Continuing the Discussion on Faith

[dancinginchains]

I decided to continue the discussion made in the 8 Characteristics of True Humanity thread here because while I initially thought my point was going to be rather easy to comprehend in a few posts, obviously it's not and I don't want to continue going off on a potentially 10 page tangent in a thread where it truely doesn't belong. I sincerely apologize to all for not doing this sooner.

Now let's continue.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Then do some things for me:
1. Define subjective
2. Show that if something is subjective it can only benefit the individual

Because I fail to realize how being subjective demands that something only benefit the individual. Subjective is relative to objective, the former designating the bias of one perspective, the later being related to objects outside the mind.

First of all there are several legitimate definitions of subjective. If you looked at the context of my argument you would realize that the definition I'm maintaining when referring specifically to faith is "particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience." (taken directly from dictionary.com)

To show how that only benefits the individual one must not look at the definition with a horizontal way of thinking, but rather must look at it with a vertical way of thinking. Once we do this it becomes easier to start looking at the nature of subjectivity using this particular definition. If subjectivity is particular to a given person it stands to logical reason that it is only that person whom it pertains to that truly benefits from it. I think that's pretty fair to say.

Now lets add a variable into the definition: faith. To define faith yet a fourth time (because apparently the other three definitions weren't even recognized), faith is solely the passionate belief in God. If subjectivity, usuing the definition provided above is particular to a given person, faith is particular to a given person since I've already well established that faith is subjective. Therefore, using the same exact logical reasoning as above, it stands to reason that the only person who benefits from faith is the individual who holds it.

Again, I mention the teachings of Jesus as an example. Central to Christian faith is 'love thy neighbor'. Now, if we take your view of subjectivity and faith, we have to say that loving someone does not benefit the person being loved. I think you have some explaining to do.

If thats your understanding of my view of subjectivity and faith, then it is you who needs to reread not me. If you take my view of subjectivity and faith you will not have to say that loving someone doesn't benefit the person being loved because you will already acknowledge that since love exists with or without faith, love must therefore be entirely separate of faith. You're using faith and love as if they were the same thing, when really its an equivocation.

I think Dustin summed up the basis of your argument rather well by saying that "our beliefs can have an effect on others, since we might make decisions based on a particular belief system."

But what I'm ultimately saying is we may think we make decisions based on our belief system, but in fact we do not. Why? because we would make those same decisions with or without faith.

Let's say I choose to fight somebody and my rationalization is ultimately based on my faith. That's not the real reason I'm going to fight them. The real reason I'm going to fight them is simply that I truly want to fight somebody. If I wanted to fight someone and I didn't believe in God, I would use something else as my rationalization like love. How I choose to act towards others is not because of my faith or lack of faith. Faith is what I may choose to rationalize my choice to act that way, but truthfully it is not why I ultimately made that choice.

Where have I claim that we are not responsible for our faith?

You haven't claimed we are responsible for our faith or our actions. However the basis of your argument is that we make decisions based on our faith. Making that claim makes the implication that we are not always responsible for our actions, but sometimes our beliefs are. I'm sorry but that is a load of poppycock. We are always responsible for our actions.

While you may not have claimed outright "we are not always responsible for our actions" your argument has supported that notion by itself. Maybe it wasn't your intention, but ultimately your argument has supported that claim.

[quote]Faith is not necessarily a 'belief in the objective uncertainty (i.e. God)'. Sure, it can be. [quote]

First of all if you're going to quote me on that I would appreciate it if you put it in context by including the word "passionate." Passionate is the word I use to best describe an individual's inwardness. That definition of faith is not my own personal homemade definition, but the simplification - faith is the passionate belief in God - is. Moreover the original definition of which mine is a simplification of has been accepted by scholars, theologians, and philosophers for many years. These are men and women who've studied philosophy significantly more than I, and probably you, have. I think it's fair to say that "not necessarily" doesn't even belong in that sentence.

As far as faith without understanding goes, all faith is without understanding. If faith were not without understanding it would not be faith. The question is not whether or not faith is without understanding, but to what degree is the understanding. However faith with no degree of understanding is still faith and is not arbitrary. This can easily be shown by the simple fact that many of the people who have faith in God and who also love their neighbor as Jesus taught do not have what you would call "understanding" of their faith. But these people are by and large just good normal everyday people who would love their neighbors as themselves even if they were atheist. Why? Because actions and faith are two entirely separate things.

[Didymos Thomas]

If subjectivity is particular to a given person it stands to logical reason that it is only that person whom it pertains to that truly benefits from it. I think that's pretty fair to say.

I don't think it's fair to say at all, especially when your argument is limited to "it stands to logical reason". Subjectivity simply does not demand selfishness.

Now lets add a variable into the definition: faith. To define faith yet a fourth time (because apparently the other three definitions weren't even recognized), faith is solely the passionate belief in God.

And as I've pointed out before, we can have faith in something other than God.

Therefore, using the same exact logical reasoning as above, it stands to reason that the only person who benefits from faith is the individual who holds it.

Except that your logical reasoning was 'faith is one person's perspective, therefore all faith is selfish'.

If you take my view of subjectivity and faith you will not have to say that loving someone doesn't benefit the person being loved because you will already acknowledge that since love exists with or without faith, love must therefore be entirely separate of faith.

Simply because love can exist without faith does not mean that love cannot have anything to do with faith. Again, in the teachings of Jesus, faith and love are hand in hand.

You're using faith and love as if they were the same thing, when really its an equivocation.

No, I'm not. Again, you lack the ability to comprehend what you read. I have never claimed that love and faith are necessarily the same thing, or even necessarily related. I've said that they can be be related, that our faith can be an expression of love, and that love can be an expression of faith.

But what I'm ultimately saying is we may think we make decisions based on our belief system, but in fact we do not. Why? because we would make those same decisions with or without faith.

Let's say I choose to fight somebody and my rationalization is ultimately based on my faith. That's not the real reason I'm going to fight them. The real reason I'm going to fight them is simply that I truly want to fight somebody. If I wanted to fight someone and I didn't believe in God, I would use something else as my rationalization like love. How I choose to act towards others is not because of my faith or lack of faith. Faith is what I may choose to rationalize my choice to act that way, but truthfully it is not why I ultimately made that choice.

Your example is a possibility. That's all. Sure, it's possible we use our faith to justify what we would believe/do with or without that faith. But none of that demands that faith cannot honestly guide people.

You haven't claimed we are responsible for our faith or our actions. However the basis of your argument is that we make decisions based on our faith. Making that claim makes the implication that we are not always responsible for our actions, but sometimes our beliefs are. I'm sorry but that is a load of poppycock. We are always responsible for our actions.

Then stop putting words in my mouth.

We can and do make decisions based on our faith. I do this. Or am I a liar?

Just because faith influences action in no way eliminates the individual's responsibility for that action. Again, we are responsible for our faith, so we are certainly responsible for any decisions we make influenced by our faith.

Sorry, but the "poppycock" is your assumptions. Before making, you could ask a question and prevent your own confusion.

While you may not have claimed outright "we are not always responsible for our actions" your argument has supported that notion by itself. Maybe it wasn't your intention, but ultimately your argument has supported that claim

No, that's simply not the case. Never did I claim we were not responsible for our faith, much less did I claim that faith eliminates our responsibility for our actions.

Moreover the original definition of which mine is a simplification of has been accepted by scholars, theologians, and philosophers for many years. These are men and women who've studied philosophy significantly more than I, and probably you, have. I think it's fair to say that "not necessarily" doesn't even belong in that sentence.

I'm not familiar with the "original definition" you refer to. However, I would wonder in what context they apply this definition - to monotheisms? Again, I don't know, but I really am not going to be impressed with an appeal to authority when you do not even tell me what these authorities are supporting. However, I am interested to hear this definition, and if you can hold off on the straw men, I'll probably continue reading what you have to say.

As far as faith without understanding goes, all faith is without understanding. If faith were not without understanding it would not be faith. The question is not whether or not faith is without understanding, but to what degree is the understanding.

All faith is without understand, but we can have degrees of understanding? Well, if we have some degree of understanding, we are not without understanding, now are we?

However faith with no degree of understanding is still faith and is not arbitrary. This can easily be shown by the simple fact that many of the people who have faith in God and who also love their neighbor as Jesus taught do not have what you would call "understanding" of their faith. But these people are by and large just good normal everyday people who would love their neighbors as themselves even if they were atheist. Why? Because actions and faith are two entirely separate things.

If faith includes love for one's neighbor, faith and action, in that particular case, are inseparable. Otherwise, you would never actually love your neighbor, you would only remind yourself that you do.

Further, if the faith is not investigated, the faith is arbitrary. You can get a dictionary if you are still confused.

Honestly, this topic is becoming annoying. Usually, I enjoy these discussion, but when someone constantly attributes to you views that you do not hold or express, the discussion becomes tiresome and absolutely without value. If you, dancinginchanins, want to continue, I am willings, but I'm not going to reply any longer if you persist in erecting straw men.

[dancinginchains]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I don't think it's fair to say at all, especially when your argument is limited to "it stands to logical reason". Subjectivity simply does not demand selfishness.

I never said subjectivity demands selfishness.

And as I've pointed out before, we can have faith in something other than God.

If that were true faith would have no value. The fact that we have faith in God is what always prevents faith from being arbitrary, but the second we hold that we can have faith in something other than God, that's when faith becomes arbitrary. That particular view is very reletivistic and as such diminishes the value of faith single handedly.

Except that your logical reasoning was 'faith is one person's perspective, therefore all faith is selfish'.

That was not my logical reasoning at all.

Simply because love can exist without faith does not mean that love cannot have anything to do with faith. Again, in the teachings of Jesus, faith and love are hand in hand.

No, with the teachings of Jesus faith and getting into Heaven are hand in hand. What's more in line with Jesus' teachings is that love should be present regardless of faith. Jesus never once even gave the suggestion that faith and love go hand in hand. The notion that faith and love are hand in hand is more in line with Islam than it is with Christianity.

No, I'm not. Again, you lack the ability to comprehend what you read.

I quoted this specifically for later reference just incase you start ranting about how I falsely accuse you of something.

Your example is a possibility. That's all. Sure, it's possible we use our faith to justify what we would believe/do with or without that faith. But none of that demands that faith cannot honestly guide people.

Faith doesn't honestly guide people, people honestly guide themselves. An honest person is an honest person, period. He or she doesn't need faith to justify their honesty and the same goes for dishonesty. Being accountable for ones actions doesn't just mean we should be accountable for our bad decisions, but our good ones as well. Faith may give us spiritual strength on an individual basis when we need it most, certainly it does. But it is not the driving force behind our decisions, we are as individuals. If you chose to help somebody who needed it your faith would have had nothing to do with that, the only thing that would drive a choice like that is your good nature as a person. You would make that same decision with or without your faith.

We can and do make decisions based on our faith. I do this. Or am I a liar?

My honest view is that if one says they make a decision based upon one's faith in reality their faith is their rationalization for making their decision, nothing more. If this applies to you, then no it doesn't make you a liar. A liar would do this consciously, but I find that most people do it subconsciously. If you were lying you'd be lying to someone on an internet forum; what would you have to gain? Nothing. Or even if hypothetically you lied to protect yourself, what do you have to protect yourself against on here? Nothing. So no the thought of you being a liar never crossed my mind and I fail to understand why you are so defensive; I have no ill will against you, I just thoroughly disagree with your view. But I sense hostitility from your response, and that worries me because I don't see a legitimate reason to be hostile.

Just because faith influences action in no way eliminates the individual's responsibility for that action. Again, we are responsible for our faith, so we are certainly responsible for any decisions we make influenced by our faith.

Thats the fundamental difference between our arguments I've been trying to address all along. Your view is that faith influences action, mine is that faith is entirely separate from action and therefore cannot influence it.

No, that's simply not the case. Never did I claim we were not responsible for our faith, much less did I claim that faith eliminates our responsibility for our actions.

I'm not even going to respond to this because I have previously and you consistently rebuttle by disagreeing with things I haven't said.

I'm not familiar with the "original definition" you refer to. However, I would wonder in what context they apply this definition - to monotheisms? Again, I don't know, but I really am not going to be impressed with an appeal to authority when you do not even tell me what these authorities are supporting. However, I am interested to hear this definition, and if you can hold off on the straw men, I'll probably continue reading what you have to say.

The following is the original definition:

Originally Posted by dancinginchains

"Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual's inwardness and the objective uncertainty."

Kierkegaard

If you think I'm full of it, you'll find it on page 2 of the 8 Characteristics thread. Yes it is applied to monotheisms.

All faith is without understand, but we can have degrees of understanding? Well, if we have some degree of understanding, we are not without understanding, now are we?

Not necessarily, just because we have some or even a high degree of understanding doesn't mean we have the full degree of understanding. We can truly never have the full degree of understanding when it comes to our faith which means there is always something about our faith we don't understand. Hence all faith is without understanding.

If faith includes love for one's neighbor, faith and action, in that particular case, are inseparable. Otherwise, you would never actually love your neighbor, you would only remind yourself that you do.

If faith included love for one's neighbor then yes your view is correct, but faith does not include love for ones neighbor, love for ones neighbor is an action entirely separate of faith. Case in point there are many of those who believe who don't follow the Golden Rule even the slightest but only remind themselves that they do, that's why atheism has been given a good second look recently.

Jesus taught love for one's neighbor, but he never said anything that would indicate faith includes love for ones neighbor. He gave indications though that faith would lead you to Heaven, but not that it's linked to the Golden Rule. Your assumption that they go hand in hand is an assumption you seem to draw simply because Jesus is accepted as a religious figure.

Actually Jesus today is also accepted as a philosophical figure, and when referred to as such that's usually the first teaching that's brought up and it's highly emphasized because other philosophers such as Socrates emphasized that same point; Socrates lived hundreds of years before Jesus. Not only that but if Jesus truly was a carpenter then he knew Greek, because in Jesus' time you couldn't be a carpenter and not know Greek. It is entirely likely he picked that idea up from the Greek during his days in carpentry and thus spread a beautiful, probably since forgotten, ancient idea along with the rest of his teachings. That doesn't magically make it a religious idea overnight just because Jesus contributed to it's spreading, it's solely a humanistic idea that has been embraced by philosophers and religious figures alike over the past 2000 years.

Further, if the faith is not investigated, the faith is arbitrary. You can get a dictionary if you are still confused.

There is no confusion on my part. Perhaps the confusion might be on your side since you're summing up my arguments with words that aren't even attributable to what I actually write. Like selfishness for instance. I never once gave even the indication that all faith is selfish, that's just how you chose to see my argument.

Honestly, this topic is becoming annoying. Usually, I enjoy these discussion, but when someone constantly attributes to you views that you do not hold or express, the discussion becomes tiresome and absolutely without value. If you, dancinginchanins, want to continue, I am willings, but I'm not going to reply any longer if you persist in erecting straw men.

I've never said you made claims that you haven't made. I've explicitly said in plain English that the claims you make give implications that I don't think you intend to give. Moreover I don't think you realize it. As for me lacking comprehension I think you should look to your own shortcomings before you cast stones upon others, which is also something Jesus taught but I guess you missed that lesson.

I don't mind quarreling with you, actually I find it enjoyable because I get the opportunity to really debate this with someone who holds different views than I do. But you begin to discredit yourself when you start firing insults at those who don't share the same view as you.

Meanwhile, why don't you do something for me?
Why don't you show me how faith can influence action? I figure it only fair since I've been asked to show something fundamental of my view.

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by dancinginchains

Your view is that faith influences action, mine is that faith is entirely separate from action and therefore cannot influence it.

I think if we take this down to the root of this issue—it's thought that precedes action, and there are a great number of things that can influence our thoughts. Nevertheless, I do understand your argument.

[Didymos Thomas]

I never said subjectivity demands selfishness.

Then please clarify:

But the problem with that is one individual's faith is not meant to be helpful to others, it's meant to be helpful to the individual that's why faith is subjective.Nothing about an individual's faith in God or any higher power is meant to serve the greater good of his or her surrounding community.

I agree with you in that it's what we do, the way we treat others is our responsibility. However, it's also true that our faith can and does influence what we do - we can be guided by our faith. And that's why faith with understanding is important. No reason to rely on something you don't understand.

If that were true faith would have no value. The fact that we have faith in God is what always prevents faith from being arbitrary, but the second we hold that we can have faith in something other than God, that's when faith becomes arbitrary. That particular view is very reletivistic and as such diminishes the value of faith single handedly.

Why is having faith in something other than God arbitrary faith? If we investigate our faith, then the faith is not arbitrary, regardless of what that faith is in, or directed towards. People who do not have faith in "God" can have faith.

No, with the teachings of Jesus faith and getting into Heaven are hand in hand. What's more in line with Jesus' teachings is that love should be present regardless of faith. Jesus never once even gave the suggestion that faith and love go hand in hand. The notion that faith and love are hand in hand is more in line with Islam than it is with Christianity.

Then tell me, scholar, what are the two most important commandements, the two upon which all the laws and prophets are rest? Such a role certainly gives them at least a close relationship.

I'll leave the discussion about what it means to 'get into Heaven' for another thread - though I do agree, faith and getting into Heaven are hand in hand. That it is somehow more related to faith than love I think is a silly path to go down, because the only result is becoming bogged down with various interpretations of scripture.

Besides, what's wrong with Islam? I was talking about the teachings of Jesus, which Muslims seem fond of. So, who cares if it's more Christian or Muslim, my point remains - there are obvious cases where faith and love are bound together.

I quoted this specifically for later reference just incase you start ranting about how I falsely accuse you of something.

I'm shaking in my metaphorical boots.

Faith doesn't honestly guide people, people honestly guide themselves. An honest person is an honest person, period. He or she doesn't need faith to justify their honesty and the same goes for dishonesty. Being accountable for ones actions doesn't just mean we should be accountable for our bad decisions, but our good ones as well. Faith may give us spiritual strength on an individual basis when we need it most, certainly it does. But it is not the driving force behind our decisions, we are as individuals. If you chose to help somebody who needed it your faith would have had nothing to do with that, the only thing that would drive a choice like that is your good nature as a person. You would make that same decision with or without your faith.

Again, I've never argued that faith frees us from responsibility. How many times do I have to say this? We are responsibile for our faith. If I take someone's advice, it's my fault for doing so, good or bad. If my faith guides me, to ill or good, it's my fault for going along.

My honest view is that if one says they make a decision based upon one's faith in reality their faith is their rationalization for making their decision, nothing more.

What's wrong with faith being part of the rationalization? If the faith is uninvestigated, arbitrary faith, this would be dangerous; however, the more we investigate and understand our faith, the better guide our faith becomes.

Thats the fundamental difference between our arguments I've been trying to address all along. Your view is that faith influences action, mine is that faith is entirely separate from action and therefore cannot influence it.

Faith is something other than action. We agree here. But reason is something other than action, and our capacity to reason certainly influences what we do. Similarly, our faith can influence what we do.

The problem might be our conception of faith, as I vehemently disagree that we can only have faith in God.

If you think I'm full of it, you'll find it on page 2 of the 8 Characteristics thread. Yes it is applied to monotheisms.

I recall this given definition. Thank you. Now, I think that faith can, and for many people is, as the definition describes. However, I see no reason why the definition applies to all faith. Again, we might have faith in something other than God - people sometimes do, as a matter of fact. The faith of others may not look like faith in your water, but in their pond, your faith might appear equally strange.

Not necessarily, just because we have some or even a high degree of understanding doesn't mean we have the full degree of understanding. We can truly never have the full degree of understanding when it comes to our faith which means there is always something about our faith we don't understand. Hence all faith is without understanding.

Must we have this semantic spat? If we have some understanding, it cannot rightly be said that we are "without understanding". If we have some understanding, you might rightly say we are "without complete understanding". Though, to avoid this altogether, we could just use "without any understanding" and "with some degree of understanding". Work for you?

If faith included love for one's neighbor then yes your view is correct, but faith does not include love for ones neighbor, love for ones neighbor is an action entirely separate of faith.

Then that is our disagreement. And I'm simply not convinced that faith cannot be related to love. To argue that love has nothing to do with faith in any tradition, to anyone at all, is a heck of a thing to argue.

Case in point there are many of those who believe who don't follow the Golden Rule even the slightest but only remind themselves that they do, that's why atheism has been given a good second look recently.

Right, we can have faith and not follow the Golden Rule, I've never objected to this. But we might also have faith and follow the Golden Rule as a matter of faith, in which case faith and love... well, you know the rest.

Jesus taught love for one's neighbor, but he never said anything that would indicate faith includes love for ones neighbor. He gave indications though that faith would lead you to Heaven, but not that it's linked to the Golden Rule. Your assumption that they go hand in hand is an assumption you seem to draw simply because Jesus is accepted as a religious figure.

Perhaps we disagree here, but I have a hard time imagining "getting into Heaven" without loving our neighbors. At least according to the teachings of Jesus.

Maybe it's worth noting that I do consider myself a Christian. That's my spiritual heritage, my faith tradition.

Actually Jesus today is also accepted as a philosophical figure, and when referred to as such that's usually the first teaching that's brought up and it's highly emphasized because other philosophers such as Socrates emphasized that same point; Socrates lived hundreds of years before Jesus. Not only that but if Jesus truly was a carpenter then he knew Greek, because in Jesus' time you couldn't be a carpenter and not know Greek. It is entirely likely he picked that idea up from the Greek during his days in carpentry and thus spread a beautiful, probably since forgotten, ancient idea along with the rest of his teachings. That doesn't magically make it a religious idea overnight just because Jesus contributed to it's spreading, it's solely a humanistic idea that has been embraced by philosophers and religious figures alike over the past 2000 years.

He's a philosophical figure as the Buddha is a philosophical figure, yes. And you're right, the Golden Rule, in various forms, has been well grounded in the philosophic tradition, ect.

What must also be remembered is that the Golden Rule is not magically a religious idea. It is an idea incorporated into religious traditions, many religious traditions.

By the way, we find this in the Mahabharata from around 3000BCE

""This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you."
-- Mahabharata 5:1517"

We also find it in the Talmud, long before Socrates, or even Thales for that matter, around 1300BCE

"What is hateful to you, do not to our fellow man. That is entire Law, all the rest is commentary." Shabbat 31a

So much for Jesus maybe knowing Greek, maybe having read something, ect - it was in his culture's religious tradition and teaching long before any Greek discussed the matter.

There is no confusion on my part. Perhaps the confusion might be on your side since you're summing up my arguments with words that aren't even attributable to what I actually write. Like selfishness for instance. I never once gave even the indication that all faith is selfish, that's just how you chose to see my argument.

If the intent is to only help the individual, and the concerns of others are not taken into account, that is selfishness. You say that faith is solely for the individual, and cannot help others. That sounds like selfishness. If it's not, I apologize and invite you to clarify.

I've never said you made claims that you haven't made. I've explicitly said in plain English that the claims you make give implications that I don't think you intend to give.

What implications do I give? You claimed repeatedly that I'm somehow trying to eliminate our responsibility for actions by blaming faith because I say that faith can influence our actions. Influence does not eliminate our responsibility - all of our actions are influenced by something, yet we are still responsible. Why does the influence of faith suggest we have no responsibility when the influence of our nagging parents, for example, maintains our responsibility?

As for me lacking comprehension I think you should look to your own shortcomings before you cast stones upon others, which is also something Jesus taught but I guess you missed that lesson.

No one's perfect, brother. But my shortcoming do not change the fact that you should either pay more attention when you read, or ask questions instead of making assumptions - especially if you're going to draw out debate about those assumptions for page after page. Talk about tiresome.

I don't mind quarreling with you, actually I find it enjoyable because I get the opportunity to really debate this with someone who holds different views than I do. But you begin to discredit yourself when you start firing insults at those who don't share the same view as you.

If I discredit myself, that's my call.

Why don't you show me how faith can influence action? I figure it only fair since I've been asked to show something fundamental of my view.

Do you want me to describe the process? Or should I suggest you go find someone with a deep faith to study them?

[dancinginchains]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Do you want me to describe the process? Or should I suggest you go find someone with a deep faith to study them?

Considering I asked you to show me how faith can influence action I would appreciate it if the response came from you. But that was a very well placed snide remark. If I want to even consider your view I must first understand the foundation which your view is built on. So far all of our debate has pretty much been semantics.

And on a side note, I don't appreciate being insulted regardless if we're debating faith or ham sandwiches. I haven't done anything to insult you directly like you have me, so I would appreciate it if you extended me the same courtesy.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them automatically ignorant nor does it make them your enemy.

[Didymos Thomas]

You can take the question as you like, I was being serious. Why, for example, can reason influence our actions and not faith?

[dancinginchains]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You can take the question as you like, I was being serious. Why, for example, can reason influence our actions and not faith?

I wasn't referring to the question you asked I was reffering to your remark on my comprehension. Just explain to me how faith can influence action. It's the core basis of your entire argument so obviously an explanation is necessary if it's to be considered.

How are we to understand our faith if we can't even explain how it can influence action?

[Didymos Thomas]

Just explain to me how faith can influence action. It's the core basis of your entire argument so obviously an explanation is necessary if it's to be considered.

How are we to understand our faith if we can't even explain how it can influence action?

Okay. As a matter of faith someone might attempt to follow the Golden Rule as best he or she can. Theres an example. As a matter of faith, we might take the Golden Rule into consideration when we chose to act or not to act, and if we are to act, we might take it into consideration in determining the right way to act.

A great many things influence our action, reason, our environment, various desires and biases. Faith should be counted among these influences.

Though, just so we avoid this confusion, we should also remember that our faith has influences, and that faith is just one influence, and then only if we allow it to be an influence. A given decision, regardless of influences, is our own, and we are therefore responsible. If your mother tells you to take out the trash, and you prefer to play your video game, when she yells at you for not doing as you were told, the video game is no excuse, you are responsible for not doing as you were told.

[Aedes]

If action is simply doing something, then there are actions that bypass all conscious thought whether rational or not. If I tap on your patellar tendon (below your knee) with a reflex hammer and you kick your leg, it's a pure spinal reflex that creates that action of kicking.

So why cannot faith influence action? People don't pray on their deathbed or go to confession because of reason.