But if all we see, experience, know and have access to is two-dimensional reality, then surely we must rely on two-dimensional evidence, not three-dimensional speculation. And three dimensional behaviour intersecting two-dimensional space would leave two-dimensional evidence -- that evidence could be analysed for intelligent variation. But so far, we're not seeing that.
Well, that's my point. I mean, if a two-dimensional being has the capability of receiving some sort of communion with a three-dimensional being it would be impossible to detect the evidence because the three-dimensional stuff just doesn't compute. Aside from emotional response, would be the point of contact which, what I'm trying to highlight, would be the only indicator. But what if that point of contact was only detectable in this three-dimensional reality? I mean, where the point of contact is actually made goes beyond the second dimensional reality.
Again, I agree whole-heartedly that from a scientific perspective this "point of contact" would only be considered, at best, speculation. That's why I point at faith as the responder of that contact. And faith can only be considered "evidence" in retrospect.
But that's irrelevant speculation anyway, because what's driving this strained analogy is feelings, and there's no evidence that feelings are an accurate predictor of physical reality. (If they were, people wouldn't get stuck so much in traffic-jams and bad relationships.
)
Well, I was trying to draw the hypothetical illustration as a means to highlight that faith itself might only be the response to contact. This would be outside the realm of emotional tapestry, though "feelings" surely fire up in response to the experience. That's also why I threw in the dis-qualifier that you can't guess or take a stab in the dark but that the true "faith" would be one that was an actual response to an actual connection and not just some speculation.
I wouldn't say it's possible, but I can say that it's conceivable that our orderly, predictable universe could suddenly get very crazy. But that's not how it's acted to date. So people who think that is how it's acted to date have other reasons for thinking that, and that damages their credibility as observers, analysts and teachers. So, whatever may happen tomorrow, today we have to decide who gets to teach the children, and who gets to sit on the silly-stool and lick windows, dreaming of days when they'll show everyone.
Well, I feel you might be making an orange apple salad here. I mean, let's say there's a group of people who saw a man walk on water, no chemistry or whathaveyou up the man's (who walked on water) sleeve. Now, there are two types of people who might respond favorably to this group of witnesses. One person might assume that this is just how the natural world works. Like ball lightening occurs, so does a man walking on water. Now this person might fit into what you are talking about as a type of person.
There are certainly types of people that despite any kind of connection or connected belief in what the group of witnesses saw, just hears the witnesses testimonies as a mere validation of something they already personally assumed to be a reality (a stab in the dark).
However, the second group would see, based on the testimonies, that this man defied the natural world and was, outside of the natural realm, able to command the natural world to act irrationally from a natural world perspective. And assuming they connect to this reality and respond to it, regardless of feeling or assumption, with faith/belief/trust.
The second group is of course what I'm trying to illustrate to help explain hypothetically how, if my faith is true, this might be conceivable from a logical point of view. However, again, I admit that there's nothing in all of existence that I'm aware of that has the ability to directly capture or put God's essence in a test-tube.
Faith is not evidence but conviction. Evidence is portable. You can put it in someone's hands and walk away and they can make sense of it. Conviction's personal. It requires no justification.
Well, see, that's why I gave the hypothetical and called faith evidence but the kind of evidence that would only be able to be validate or considered "portable" in retrospect.
Like, Newtonian physics only remain true insofar as the vacuum of information they work within goes but once we get into light, those physics don't really contain any evidence of the physics pertaining to light etc. Doesn't mean that the physics at work in light didn't exist in Newtons time but retrospectively of course, they are found to have been constant (portable).
I'll have to disagree strongly with that, Ephrem. Among the more common applications of faith in my life is the Australian dollar. I use it in the belief that it's worth something, and from time to time, people report what it's worth. I also have faith in my wife -- that she cares for my interests. Sometimes she displays evidence of that, sometimes she doesn't.
Well, you can have faith in the Australian dollar's worth but until you receive the report of it's worth, you don't actually have that which you believe it to be - it's worth, until the report comes out. And then, insofar as the reported worth is true in whatever sense of "true" we're talking about here, your faith ceases to be faith.
Of course the value fluxes so you are given the task of having faith, having the faith confirmed or rejected and then starting the process all over again.
Same would apply to our wives. We may have faith that our wives care for our interests but until that faith is confirmed, you don't have that which you believe to be true. You only have faith that she will supply care until she actually does or doesn't at which point the faith in her care will either be confirmed or rejected. Also, your faith in her care ceases to be faith once she delivers or demonstrably won't deliver her care.
Know what I mean?
The idea that faith doesn't accept evidence is idealistic purism. It debases the value of evidence so as to elevate the 'purist' value of evidence-free conviction. But we use evidence-supported faith all the time. We don't even have to wash our hands afterward.
Oh, not at all. This is one of the questions that I continue to meditate on. Why would God require us to have faith over simply being given the satisfaction of "proof"?
It's not that the value of evidence is lower than value of faith or conviction. The value that Christianity holds up isn't conviction or faith in comparison to evidence (read the biblical account of Thomas who needed to have "evidence" that Jesus raised from the dead - Thomas had a twin brother and so probably thought that this "Jesus" may have been a look-alike).
The value that is held in high regard is only the object of that evidence or faith - God Himself. Evidence and faith might just be two different roads to the same destination and for some wonderfully mysterious reason, God will have most of us take the latter.
In regards to your line "evidence-supported faith" I agree. I mean, like you have faith that your wife cares for your interest, you have a good deal of experiences you can draw on to increase your confidence in your faith's probability. However, barring any unforeseen changes, this doesn't diminish either "evidence" or "faith" but only show how the two can work together to instill confidence or the lack of. But truly, you begin with a point of contact and then work your way back to that contact using faith and evidence together. Her care, you hope, is not temporal in regards to the span of her life, but again, until she lives out that span, you have to wait and see, have faith.
The issue with most people of faith is that because their perspective is based on faith and their faith (if it's correct) is what they hold in reaction to "contact" (even if it is just conceptual), then everything built on that faith necessarily becomes faith-based evidence.
A tree can reveal a few attributes of what God is like but in order to see those attributes, there first has to be some kind of contact. You have to believe that there is a God and you must then first seek His face "in" the tree. The tree, for the person who has faith, becomes evidence once it's tested by their faith.
To the one that denies this "contact" and has no faith in this contact, will demand that the tree give evidence first.
So, it's not a progression like: I exist therefore God exists.
It's not a construction. You don't take the evidence of your existence and then mix it with a notion of His existence and then juxtapose that evidence of your existence onto your notion of His existence. Like, "well, since I exist and all this other stuff exists, He must, therefore, exist."
It's a deconstruction. He exists. However, there is nothing in this natural world that can validate what I experienced or know (whatever "know" means) to be true and so I will keep the faith that what I knew or am in contact with was and still is and always true.
The food chain exists and can tell me what He is like and so knowing this I will use my specific faith in who this god is and then determine just what about Him I can deduce from the food chain. However, this will all be based on the faith I keep which is based on contact that is scientifically impossible to "prove".
Meh. I'm getting dizzy.
'God' is a package of too many conflicting things; many of which make no sense to me. I'd do exactly what I'd do if I received an anonymous letter -- start off assuming that someone wrote it, and then try and work out who, how and why.
In Orthodoxy this is why, perhaps, there is so much emphasis on the Apostles and the lives of the Saints. The Holy Scriptures play a much different role in the Orthodox Church than it does in protestantism and it sort of touches on what you're saying but I won't go there.
In short, we see the Holy Scriptures as a product of the Church. The bible is not the pillar and ground of truth as it is in protestantism. The Church is in accordance with the scriptures but is not "based" on it. We place more importance on the lives of those that came before us, who preserved their experiences and the testimony that they received from the generations that preceded them. All the way back to the Apostles (disciples of Christ).
A personal view? Fear, ambition, lust, curiosity and compassion -- or rather the dissatisfied motives that lead to those emotions. Most animals are restless creatures. We're no exception. We act as we are. If you want to wonder why we are as we are then I wish you well, but I have no clue as to what you'd do with that information once you had it. I'd rather ask how we can best satisfy the contradictions of our natures while being good to each other. I don't think it's nearly as hard as the idealists make out.
If I know that we are as we are, in part, because culture colors the way in which we see the world, then once I find out that culture can color things and works a certain way, I can then refrain from having to look at the world through X colored lenses provided to me by culture. I can also not react violently more so than had I not been informed that culture influences what we are as we are.
My response is sort of the same thing you mentioned about trying to synthesize conflicts in our own nature both for the good of the self and the community.
Too early for all this. !
God bless
