A Re-Wording of Wittgenstein: On Faith

[Tyler]

This will be my first philosophical thread in years.

Anyway, a thought has occured. Before I begin, this is not a unique thought line. It's very typical as a response to certain lines of argument. Essentially, it amounts to no more than "you can't really talk about this", which is why I've deemed it a re-wording of Wittgenstein. Regardless, it's more or less just an expanded version on a particular case of his arguments.

Premise
There is reason. We can start with this as a premise because it is empirically true. There is a system of deduction known as reason (or logic) and it is structurally rigid and definable.


Argument
(i) There are two different modes of thought on religosity in accepting a higher existence. One of these is to believe there is a logical and/or empirical proof of the existence of a higher being. The other is to believe it is a matter of something called faith.

(ii) Often a retort is made demanding some justification of faith. One response would be to say that faith is not justifiable, but is necessary.

(iii) This is necessarily an undefendable response. The word necessary is a logical predicate. It's very use is an act of implying deduction from some definition and requirements of a set of necessary things*.


Conclusion
Faith, like the conception of God in many theologians and mystics, is not capable of holding attributes.



* For those technically inclined; "of a set of statements which are necessarily empirically true."


P.S. One Breath is one of the greatest X-Files episodes ever.

 

[lightgigantic]

This will be my first philosophical thread in years.

Anyway, a thought has occured.

Premise
There is reason. We can start with this as a premise because it is empirically true. There is a system of deduction known as reason (or logic) and it is structurally rigid and definable.


Argument
(i) There are two different modes of thought on religosity in accepting a higher existence. One of these is to believe there is a logical and/or empirical proof of the existence of a higher being. The other is to believe it is a matter of something called faith.

(ii) Often a retort is made demanding some justification of faith. One response would be to say that faith is not justifiable, but is necessary.

(iii) This is necessarily an undefendable response. The word necessary is a logical predicate. It's very use is an act of implying deduction from some definition and requirements of a set of necessary things*.


Conclusion
Faith, like the conception of God in many theologians and mystics, is not capable of holding attributes.



* For those technically inclined; "of a set of statements which are necessarily empirically true."


P.S. One Breath is one of the greatest X-Files episodes ever.

I guess there are problems with your premise - is it sufficient to say that because reason exists (in particular, the type of reason that humans can muster), that reason can determine everything?

In other words if god exists, and if god has consciousness just like we have consciousness except in greater and broader qualities, wouldn't there be a greater and broader scope for god's "reason" compared to that of humans?

 

[Tyler]

Sure, there's no argument for deeming reason necessary either. Because any such argument would be employing reason as sufficient means of justification.

I'm simply saying that the word necessary is not applicable as a predicate of faith. My premise does not assume reason is for some explainable reason better.