Muslims, Chinese, Japanese, Jews, and more recently atheist and agnostic scientists (all of whom did not believe or even know about your particular god), were “given” to them by your particular god.
All you’ve been doing is making fantastic claims without providing any evidence for them. Typical of religious babble.
@GabbyD
Claiming that a religion is true by saying “because my faith’s book says so” is not hearsay, to be fair.
It’s circular reasoning.
i dont get it… “more recently atheist and agnostic scientists” were given by god? who claimed this? i didnt.
but i’m glad u raised it, coz at least we are back to the original idea: what does humility MEAN?
btw, let me say now that a contest of who/what is more humble is ironic on so many levels!!!
i think we can agree on what humility means: its the realization that we dont know everything, or know less than what we should.
i posit — and that people of faith are humble by that definition.
now, since there are atheists here, i dont expect people to BELIEVE any religious argument.
thats a waste of typing!
but, we can definitely converse about the meaning of humility, and about how we can get information about events that happened before we were born.
@twin
why is it a circular argument? is it circular to say: “I believe jesus said X because the bible said jesus said X?”
if so, then we call it circular when “I believe Lincoln said X because a transcriber quoted Lincoln saying X”.
is this what you want to say?
In the case of Lincoln, if the transcriber says that Lincoln said X, AND there is empirical, SOLID evidence from an outside source that backs up Transcriber’s recording of Lincoln saying X, then it is not circular reasoning.
In the case of Jesus saying X, however, asserting that He said X without presenting evidence other than just the Bible, would be circular reasoning.
@twin
exactly! thats what theologians do! they look for the best evidence possible, and work from there.
My problem is that too much of the bible is left to the interpretation of the reader.
“…that would be the greatest and most generous and most humbling miracle of all.”
Not a miracle, but a natural, materialistic phenomenon. But I understand what you mean-I can’t even comprehend how space and time began together.
I don’t think that all religious believers are themselves, certain about God or the afterlife. Any Filipino can see that at a funeral, Christians even cry seeing their love ones being buried six feet under earth. I wouldn’t feel sad if a friend goes to another country, but I’d be sad knowing that my friend will never come back and I would never meet him/her again.
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
“I guess my answer will be that the purpose of our existence is to find a purpose for our existence.”
Amen.
what?? Rick Warren is that you? or maybe a modified version of Kierkegaard’s: The thing is to know myself and to know what God wants me to do.
Bob Woodward of the Washington Post once wrote, you will never get an “engineers drawing” of history. That 100 percent is impossible which really a big thing to say from a reporter and author (read that from his book). Memory, perspective, and interest will always play a part in reducing or increasing those percentages.
Memory – what do you remember? what evidence; physical, oral, or whatever can say that such a place, location, people, idea, or point event existed.
Perspective – from what angle do you see those events, memories, or evidences. Bonifacio can be or was considered as a terrorist by the Spanish. He was a hero to the Filipinos. There is no malice involved, and neither side is really lying in having opposite views.
Self-Interest – do you really want to remember such an embarrassing or horrible memory? Or if you could, since it is in your power to tell the tale, can’t be flattering to your side, your image. How about burning books opposite to your idea.
Can be a headache really playing with those three words and history. It can be used both ways so I guess it will all boil down to not living ones life based on people from thousands of years ago.
thats perfectly fine with me. i cannot help if people/you dont like what you read in the bible. take it or leave it. totally up to you.
BUT, we can understand that people study the life and teachings of christ as a profession. alot of effort goes into unearthing information and interpreting it.
dropping a few passages, chapter and verse, does NOT make for wisdom. (like the blog entries i’ve been reading here)
“thats perfectly fine with me. i cannot help if people/you dont like what you read in the bible. take it or leave it. totally up to you.”
Oh, but most of us here DO like reading the bible.
We’ve realized a long time ago that the best weapon against fundamentalists is to use their own argument against them – to expose the biblical passages that they intentionally ignore because it would destroy their assertion of the bible being infallible
Example: Remind a fundie that while the book of Leviticus calls homosexuality an abomination, it also calls for the death of ALL adulterers, and that it also forbids the eating of shellfish.
Or that women should just STFU, as mentioned in verses in the books of Corinthians, Timothy, and Peter
“BUT, we can understand that people study the life and teachings of christ as a profession. alot of effort goes into unearthing information and interpreting it.”
Just because people pour all their energy into something, does not mean it’s right.
I’m fine with the “live and let live” concept. The problem is when some religious nut tries to impose their concept of “morality” on me, or judges me as some sinful beast just because I disagree with them, I am obligated to defend myself, no?
That goes double for the Philippine context, where more than one politician has played (or should I say Spammed) the religion card as their only viable quality for getting elected.
It is stupid.
Same thing for gov’t – it royally pisses me off when some idiot starts declaring RP as a purely Christian nation.
first, reading and interpreting is hard business, and it needs all the research thats required.
i think you’ve got something, when u write:
“the problem is when some religious nut tries to impose their concept of “morality” on me, or judges me as some sinful beast just because I disagree with them, I am obligated to defend myself, no?”
the way to disagree with them is to argue against the best arguments that they have. there are alot of rubbish religious sentiment out there, and the best way to smoke that out is to engage DIRECTLY on why they say what they say, then figure out why that interpretation is wrong from the best research available.
you see, there’s alot of rubbish sentiment about many things out there — history, economics, philosophy, science, etc…
the best strategy is not to throw away knowledge, but use ‘good’ knowledge to fight the bad ones.
Two words: CHERRY PICKING
@ako
what do you mean?
if an analysis of various readings is “cherry picking”, then all of science is cherry picking.
Scientific research is peer reviewed, its contents and assertions tested by comparing it to any relevant empirical data that is monitored in the real world, at least that’s the gist of what it takes for any scientific theory to gain accreditation.
I’d hardly call that cherry picking.
twin skies, your problem is faulty hermeneutics. yes, you may read the Bible in its entirety and remain unconverted. why? simple, because you read it with all your biases in mind.
gabby d.
how about telling them to be honest in reading the Bible.
I’m reminded of this old saying from philo class:
“The more you think you understand the world, the more you realize how little you know.”
Socrates??
a certain “god” communicated to you GabbyD? lol.. in xtianity, talking to an imaginary friend is praying.. an imaginary friend talking to you is.. ummm.. a mental illness? can you please tell your imaginary friend to contact me.. i have a lot of questions that need to be answered
and one last thing, you’re telling people to read the bible.. lol, reading the bible was one of the reasons why i became an atheist.. it’s full of crap.. it’s repulsive.. i consider it as a fairy tale book.. the whole prayer thing is also a waste of time.. it doesn’t matter who you’re praying to, there’s only two possible outcome in an event, it will happen or it won’t.. prayer is useless..
what concerns me is the whole concept of religion.. believers are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of their religion.. a world full of brainwashed and deluded people is unhealthy..
i will leave you this video.. it will give you an idea as to why humans believe in gods.. enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
when one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. when many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion..
Okay, i will tell this imaginary friend to shut your mouth. The Bible is FULL OF Crap to a blinded eyes. waste of time??
.talking to the most satisfying reality is never a waste of time mike.
.communing to the One who created you is never a waste of time.
.talking to my Heavenly Father is never a waste of time.
.talking to the Absolutely Sovereign God who created both theists and claiming atheists is never a waste of time.
Part of free thinking is beating up on GabbyD, while humbly and politely arguing on a matter of FAITH!
Go for it, free thinkers and GabbyD!
play the persecution card how christian (or jewish perhaps) of you
It’s just amusing to witness the spectacle of a debate which begins with one side debating from reason and the other debating from faith. It is a futile exercise on both your parts. And GabbyD is right in saying that a pissing contest on humility really is the funniest thing ever!
I guess reason is also guilty of arrogance. But not stubbornness.
innerminds,
reason can become unreasonable when arrogance comes in…it’s good as obstinacy.
atheistako,
ancient savages? are you sure? define savagery muna. may nasulat ka na bang libro??
atheistikaw,
are you sure? ancient savages wrote the BIBLE? any proof??
you said: You are right, FAITH includes REASON. Because FAITH is full of UNREASONABLE hopes, beliefs and fears.
Unreasonable hopes like what?
The problem with many Atheists is that they often define FAITH as something “IRRATIONAL”. hay, when will you search the real meaning of FAITH? FAITH in the BIBLICAL sense is far different from your definition of FAITH.faith is more than what you think. belief in the flying spongebob monster and fairies are simply imaginary beliefs…not FAITH.
faith includes reason: I KNOW whom I have believed and I am CONVINCED that He is able to guard what I have ENTRUSTED to Him until that day.These are the words of the Apostle Paul.
Belief is considered propositional in that it is an assertion, claim or expectation about reality that is presumed to be either true or false.
while Faith is best defined in Hebrews 11:1 (probably the most concise definition of faith found in the Bible). It is considered the classical definition of faith. Faith is both the
1.substance of things hoped for and
2.the evidence that things exist that are not yet perceived with the senses.
faith is “pisteuo” in greek, and it essentially includes “reason”.
If you want to live your life based on a book written by ancient savages, that’s your choice.
You are right, FAITH includes REASON. Because FAITH is full of UNREASONABLE hopes, beliefs and fears.
oh, and can we reach an accord on the humility thing before this post goes away?
perhaps the realization that a pissing contest about humility is the funniest thing ever?
‘Humility’ is also defined as “a lack of FALSE pride”. Aggressively promoting one’s position or beliefs is hardly false pride as long as one opens his or her eyes to the opponent’s point of view.
ok. first, we’re changing definitions, which is fine, so i’ll interpret this as, regarding the definition in your original post, we’re agreed– people of faith are humble too.
ok., second definition “lack of false pride”. what is your definition of false pride?
hows this: ” False humility has to do with claiming you are less than you believe you are, and that you can do less than you believe you can. ”
under this definition, faith is still humble. the faithful has a very clear idea of who they are, and what that means.
if your definition is “open eyes to the opponents POV”, then i will say that men of faith are humble in this sense too, except for the extremists/fundamentalists, which by definition, arent open.
however, and this needs to be clear, being open DOES NOT mean not taking a stand according to your beliefs/principles. taking a stand has nothing to do with a lack of humility.
GabbyD wrote: “if your definition is “open eyes to the opponents POV”, then i will say that men of faith are humble in this sense too, except for the extremists/fundamentalists, which by definition, arent open.”
- Agreed. Second paragraph, second sentence of the original post: “While theists may appear humble before their God, they are actually quite contemptuous towards people who do not share their beliefs.” You think perhaps I should have replaced “theists” with “fundies”?
GabbyD wrote: “however, and this needs to be clear, being open DOES NOT mean not taking a stand according to your beliefs/principles. taking a stand has nothing to do with a lack of humility.”
- Totally agreed. Taking a stand simply means you believe in something, and you can still be humble knowing that what you know is based on limited human knowledge. But if you blindly hold on to your stand and automatically dismiss every other POV ‘knowing’ for sure that yours is the absolute truth, now that is arrogance.
It’s for this reason that instead of being ooutright hostile against religion (at least the moderate and liberals within the community), I think freethinking should be more against unreasonable dogma in any form.
innerminds,
thanks for bringing that out.
not all theists are fundies…and not all fundies are theists (meaning implied).
OMG!
GabbyD GabbyD.
You realy need to read your bible and study the history of your christianity.
There’s no biblical about being tolerant of opposing POVs.
Your christianity is riding the tides of current moral standards for it to keep relelavant.
atheistikaw!
Reding the Bible…I did, whats wrong?
I have investigated the History of Christianity and remained a christian, what is that to you?
current moral standards??
moral standards modeled from?
I kind of agree, in a limited sense, with the “freethinkers are proud, the faithful are humble” thing. I don’t have a problem with it. Well, I agree that reason is humble, but I think that freethinkers are proud. Freethinkers are proud of their intelligence and may tend to act superior towards the faithful. This is just my opinion. If some christian or religious person tell me that freethinkers are proud, I would not deny it, especially if he or she is soft-spoken and weak-willed. I would think the fantasy of religion would require their followers to be a bit humble and therefore, a bit gullible.
Hmmm…you have a point there, Sathepine.
I mean, freethinkers are indeed proud of their intelligence, but reason itself is humble. On the other hand, the religious may appear meek and humble, but what they believe in is sacred and should not be challenged.
About faith.
Faith is a conviction that something is. Man can’t live without any form of faith as I. Kant said. But there’s this difference between religious faith and faith in oneself and others. The former is questionable, but the latter is undeniably necessary. =)
Faith is not just “blind faith”, it’s not a leap in the dark. I agree with GAB, faith is a conviction. “For I KNOW whom I have BELIEVED, and I’m PERSUADED(Convinced) that He is able to keep that which I have COMMITTED(Entrusted) unto HIM (Christ) for that day (Christ’s Advent).And this is according to the words of Paul.
knowledge is essential in “faith”.
the argument presented is based on a misunderstanding of what faith means and what we believe in in terms of religion, faith, and reason.
@ Reynor: care to tell us the “correct” understanding of faith?
The religious talk of believing in the Eternal Truth does not require the suspension of reason but in reality, as a matter of fact requires more, for reason is as essential as faith in understanding this Eternal Truth.
What I find interesting is that most of those who believe that a person has to choose between faith and reason are those who do not believe in “faith”…maybe because believing in faith requires reason.
Pope John Paull II used to say, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth….[Fides et Ratio, Pope John Paul II, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html“
Care to tell us how believing in faith requires reason?
This is my answer:
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
Humility is the virtue of faith/believer, the result of unreason, irrationality. That is so easy thing to do: just stop thinking, stop questioning. and you will instantly feel humility, low, weak. and submit to God and wait for the necessary knowledge He will give you without any effort on your part. Obey and submit. But there is no such being called God.
Pride and self-esteem is the emotional reward of reason. When you discover, understand through the process of reason, your emotional reward is pride and self-esteem. It is the feeling after a long struggle in expending a mental effort to know and to understand things about reality. It is a feeling that your mind is efficient, capable to know everything slowly and step by step in hierarchical order. Your mind is you very own self. The function of our mind is know and understand the real, absolute world where we are. Why do we have to know things/reality? In order to remain alive and improve and enjoy living.
Humility, humbleness is opposite of pride and self-esteem.