Faith is the most central element of Christianity and Islam. It forms the basics and epistemological foundation of these religions. It is by Faith the revelations of God are accepted by the Patriarchs of the religions: Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Elijah; and the acceptance of God's spiritual realm separated the physical. It is by Faith of the believers, that Jesus' death, sacrifice and resurrection are fulfilled. It is by Faith the Bible and Quran are believed to be the Word of God.

Paul the Christian theorist saw faith as "an assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." He goes further that "for in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?" and "so we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." The simple conclusion, faith is a prospective lenses, it turns against against this reality in search of a transcendental reality. The transcendental reality is not visible nor justifiable on earth but in the hearts of the believers. Hence Faith is just like other epistemological lenses such as rationality is used in the physical reality.

The world created by Faith due to its prospective nature might be beautiful but it conflicts with our innermost defence most valuable in our reality -- healthy skepticism. Our innate nature to trust only things of the material reality makes us deny a transcendental reality as a fantasy. My question, is Faith beyond our healthy skepticism fantasy?

Explain your question, bro.

Is healthy skepticism tolerable with Faith?

Kay17:
Is healthy skepticism tolerable with Faith?

Yes, it is. But it is not. Where it is suppressed, the faith suffers. Martin Luther is an example.

Kay17:
Is healthy skepticism tolerable with Faith?

Yes. But the question is where. it should start and stop.

Kay17:
Is healthy skepticism tolerable with Faith?

for the Christian. 'Faith' is inconsequential and foolish even.

Faith in God is the real deal. And there's no skepticism when it comes to him.

One other thing is that under genuine faith in God, reason is enhanced, not choked. This is the difference between a saved man and a religious bigot

Joshthefirst:
for the Christian. 'Faith' is inconsequential and foolish even.

Faith in God is the real deal. And there's no skepticism when it comes to him.

One other thing is that under genuine faith in God, reason is enhanced, not choked. This is the difference between a saved man and a religious bigot

Hhmm.
A careful analysis shows that every single sentence in the above post contradicts the one before it.
W
Faith in god enhances reason?

I can't stop laughing.

Reyginus:
Yes, it is. But it is not. Where it is suppressed, the faith suffers. Martin Luther is an example.

It is difficult to see how a healthy skepticism wouldn't intervene against hopes of an afterlife, a place beyond death or that there is a power that moves mountains and performs extraordinary miracles.

Kay17:


It is difficult to see how a healthy skepticism wouldn't intervene against hopes of an afterlife, a place beyond death or that there is a power that moves mountains and performs extraordinary miracles.

Why do you think it is difficult?

Reyginus:
Why do you think it is difficult?

Because they are extraordinary.

plaetton:


Hhmm.
A careful analysis shows that every single sentence in the above post contradicts the one before it.
W
Faith in god enhances reason?

I can't stop laughing.

elaborate on the contradictions.

And yes. Faith in God establishes and enhances your reasoning and thought and perception and confidence, everything about your life. Lack of faith in god makes men deteriorate in common sense and thought in most areas of life as is shown in your case.

Kay17:



Because they are extraordinary.

This is not good enough. It is more like substituting a word with another word without the previous word reduced to any meaningful explanation.

We know an extraordinary thing may be difficult to attain but a difficult thing is not so because it is extraordinary. Even ordinary things can be difficult. So, your idea of skepticism is not grounded enough. A better explanation will do.

I'm yet to even come in from the angle of difficulty implying impossible. Let's deal with above for now.

Reyginus:
This is not good enough. It is more like substituting a word with another word without the previous word reduced to any meaningful explanation.

We know an extraordinary thing may be difficult to attain but a difficult thing is not so because it is extraordinary. Even ordinary things can be difficult. So, your idea of skepticism is not grounded enough. A better explanation will do.

I'm yet to even come in from the angle of difficulty implying impossible. Let's deal with above for now.

Because such feats approach fantasy and lack a process. And by extraordinary, I meant apparent impossibilities, remote odds a reasonable person does not consider to occur.

Faith from Paul's world-view is incompatible with skepticism no matter how healthy. This view of Paul is largely borne by the privilege he had of knowing and following God closely.

For Paul and many of the patriarchs blind faith was necessary but in our present existence, it would be 'dangerous', imho, for anyone who does not have a true experience of his divine majesty, to follow faith blindly without having what I think 'healthy skepticism' should be.

when you willingly believe anything on faith....you are denying it being true on its own merits..... if faith is the way you know a jewish guy walked on water,then you are the definition of gullible...

striktlymi:
Faith from Paul's world-view is incompatible with skepticism no matter how healthy. This view of Paul is largely borne by the privilege he had of knowing and following God closely.

For Paul and many of the patriarchs blind faith was necessary but in our present existence, it would be 'dangerous', imho, for anyone who does not have a true experience of his divine majesty, to follow faith blindly without having what I think 'healthy skepticism' should be.

are there limits to how skeptical one can be towards a belief?

davien:
are there limits to how skeptical one can be towards a belief?

A rational skeptic necessarily must put a peg to the extent of his skepticism, otherwise he becomes as irrational as the individual who, without 'insider' knowledge, follows faith blindly.


Yes, I believe there should be limits to how skeptic one can be; even when such skepticism is directed at another's beliefs.

davien:
when you willingly believe anything on faith....you are denying it being true on its own merits..... if faith is the way you know a jewish guy walked on water,then you are the definition of gullible...

I really don't know how some can claim to have faith, and then at the same time claim to be rational.
Faith and rationality are forever at war in brains.
The part of the brain that responds to faith are the most primordial and primitive parts of our brain. Incidentally, it is also the part responsible for violent tendencies. It is the animal part of us, the beast, the devil in all of us.

But thanks to evolution, we evolved a more recent areas of our brain that served to checkmate the primitive and irrational parts of our brain.
The really funny thing is that the primitive parts of our brain, when faced with overwhelming rational thoughts or impulses, would rather completely shut off the rational side until it does what it wants.
This is the origin of evil. The devil, just like god, lives in the primitive areas of our minds.

So when a person of faith comes face to face with the brick wall of reason , they tend completely block out the rational processes of their mind for that period, or for an extended period of time.
Or, depending on the circumstances, their natural selfdefence mechanisms would kick in, snd then the get violent or threaten violence.

Have you noticed that Christians and Moslem usually threaten you with death , torture and hellfire when you use rationality to flog them in an argument.
It is a purely natural animalistic response to cognitive dissonance.

Kay17:
Faith is the most central element of Christianity and Islam. It forms the basics and epistemological foundation of these religions.

Yes because Christians are dealing with an invisible God just as the writer of Hebrew put it "And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that [size=14pt]he exists[/size] and that he rewards those who seek him." Heb 11:6 RSV

How possible to believe in an invisible God without holding unto to faith?

It is by Faith the revelations of God are accepted by the Patriarchs of the religions: Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Elijah;

It is true that they later accepted the revelations of God through faith BUT God first revealed Himself to them.

and the acceptance of God's spiritual realm separated the physical.

How does it separate it? I need more clarification.

It is by Faith of the believers, that Jesus' death, sacrifice and resurrection are fulfilled.

You're wrong here! Jesus' death, resurrection and sacrificial offering for sin are WHAT believers placed their FAITH of assurance of SALVATION.

It is by Faith the Bible and Quran are believed to be the Word of God.

It is first true BUT can't be applied to the rest of believer's activities.
As I said earlier you must first HAVE FAITH that God exists (if God didn't reveal Himself to you in the first place) because you're about to deal with an INVISIBLE BEING but what most people including some Christians themselves failed to know is that, God doesn't want us to have BLIND FAITH that is just believe in Him without any prove, if you read from Genesis to Revelation you will see that God wants to FELLOWSHIP with US.

How can God fellowship with us without revealing Himself to us? It is impossible.
Jesus said "21 He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.
22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?"
23 Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." John 14:21-23 RSV

As you can see it here, Christian God promised all those who love Him A PERSONAL ENCONTER as it spreads out from OT.

Paul the Christian theorist saw faith as "an assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." He goes further that "for in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?" and "so we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

Absolutely correct!

The simple conclusion, faith is a prospective lenses, it turns against against this reality in search of a transcendental reality.

You've confused believers' faith on afterlife promise with that of SEARCH of invisible being.
Mind you Christian do dive more in search of reality but don't search on how universe came to be, the origin of life, why planet earth support life and others don't e.t.c

The transcendental reality is not visible [size=14pt]nor justifiable on earth but in the hearts of the believers.[/size] Hence Faith is just like other epistemological lenses such as rationality is used in the physical reality.

There was a little problem with the bolded part when we consider some points;
1. What is the origin of believing in supernatural being, did man just wake up one day and started building up false reason about supernatural being to create God, or the supernatural being actually revealed himself to people and these people share their encounter experience with their relatives?
I remember when my grandma was sharing her life story with me, she narrated everything she has passed through. I only have two OPTIONS about her story (a) It's either I discard it by concluding that the story is false, but why must I discard her story? Is she telling those story to scare me or deceive me? is she just pouring out her mind for me about what she has gone through in life? Actually, this is what most parent do.
or (b) I took it as her true life experience (which is happening to everyone of us)

2. Why every culture throughout the whole world have one story or the other about supernatural encounter?

The world created by Faith due to its prospective nature might be beautiful but it conflicts with our innermost defence most valuable in our reality -- healthy skepticism.

It will conflict Atheist reality BUT those who have had personal encounter with God know it doesn't conflict anything.

Our innate nature to trust only things of the material reality makes us deny a transcendental reality as a fantasy.

If you never had supernatural encounter you won't believe supernatural do exist...Younguz
You may deny it but the truth is that they do exist.

My question, is Faith beyond our healthy skepticism fantasy?

Faith is the FIRST process to draw near God and in reality God reveals Himself to those who draw near Him.
So FAITH is not beyond your scepticism fantasy BUT a little step you can take to draw yourself nearer to God who is ready to reveal Himself to you so that your knowledge of transcendental reality can be opened.


I'm a fallible man with a limited mind trying to discern the mind of an infallible and unlimited God my post is opened to correction.

In the service of Our Lord Jesus...Come Lord Jesus!

striktlymi:


A rationale skeptic necessarily must put a peg to the extent of his skepticism, otherwise he becomes as irrational as the individual who, without 'insider' knowledge, follows faith blindly.


Yes, I believe there should be limits to how skeptic one can be; even when such skepticism is directed at another's beliefs.

what exactly makes skepticism become irrational? is there a limit to questions that should be asked and who gets to decide what must not be questioned?...what questioned position makes one as irrational as blind faith?

Kay17:


Because such feats approach fantasy and lack a process. And by extraordinary, I meant apparent impossibilities, remote odds a reasonable person does not consider to occur.

A reasonable person is not reasonable enough to know all that is impossible. Never! That makes your suggestion still loose.

Skepticism doesn't equate ir-rationality. A rational skeptic is not a fool who keeps doubting a thing even when it has been explained rationally to him. If in my Christianity, I develop doubts and disbelief frequently which are paid attention to and solved with consistency, how then is such skepticism not possible?

davien:
what exactly makes skepticism become irrational? is there a limit to questions that should be asked and who gets to decide what must not be questioned?...what questioned position makes one as irrational as blind faith?

It becomes as irrational as 'blind faith' when that skepticism leads one to hold a view he cannot prove.

Reyginus:
A reasonable person is not reasonable enough to know all that is impossible. Never! That makes your suggestion still loose.

Skepticism doesn't equate ir-rationality. A rational skeptic is not a fool who keeps doubting a thing even when it has been explained rationally to him. If in my Christianity, I develop doubts and disbelief frequently which are paid attention to and solved with consistency, how then is such skepticism not possible?

I don't think the bolded made any sense. The reasonable man doesn't find them to be impossibilities but apparent impossibilities. The reasonable man is a simple person and not a sage but one of common sense. The skepticism he raises in his mind regarding fantastical phenomena he confronts, is healthy; because they are far from his commomsensical reach.

Emusan:


Yes because Christians are dealing with an invisible God just as the writer of Hebrew put it "And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that [size=14pt]he exists[/size] and that he rewards those who seek him." Heb 11:6 RSV

How possible to believe in an invisible God without holding unto to faith?



It is true that they later accepted the revelations of God through faith BUT God first revealed Himself to them.



How does it separate it? I need more clarification.



You're wrong here! Jesus' death, resurrection and sacrificial offering for sin are WHAT believers placed their FAITH of assurance of SALVATION.



It is first true BUT can't be applied to the rest of believer's activities.
As I said earlier you must first HAVE FAITH that God exists (if God didn't reveal Himself to you in the first place) because you're about to deal with an INVISIBLE BEING but what most people including some Christians themselves failed to know is that, God doesn't want us to have BLIND FAITH that is just believe in Him without any prove, if you read from Genesis to Revelation you will see that God wants to FELLOWSHIP with US.

How can God fellowship with us without revealing Himself to us? It is impossible.
Jesus said "21 He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.
22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?"
23 Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." John 14:21-23 RSV

As you can see it here, Christian God promised all those who love Him A PERSONAL ENCONTER as it spreads out from OT.



Absolutely correct!



You've confused believers' faith on afterlife promise with that of SEARCH of invisible being.
Mind you Christian do dive more in search of reality but don't search on how universe came to be, the origin of life, why planet earth support life and others don't e.t.c



There was a little problem with the bolded part when we consider some points;
1. What is the origin of believing in supernatural being, did man just wake up one day and started building up false reason about supernatural being to create God, or the supernatural being actually revealed himself to people and these people share their encounter experience with their relatives?
I remember when my grandma was sharing her life story with me, she narrated everything she has passed through. I only have two OPTIONS about her story (a) It's either I discard it by concluding that the story is false, but why must I discard her story? Is she telling those story to scare me or deceive me? is she just pouring out her mind for me about what she has gone through in life? Actually, this is what most parent do.
or (b) I took it as her true life experience (which is happening to everyone of us)

2. Why every culture throughout the whole world have one story or the other about supernatural encounter?



It will conflict Atheist reality BUT those who have had personal encounter with God know it doesn't conflict anything.



If you never had supernatural encounter you won't believe supernatural do exist...Younguz
You may deny it but the truth is that they do exist.



Faith is the FIRST process to draw near God and in reality God reveals Himself to those who draw near Him.
So FAITH is not beyond your scepticism fantasy BUT a little step you can take to draw yourself nearer to God who is ready to reveal Himself to you so that your knowledge of transcendental reality can be opened.


I'm a fallible man with a limited mind trying to discern the mind of an infallible and unlimited God my post is opened to correction.

In the service of Our Lord Jesus...Come Lord Jesus!

Isn't it easier to prove God's supernatural existence by believing his existence first before proving it? One will see God everywhere, in your breakfast, in the sky, in the busstop, in the church, in the bible etc.

striktlymi:


It becomes as irrational as 'blind faith' when that skepticism leads one to hold a view he cannot prove.

Don't you think healthy skepticism be different from absolute skepticism, and therefore not be as irrational as absolute skepticism? I am not opening the door to all sorts of skepticism, rather just one: healthy skepticism.

Kay17:


I don't think the bolded made any sense. The reasonable man doesn't find them to be impossibilities but apparent impossibilities. The reasonable man is a simple person and not a sage but one of common sense. The skepticism he raises in his mind regarding fantastical phenomena he confronts, is healthy; because they are far from his commomsensical reach.

Of course it makes sense. A reasonable man is just a man that can consistently any rational train of thoughts he is not a man who has an absolute understanding of everything.

If he doesn't have an absolute understanding of everything then how can he know all impossibilities? So the idea of finding them to be apparent impossibilities is still called into questions because of this poor understanding. It is like a Philosopher in the subject of Rationalism arguing that Asteroids are impossibilities when he is not grounded in the in field of astronomy.

Skepticism has always been healthy for the faith, the major reason the faith undergo modifications. If there are no skeptics every thing practiced in a faith would be as it has always been.

striktlymi:


It becomes as irrational as 'blind faith' when that skepticism leads one to hold a view he cannot prove.

like?

Kay17:


Don't you think healthy skepticism be different from absolute skepticism, and therefore not be as irrational as absolute skepticism? I am not opening the door to all sorts of skepticism, rather just one: healthy skepticism.

Probably, but davien's question is quite straightforward and does not draw d line between 'absolute skepticism' and 'healthy skepticism'. Since that is d case I am at liberty to presume that both mean the same thing to him.

davien:
like?

The man who holds the view that aliens exist, is as irrational as the man who says: don't be silly mate, there is no such thing as aliens; just because the first dude cannot satisfactorily answer his questions.

striktlymi:


The man who holds the view that aliens exist, is as irrational as the man who says: don't be silly mate, there is no such thing as aliens; just because the first dude cannot satisfactorily answer his questions.

so if the man were to offer a calculation based on the billions of galaxies,planets and moons and then deduces that life as we know it were mathematical plausible to exist elsewhere...won't his view be justified?

Faith and sceptism (of any kind) are north and south. They cannot condone each other. Atheists are sceptic. Faith is the foundation of religion. No meeting points.

Reyginus:
Of course it makes sense. A reasonable man is just a man that can consistently any rational train of thoughts he is not a man who has an absolute understanding of everything.

If he doesn't have an absolute understanding of everything then how can he know all impossibilities? So the idea of finding them to be apparent impossibilities is still called into questions because of this poor understanding. It is like a Philosopher in the subject of Rationalism arguing that Asteroids are impossibilities when he is not grounded in the in field of astronomy.

Skepticism has always been healthy for the faith, the major reason the faith undergo modifications. If there are no skeptics every thing practiced in a faith would be as it has always been.

I agree with you on the italicized statement. but the bolded analogy goes nowhere, because no one is omniscient; we have to live with our ignorance. Moreover the reasonable man is not making assertion rather expressing his doubts. In effect he relies on his knowledge not his ignorance