h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In other dialogs with people who wish to minimize the use of 'Faith' I have come across several proposed simple definitions, here are a few examples;

1/ Faith is belief is what is unbelievable
2/ Faith is belief in what cannot be verified, analytically or empirically.
3/ Faith is a belief in God (Note; in this usage definition of God is begging and is typically defined as 'transcendental', in the context that one cannot find evidence for within the Universe)
4/ Faith is belief in Supernatural events (Note; This also begs definition of supernatural/natural events, and typically this is done in a way to ensure that Man can only perceive natural events, and events can only be caused by natural causes)

None of these are adequate in my POV. They seem to express to me a misological interpretation of faith, something that cannot in principle be reasonable IMO. I think of this as a profound misconception and leads many to the assumption that reason and faith cannot be reconciled (see Footnote 1).

I think this judgment is merely a subjective choice, that ultimately is based on the semantics being chosen as a common frame of reference. If we choose to allow faith to have meaning we must first start be defining the word in a meaningful manner.

Several of my postings in my PS relate to this issue. So I have tried to bring together some of these to help clarify my position.

1/ Definitions:

The Fowler definition of faith is one I believe more succinctly expresses the reality of faith’s meaning in practice across many cultures and peoples, it is ...

'Faith may be characterized as an integral, centering process underlying the formation of beliefs, values and meanings that (1) gives coherence and direction to persons' lives, (2) links them in shared trusts and loyalties with others, (3) grounds their personal stances and communal loyalties in the sense of relatedness to a larger frame of reference, and (4) enables them to face and deal with the limit conditions of human life, relying upon that which has the quality of ultimacy in their lives.'

This has been subject to criticism in some circles, particularly those that find it too broad.

But…

a/ A definition of faith has to be meaningful. If a word is meaningfully used (as faith is for several billions today), its definition must be able to be meaningfully defined, else we are serving to tautologically exclude discussion of that word (in the Wittgenstein context of the use of language in his TLP and PI work). This is quite unfair, but nevertheless appears to be a tactic is some quarters who fish to avoid reflection of the faith within themselves.

b/ A definition of faith has to be peer-reviewed. This is acknowledged in the case for the Fowler definition. In particular the seminal work of Fowler on the Stages of Belief (A937767) that is used to describe the various stages in faith that adherents move along is something that would be rendered meaningless otherwise. Again it is an unacceptable convenience for the critics of faith to remove meaning from an argument before it is made.

c/ A definition, if to be useful, needs to cover adequately all instances of its use in practice. Since 'faith' is something that covers a gamut of belief systems from Abrahamic faiths to Norse Mythology, from Hinduism to Scientism, then it's appropriate to be generic. Fowler's definition works very well in that respect. So we should use it from that aspect.

d/ A definition must be consistent with other related words. Faith’s definition according to Fowler maps well to allied contexts, e.g., ‘Religion'; the wikipedia entry defines such as …

“a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system", but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions. …. Sociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. Primitive religion was indistinguishable from the sociocultural acts where custom and ritual defined an emotional reality.”

e/ A definition must be sufficiently broad to fully serve a conversations needs. In this case the conversation topic relates to how faith and culture interact (and not just one faith-based system). It’s appropriate to seek a definition that is optimum in this respect. In 'The Encyclopedia of Religion' Winston King describes Religion in the following way:

"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behavior are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture." (Encyclopedia of Religion, p 7693)

Both of the above definitions for religion in d/ and e/ are consistent with the Fowler definition of faith, in fact Winston King and James Fowler appears to be very close in their semantic construction, which you would expect between the concepts of faith and religion.


2/ Specific Application of the Fowler definition to Christianity:

As mentioned before I believe that it is better to define faith so as to be able to broadly cover aspects of all faith-based traditions without specific attention to isolated detail (e.g., example Buddhism has no explicit position of the Belief-In-God proposition, nevertheless it is a faith-based system that is defined as such within the Fowler definition but might fall outside of such in other more focused on Abrahamic expression of revealed creeds – see Footnote 2). Nevertheless when dealing with the specific articles of faith for Christians and their Creed (e.g.., Nicene of Apostolic) the criticism is made that the Fowler definition is incomplete. Thus let’s review in the context of Christian faith.

Typically it is acknowledged that the individual aspects/statements within the Fowler definition can be analyzed and found to be consistent with a Christians faith.

For many Christians (and their critics) more focus is given on the historical and supernatural events around the life of Christ, in particular the ‘miracles’, e.g., the Resurrection of Christ after his death. Atheists approach such events skeptically, assuming that such events are not possible from an ‘a-piori’ judgment (see Footnote 3 for definition of ‘a piori’) of the nature of miracles from an empirical and analytic POV, i.e., a verificationist perspective. This leads Atheists to make a judgment that faith is inherently about belief in that which cannot be verified (see definitions at the opening of this entry). This needs to be reflected on further.

One's faith in the resurrection of Christ is something that if you are going to take seriously requires a point of view that miracles actually can happen and did. The 'bigger' miracle, what CS Lewis calls the 'Great Miracle', was not the 'Resurrection' but what preceded and enabled it, i.e., the 'Incarnation'. Meaning that God and Man became one in the person of Jesus Christ. If that could happen everything else within the Christian Creed, including the Resurrection, could happen.

Certainly the Incarnation is/was not a common place event! Christians believe the 'Incarnation' has and will happen just once, as a supernaturally caused event manifesting itself in the natural world in the person of Jesus.

As an empirical definition of what is 'natural' is based on repeatable and predictable events, such an analysis or empirical critique for this proposed singular event therefore does not really apply. Verificationists in such circumstances fall back on analytical proof, they ask 'could it in principle and by logic have happened?'

The question therefore becomes one of;

a) 'can miracles such as the Incarnation logically happen?
b) And if so is their sufficient "reason" to illuminate ones "faith" that it actually did happen all those years ago.


In that first respect theists answer that miracles can happen as an article of faith. There is nothing that outlaws them a piori. To take the atheists alternative position (miracles cannot happen) is however also a faith based assumption on the nature of reality being natural without supernatural intervention.

What is being said is that we do not know for sure what reality is. What we need to do is be tolerant and open to other worldviews, understanding that Reason and Faith are symbiotically entangled.

As for the second aspect it comes down to one’s personal view on the ‘Case for Christ’, this is in part a historical question, in part a circumstantial one relating to one’s metaphysical insight to ‘truth’. As the Christian faith has aspects that relates to an ongoing numinous presence it also needs to take into account ones feelings and personal experiences.

For both aspects we need have 'FAITH IN REASON AND A REASONABLE FAITH. For this we need to do our best to apply our personal critical faculties to make find a meaningful conclusion. That is what it means to be a 'Critical Rational Fideist' (my 1st posting on this site!).

*******************************************


Footnote 1: It is often stated, I believe incorrectly, that “Reason and Faith” cannot be reconciled, this, I think, arises when one confuses a particular form of defining reason as rationality ALONE, and furthermore a definition of rationality that as part that also A PIORI defines faith outside of rationality. As such it is a circular argument to say that reason and faith cannot be reconciled.

Reason need not be either entirely derived from rationality, and rationality, for example, need not be based entirely on principle of Verificationism. (Nevertheless it serves a useful purpose if one allows that for us to proceed with an accepted positivist understanding of rationality these days).

In which case it may be correct to say that Faith and Rationalism cannot always be reconciled unless one applies ‘Critical Reasoning’. We can call this worldview and its associated definitions - ‘Critical Rational Fideism’.

Following the work of Welsch (see http://www2.uni-jena.de/welsch/Papers/ratReasToday.html ) A summary definition of “Rationality” and “Reason” are given here:

1/ Rationality

1. We speak of rationality whenever people follow a specific set of principles which determine the realm of their validity, identify their objectives, define the aims to be achieved, the methods to be followed, and the criteria to be applied.
2. These principles must be coherent with one another in order to allow coherent usage.
3. Therefore, to be rational simply means to follow the rules suggested by these principles. In doing this, we are rational in the sense of the respective version of rationality.

Such a definition requires a process of relationship definition between the ‘objects’ and the ‘specific principles’, leading to a certain degree of complexity and disorder.

2/ Reason

However reason, is a faculty superior to rationality, able to provide for order and unity amidst the complexity and disorderliness of rationality. This is because reason operates on a fundamentally different level from rationality. While forms of rationality refer to objects, reason focuses on the forms of rationality.

This has been the constellation of reason and rationality at least since Kant who said: "Reason is never in immediate relation to an object, but only to the understanding."

*******************************************


Footnote 2: Buddhist Faith – It is an article of faith to Buddhists that the Buddha’a (Siddhartha Gautama) ‘enlightenment’ was realized by a complete awakening and insight into the ‘true and objective’ nature and cause of human suffering, which was ignorance, and that we also can achieve such a ‘nirvana’ and freedom form ‘samsara’. This does not necessarily proceed to define a position for the BIG proposition mentioned earlier.

As a Christian of an ‘inclusivist’ persuasion I would say that truth is truth from whatever tradition it comes from. If we acknowledge that an authentic attribute of God is Truth, then a Christian’s inclusive view of Buddhism is that its truth pre-figures the truth in Christianity. If Christ is the Logos, the reason behind and within the universe then Buddha's going through enlightenment would be achieving a level of insight into this Logos, and indeed Buddha would then have insight into the nature and cause of human suffering for which Christ's passion was destined. Something like that. I certainly respect Buddhism as a faith-based system.

*******************************************


Footnote 3: Defining ‘a piori’ – The FreeDictionary says http://www.thefreedictionary.com/a%20priori

1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
2.
a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.


Consider the key words above 'assumed', 'without reference to facts or experience', not supported by factual study'. A piori reasoning is useful when you cannot establish a fact to base argument on, you can posit/assume a fact, and see where that takes you. If it is coherent and consistent with reality as we see it, we can say it is a plausible axiom. In such reasoning the philosophical method of choice (mostly) is Axiomatic reasoning. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-axiomatic/

Such axiomatic approaches have been used by mathematicians to develop the foundation of mathematics. However there are competing views as to which axiomatic sets are most complete. E.g., http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/settheory-alternative/

Indeed the work of Gödel indicates that a complete set of axioms cannot in principle be found. http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/incompleteness.html

The point to be made here is that we all use a piori reasoning at some point in our argument, where empirical and analytical reasoning cannot resolve truth (reductionist & rationalist methods being hyperbolically ineffective). Thus as we assert the truth that we ‘know’, to make our argument proceed we make small ‘atomic’ leaps of faith. Thus all our worldviews are in part faith-based from the Fowler definition

Pilgrim, I trust you realize this journal entry was posted five times? Are there any differences among them? If not, I'll unsubscribe from four of the five.

Yes - I apologize for that an error on my part, I was unaware that editing a PS posting resulted in multiple entries. Please unsubscribe to the earlier versions

Regarding the historical evidence - the 'Case for Christ'.

Of course there are the Chrstian sources canonical and otherwise, But there are also several interesting 'non-Christian sources' ones. In particular there are four major contemporary historians containing passages relevant to Jesus, namely: Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus. Googling these will give you lots of stuff to read.

You can find people who read these historical sources skeptically and others who take them at face value as full confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. Keep in mind that Judea was a backwater for the Roman Empire in that time, for a poor carpenter’s son in Galilee there would be nothing that a non-Christian source would find the least bit interesting to record his actual existence for most of his life. That 'honour' would occur only over a short period of time when he became a ‘nuisance’ for the Jewish and Roman authorities and establishment. Given in their terms he was ‘dealt with’ what you would expect to find from those sources are a few dismissive comments on the person and his execution, and the follow-up activities of his disciples and followers. These sources will be rare to have survived 2000 years, when written they probably had an expected shelf life of just a few years before their authors expected the papyrus and velum would be re-used! Notwithstanding that that type of source material is exactly what you find.

When you take these into account with the Christian sources, mainly the Epistles and Gospels, but also may other contemporary sources, eg., the Didache and others - written in most part within the 'eyewitness' period. Most ‘open minded’ historians (those that do not argue from a position to either make the case for or against his person or nature) these days accept the historicity of the person of Jesus Christ. What is interesting is that these sources 'synch' very well together. It takes quite a leap to manufacture a conspiracy theory that these sources are not talking about a real person who did remarkable things. Such detail and consistency is unheard of for any other characters from that era.

As to what can be taken as fact and what as fiction, well, you have people who take a spectrum of views from literaly 100% to a ‘pick-and-mix’ kind of filtering out of anything that smacks of supernaturalism of the Jesus Seminar theologians.

As I said earlier in this string. IMO ultimately it's going to come down to your personal choice and taking a position, not just with your rational/positivist mind looking for verification level proof. You have to use your other faculties, of your whole being, to come to an answer. We come to know what is true and best for us with more than just a positivist outlook on life for a lot of subjective decisions we face.

This discussion will go on and on till you realize that that statement above, whilst not satisfying some who want things served up to them on a plate, is actually the reality of our human predicament.



******************


1/ Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c100),
A Jew and Roman citizen mentions Jesus twice, notably in the Testimonium Flavianum, found in Antiquities 18:3.3:

“About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”

Some scholars think this an interpolation, others not. Consensus (if any) is that something was written by Josephus from which this is based at very least. Additionally Josephus later, in chapter 20:9.1, refers to the trial and execution of James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic.


2/ Pliny the Younger (c 63–113)
A Roman Governor wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 saying:

“Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ—none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition."


3/ Gaius Suetonius (c. 69–140)
Wrote in 112 as part of his biography of Emperor Claudius:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome".

The passage refers to riots among the Jews around the year 50, since that is about 20 years or so after Christ’s death the comment is merely indicative that Christians where active within the ‘eyewitness’ period. This is considered important by many historians.


4/ Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117)
Wrote on Christianity in 116 describing Nero's persecution of Christians c. 64, Tacitus stated that this group, originating from Judaea, derived its name from"

"Christus/Chrestus", who... "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate".

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman summarized the historical importance of this passage:

"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."



******************


We have the documents that are very close and in some cases within the eye witness period. Those authors stood by them even though they clearly considered their immortal souls depended on the accuracy and truth of their accounts, they challenged the authority of Rome and in many cases their Jewish brethren in authority over them. Many chose to die rather than give up their belief testifying to their commitment.

For sure we can find circumstances in history when people have gone to their deaths for beliefs we now consider false. But not on this scale, and not facing such ingenuity of death and torture the Roman empire would make a spectacle over. By all account many thousands choose martyrdom - and we should not dismiss that without full consideration.

We find new material to support the Christian tradition within each generation it seems. The Nag Hammadi books, The early 'Gospel of Matthew' fragment, Dead Sea Scrolls, a very early copy of the Didache, even the 'Gospel of Judas' that received much news recently. Most of these found in the past 100 years or so. Some of these are not a genuine records of an eye witness tradition, rather written for a purpose to develop the early church in a different direction (eg., Gnosticism). But they support the documents we do consider as part of the genuine tradition (i.e., they where written to challenge the emerging mainstream tradition and where criticised as such by the 'church fathers' (Clement, Polycarp, etc.,) in documents we have). In that light we can see that one of the reason they exist today is that they where hidden away, for posterity to find. For example we knew of the existence of the Gospel of Judas for many centuries through commentary by the church fathers 1900-1800 years before an original copy was found. But this is all part of the puzzle that bit by bit we have pulled together. And by and large it is a consistent picture that emerges. It is one that continues to support the traditional Christian message.

Given the reality of the above by and large I agree that when we look at the historical documents of scripture and the other commentary we must approach them with a scholarly critique - not everything can be accepted.

My personal opinion (which is fairly mainstream but differs from some more literal theists) is that we must read scripture accepting that it was written by falliable humans, who wrote within the context and culture of their times. Sometimes in allegorical and non-literal format (eg., Genesis, Job, etc.) a technique popular in their day.

This does not mean scripture is not inspired, I believe it is. I see that in the pre-figuration that occurs throughout OT of what is coming in the NT - I have indicated some of these earlier on in this string. Its quite amazing in that light - far too much of a pattern underlying (for me) something very purposefull and full of meaning and relevance for us today.

This teleological purpose (for Christians) is ultimately derived in seeing these works in light of the meta-narrative of fulfillment of the good news in Christ (eg., we see the revelation to man moving towards a climax bringing historical man step by step along a journey of wisdom).

Different traditions will take certain positions on this. It's upto you to find what you feel able to accept, if any. You may need to look with 'eyes of faith', meaning to say not just the qaulity of the historical documents as evidence sources but their place within a puzzle solution that has many parts.

If you approach abstract Jackson Pollock art looking for 'still life realism' you wil find a chaotic piece. But if you step into the shoes of Pollack, see his POV, then what appears random starts to show a pattern. The intelligence and purpose of the colour and dynamism come through and the artist comunicates. Just as the Roscharch test is meaningless to the colour blind to those with eyes to see they can see a message and a purpose behind it.

I was thinking just now about the question many ask:

“Why, is it proposed, that God had only clearly in the life of Jesus manifested his presence objectively – specifically why not more objective evidence clearly for his presence in our age”.

From a Christians POV I believe there could be many responses to that question. But one came to me as follows…

In Mark 15:31-32 he relates in part the passion scene where the chief priests mocked him saying. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe."

In a sense if we ask God to intervene in our world again as he did in the Incarnation, would we be in some sense setting up Christ to be crucified again? Would we not treat another coming of Christ the same way with skepticism and unbelief? If as Christians believe the atonement for our sin has been performed in Christ’s passion – the question is in part “should we put ‘God in the Dock’ again, and again before EVERYONES’s eyes – and for what purpose?” Is it so we must ‘see and believe’, that we position ourselves that faith actually has no value?

There comes a point, for each person, when we need to put aside the never ending positivist evaluation of the ‘Case for Christ’. For us to rationally and objectively come up with our personal view from that perspective, and then ask ourselves if we have any other reasons to believe?

For me it is a solid & reasonable case, but not a certain one. From a positivist sense you will always be able to find cause for some doubt. But, for me, what persuades me to be a Christian is the subjective reasons I find within myself, when I apply my whole being to find the meaning in the BIG question. I have faith.

Matthew 13:9-12 "He who has ears, let him hear. The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables? He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.

Some stumble over what Matthew means in the above? I believe he means those that have faith, will gather more understanding, whilst those of little faith will lose what meaning they had.

Matthew 13:13-17 This is why I speak to them in parables:

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it."