Wondering About Dormant Faith

[Sp0ckrates]

I had said about all I had to say in my post.

Making it short,, hope is "pie in the sky" and not followed through with action.

Faith is a principle of action- you are willing to do something to achieve your hope.

That's what i think and that's about all I have to say on this. I avoid worrying about semantic differences.

I sincerely hope I have not offended you. If I have, I genuinely hope you will accept my apology. I also wonder why this apology is not an act of hope and hope you will change your mind to explain why it is not. Edited June 2, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

In the context of your initial question, the most important principle to understand about the expression "dormant faith," as found in Alma 32, is not all of one's faith becomes dormant when knowledge replaces faith in certain given areas. The entirety of the believer's faith remains awake, active, cohesive and vibrant. The dormancy, spoken of, only applies to certain specific areas where knowledge is replaced by faith. In other words, the entirety of a believer's faith does not got to sleep, as it were, just because some specific areas of faith have been answered by knowledge. Alma makes it clear that as the process of spiritual growth continues, the beleivers"s faith must remain intact, even as knowledge may replace faith in some specific instances; but the absolute need for continued dynamic faith can never be obviated.

Thanks, Bobbieaware for the thoughtful reply. Still trying to wrap my head around what you are saying. Maybe an example will help. Consider Joseph Smith: Would you say that after Jesus spoke to him face-to-face, he no longer believed Jesus rose from the dead, since he knew without a doubt Jesus rose from the dead? That is, was his belief replaced by perfect knowledge?

Edited June 2, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Bobbieaware]

Thanks, Bobbieaware for the thoughtful reply. Still trying to wrap my head around what you are saying. Maybe an example will help. Consider Joseph Smith: Would you say that after Jesus spoke to him face-to-face, he no longer believed Jesus rose from the dead, since he knew witho

ut a doubt Jesus rose from the dead? That is, was his belief replaced by perfect knowledge?

It depends on what it means to believe something. Based on my lifetime of experience and the combined experience of the entire human race, both past and present, I believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning. But with perfect confidence I could also just as easily say I know the sun is going to rise tomorrow. So which is it, do I believe the sun is going to rise or do I know it's going to rise? One could say that within the realm of endless possibilities it is indeed possible that the sun may not rise tomorrow (celestial cataclysms do happen, you know). Yet, in spite of this remote possibility I can say with perfect confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow.

So until, like God, one gains a perfect knowledge of ALL THINGS -- in all their many aspects, subtleties and nuances -- faith will always inform and inspire more knowledge and knowledge will always inform and inspire more faith. Both faith and knowledge are mutually dependent principles, one cannot exist without the other. This is why Alma says faith always increases as one gains knowledge; increased knowledge does not at all obviate the need for faith. Faith presupposes knowledge, but the knowledge that informs and inspires faith is not perfect knowledge. The confusion comes in when one supposes knowledge must always be perfect in order for it to be called knowledge, but Alma says this is not so.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. (Alma 32)

With the above in mind, when Alma speaks of faith becoming dormant, it's important to understand Alma's dormancy is not synonymous with death or an absence of dynamic potential. For at the very moment faith is rewarded with a partial knowledge in one thing, it is simultaneously made more active in the infinite number of other areas where knowledge remains to be gained. Faith is increased, not diminished, as more and more spiritual knowledge is gained. No matter how much knowledge one gains it is never perfect knowledge, so one's faith-life must always remain dynamic and active. And remember, knowledge is a form of spiritual power as well. So while faith may be rewarded with knowledge, knowledge itself is a transformative and powerful spiritual gift and force. Genuine faith will always be rewarded with knowledge, and that newly gained knowledge will always increase faith, not diminish it.

I believe your confusion may stem from the fact that you have made more of Alma's use of the word dormant than what he intended. His use of the Nephite equivalent to the word dormant was used to clarify, not to mystify. Knowledge and faith are related principles but not precisely the same thing. But as I said, neither can exist without the other. But faith will ALWAYS increase knowledge and knowledge will ALWYAYS increase the totality of one's faith. One's faith does not die or go inactive as he gains knowledge.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Sp0ckrates]

It depends on what it means to believe something.

Thanks for another reply. I think I see, but tell me if it is still only clear as mud to me: Are you saying all faith is belief, but not all belief is faith? That is, is some belief what Alma called perfect knowledge?

If this is what you are saying, then I believe--or think--you are correct. But I do not yet believe--or know without a doubt--you are correct.

Based on my lifetime of experience and the combined experience of the entire human race, both past and present, I believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning. But with perfect confidence I could also just as easily say I know the sun is going to rise tomorrow. So which is it, do I believe the sun is going to rise or do I know it's going to rise? One could say that within the realm of endless possibilities it is indeed possible that the sun may not rise tomorrow (celestial cataclysms do happen, you know). Yet, in spite of this remote possibility I can say with perfect confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I think I see, but I might still have mud in my eyes. Let's consider a simpler example: It's noon on a sunny summer day and I'm relaxing on a beach looking up at a clear blue sky. The sun is bright and its warmth is felt on my face. In this moment of my life, I have perfect knowledge the sun exists, but having said knowledge, I do not have an active faith in the sun's existence. I suppose my faith that the sun exists--if such faith exists--is dormant.

The moment is so relaxing, I take a nap on the beach. To my surprise, when I wake up it is dark. I see the stars in the sky, but no moon. Since I don't see the sun with my eyes, does that mean I no longer have perfect knowledge that the sun is? Since I no longer feel its warmth, does this mean I now have active--not dormant--faith in the sun's existence?

So until, like God, one gains a perfect knowledge of ALL THINGS -- in all their many aspects, subtleties and nuances -- faith will always inform and inspire more knowledge and knowledge will always inform and inspire more faith. Both faith and knowledge are mutually dependent principles, one cannot exist without the other. This is why Alma says faith always increases as one gains knowledge; increased knowledge does not at all obviate the need for faith. Faith presupposes knowledge, but the knowledge that informs and inspired faith is not perfect knowledge. The confusion comes in when one supposes knowledge must always be perfect in order for it to be called knowledge, but Alma says this is not so.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. (Alma 32)

With the above in mind, when Alma speaks of faith becoming dormant it's important to understand Alma's dormancy is not synonymous with death or an absence of dynamic potential. For at the very moment faith is rewarded with a partial knowledge in one thing, it is simultaneously made more active in the infinite number of other areas where knowledge remains to be gained. Faith is increased, not diminished, as more and more spiritual knowledge is gained. No matter how much knowledge one gains it is never perfect knowledge, so one's faith-life must always remain dynamic and active. And remember, knowledge is a form of spiritual power as well. So while faith may be rewarded with knowledge, knowledge itself is a transformative and powerful spiritual gift and force. Genuine faith will always be rewarded with knowledge, and that newly gained knowledge will always increase faith, not diminish it.

I believe your confusion may stem from the fact that you have made more of Alma's use of the word dormant than what he intended. His use of the Nephite equivalent to the word dormant was used to clarify, not to mystify. Knowledge and faith are related principles but not precisely the same thing. But as I said, neither can exist without the other. But faith will ALWAYS increase knowledge and knowledge will ALWYAYS increase the totality of one's faith. One's faith does not die or go inactive as he gains knowledge.

Perhaps your answer to this question will remove the dirt from my eyes: Did Joseph Smith and Paul after they saw Jesus have a dormant faith in his existence? Edited June 2, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[CV75]

But do you have an example in mind of God's ways seeming to be illogical, irrational, or contrary to sound reason and common sense?

The example I mentioned before: Jesus being crucified, killed and buried, and then resurrecting Himself the on third day after that--when we well know a dead person cannot bring himself back to life.

 

All the miracles likewise run contrary to logic, facts, reason and common sense (which are all subjectively filtered) unless faith is accepted as part of the equation for using logic, facts, reason and common sense. There is opposition in all things, and very often opposing principles are complementary and must necessarily operate as a "compound in one" in order to render optimal results, such as faith and knowledge.

[Bobbieaware]

Thanks for another reply. I think I see, but tell me if it is still only clear as mud to me: Are you saying all faith is belief, but not all belief is faith? That is, is some belief what Alma called perfect knowledge?

If this is what you are saying, then I believe--or think--you are correct. But I do not yet believe--or know without a doubt--you are correct. :)I think I see, but I might still have mud in my eyes. Let's consider a simpler example: It's noon on a sunny summer day and I'm relaxing on a beach looking up at a clear blue sky. The sun is bright and its warmth is felt on my face. In this moment of my life, I have perfect knowledge the sun exists, but having said knowledge, I do not have an active faith in the sun's existence. I suppose my faith that the sun exists--if such faith exists--is dormant.

The moment is so relaxing, I take a nap on the beach. To my surprise, when I wake up it is dark. I see the stars in the sky, but no moon. Since I don't see the sun with my eyes, does that mean I no longer have perfect knowledge that the sun is? Since I no longer feel its warmth, does this mean I now have active--not dormant--faith in the sun's existence? Perhaps your answer to this question will remove the dirt from my eyes: Did Joseph Smith and Paul after they saw Jesus have a dormant faith in his existence?

More later (have to go to work). The important thing to understand is that knowledge is merely realized faith. It's like saying the law of God is the ideal but when Christ actually lived the law -- heart, mind ans spirit -- not one jot nor tittle of the law passed away but was fulfilled. The law did not die when Christ triumphed over sin, the flesh and the devil. Rather, the law was more fully established. Likewise, knowledge is faith in perfected form -- It is not the absence of faith.

A great dormant volcano is still very much "alive" and extremely powerful' but it is exists in a state of tranquility and equilibrium. It's still a volcano. Just because something goes on to exist in a more perfected form doesn't mean it ceases to exist. When we are gloriously resurrected and made immortal we will still exist but then it will be in a perfected form. Faith and knowledge both exercise power in the same way, but one exists in a state of more assurity than the other. Spiritually speaking, faith and knowledge are so closely related that they cannot be considered to be in diametric opposition. We are save by knowledge as well as by faith. One is simply the "father" of the other.

[Sp0ckrates]

More later (have to go to work). The important thing to understand is that knowledge is merely realized faith. It's like saying the law of God is the ideal but when Christ actually lived the law -- heart, mind ans spirit -- not one jot nor tittle of the law passed away but was fulfilled. The law did not die when Christ triumphed over sin, the flesh and the devil. Rather, the law was more fully established. Likewise, knowledge is faith in perfected form -- It is not the absence of faith.

A great dormant volcano is still very much "alive" and extremely powerful' but it is exists in a state of tranquility and equilibrium. It's still a volcano. Just because something goes on to exist in a more perfected form doesn't mean it ceases to exist. When we are gloriously resurrected and made immortal we will still exist but then it will be in a perfected form. Faith and knowledge both exercise power in the same way, but one exists in a state of more assurity than the other. Spiritually speaking, faith and knowledge are so closely related that they cannot be considered to be in diametric opposition. We are save by knowledge as well as by faith. One is simply the "father" of the other.

OK. I'm looking forward to reading your answers to my questions. Especially this one: Looking up at the night sky, do I have an active faith that the sun exists? Seeing the sun the next day, does my faith once again become dormant?

Edited June 2, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

So to summarize, we are considering the meaning of Alma 32:34.

And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

(Alma 32:34)

So far we have considered three possibilities, each of which seems to be supported by the Bible, and I imagine by the Book of Mormon, as well:

1. The faith one possesses always has been dormant and never has been active (Romans 12:3)

2. The faith one possesses was at one time active, but through a lack of putting the faith in practice, it becomes dormant (James 2:20).

3. The faith one possesses was at one time active, but through observing incontrovertible proof that the object of the faith is real or actual or true, it becomes dormant, and it's replaced by certainty (Hebrews 11:1).

I believe all three might be probable and could apply to Alma 32. I'll explain why in the next posts.

2. The faith one possesses was at one time active, but through a lack of putting the faith in practice or a lack of trust, it becomes dormant (James 2:20).

How (2) might be true:

Here we have a tail of two faiths--a faith in a lie, of which the poor people repented, and a faith in the truth, which Alma gave them. Before Alma spoke to the poor people, they were deceived and had an active faith in the false teaching of the Zoramites (Alma 31). After he spoke to them, their faith in this false teaching became dormant, because they now had perfect knowledge of the word of God and repented (Alma 32).

One might say they had imperfect knowledge and active faith in a lie before Alma spoke to them, and they had perfect knowledge and a dormant faith in a lie after Alma spoke to them, as well as a new active faith in the truth.

That is, one might say the imperfect knowledge and false faith in the lie of the Zoramites was replaced by the perfect knowledge and true faith spoken to them by Alma. The false faith might be dormant because it is no longer actively believed, but is perhaps not yet fully rejected. This is what someone might expect from people converting from one faith to another, I think.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[mfbukowski]

I give a blessing to someone who is sick. That person gets better. In interpret the proximity of time between the blessing and the healing as being related. I interpret the blessing to cause the healing because I see something happen but I interpret and assign meaning. I might also go a step farther and interpret the healing as evidence of God's love for the person who was healed. Therefore my interpretation of the blessing/s perceived benefit leads to me to hope that God exists and loves his children and has a plan for us and will honor the priesthood.

That is actually quite a chain of interpretative conclusions, as you point out with every use of the word "interpreted" plus of course "assigning meaning" to the "interpretation"

 

I also like the phrase "interpretation of the blessing's perceived benefit"

 

One small step for a few words, one giant leap in logic.

 

But of course we do that- no debate here!  But I just wanted to point that out.

 

Remember that the "placebo effect"  IS a "real" effect!  It is a loophole for any "unexplained phenomena" we want to insert in that hole.

 

That makes it possible that "faith healing" is "real" or anything else we choose to believe.  

 

"There is no question that the mind has a powerful influence over our physical health and well-being."

 

Why is it that we can use the phrase above all the time within secular society and have people of the most scientific ilk agree, but were we to change one word- "mind" to "spirit" all of a sudden we loose half the population?

 

"There is no question that the SPIRIT has a powerful influence over our physical health and well-being."

 

Poof! We have just lost all the atheists.  Now we are crank religious zealots.

 

Yet they cannot tell us the difference between "mind" and "spirit"!!  

 

Very odd world we live in...!!!

[mfbukowski]

I sincerely hope I have not offended you. If I have, I genuinely hope you will accept my apology. I also wonder why this apology is not an act of hope and hope you will change your mind to explain why it is not.

You are a wonderfully sensitive soul.  We get a little rough-and tumble around here sometimes, and I certainly did not mean to offend YOU either.

 

I am very interested in a philosopher named Wittgenstein, and it was his entire premise that we often get embroiled in unanswerable questions about words as if there were some "real" differences in the world BECAUSE we have different words for similar things.

 

In logic, we speak of "category errors"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

 

The term "category-mistake" was introduced by Gilbert Ryle in his book The Concept of Mind (1949) to remove what he argued to be a confusion over the nature of mind born from Cartesian metaphysics. Ryle alleged that it was a mistake to treat the mind as an object made of an immaterial substance because predications of substance are not meaningful for a collection of dispositions and capacities.

The phrase is introduced in the first chapter.^[2] The first example is of a visitor to Oxford. The visitor, upon viewing the colleges and library, reportedly inquired “But where is the University?"^[3] The visitor's mistake is presuming that a University is part of the category "units of physical infrastructure" or some such thing, rather than the category "institutions", say, which are far more abstract and complex conglomerations of buildings, people, procedures, and so on. Ryle's second example is of a child witnessing the march-past of a division of soldiers. After having had battalions, batteries, squadrons, etc. pointed out, the child asks when is the division going to appear. 'The march-past was not a parade of battalions, batteries, squadrons and a division; it was a parade of the battalions, batteries and squadrons of a division.' (Ryle's italics) His third example is of a foreigner being shown a cricket match. After being pointed out batsmen, bowlers and fielders, the foreigner asks: 'who is left to contribute the famous element of team-spirit?'

Those are odd examples I suppose but they were readily available.  Another example we use all the time is "not seeing the forest for the trees" because we miss the notion that a bunch of trees IS the forest!

 

So maybe "faith" IS "hope" and then we are just talking about words.  But what if "faith" IS NOT "hope"??  How could we possibly know or "prove" that the usage of "faith" is different than "hope"?

 

If we could make that distinction, would it be a useful one?

 

The problem is one should not think the world is different because we have two words which mean virtually the same thing.  Discussing the difference between nuances of meaning of two words does not necessarily mean that we are discussing nuances of "real things" or concepts.

 

I just think that the words "faith" and "hope" mean about the same thing, and taking a poll about what each person thinks the difference in the WORDS are does not illuminate or solve any useful problems.

 

Words are words, and are only metaphorical constructions we make up to describe our experiences.  I think the experience of having "faith" or experiencing "hope" are virtually identical no matter what words we choose to use to describe the experience.

 

That's all I meant, and I certainly did not want to think you offended me in any way, and also I certainly did not want to offend you.   I was just expressing a very strong opinion I have about how language works. 

 

That is my problem, not yours!  

Edited June 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Sp0ckrates]

You are a wonderfully sensitive soul. We get a little rough-and tumble around here sometimes, and I certainly did not mean to offend YOU either.

I am very interested in a philosopher named Wittgenstein, and it was his entire premise that we often get embroiled in unanswerable questions about words as if there were some "real" differences in the world BECAUSE we have different words for similar things.

In logic, we speak of "category errors" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Those are odd examples I suppose but they were readily available. Another example we use all the time is "not seeing the forest for the trees" because we miss the notion that a bunch of trees IS the forest!

So maybe "faith" IS "hope" and then we are just talking about words. But what if "faith" IS NOT "hope"?? How could we possibly know or "prove" that the usage of "faith" is different than "hope"?

If we could make that distinction, would it be a useful one?

The problem is one should not think the world is different because we have two words which mean virtually the same thing. Discussing the difference between nuances of meaning of two words does not necessarily mean that we are discussing nuances of "real things" or concepts.

I just think that the words "faith" and "hope" mean about the same thing, and taking a poll about what each person thinks the difference in the WORDS are does not illuminate or solve any useful problems.

Words are words, and are only metaphorical constructions we make up to describe our experiences. I think the experience of having "faith" or experiencing "hope" are virtually identical no matter what words we choose to use to describe the experience.

That's all I meant, and I certainly did not want to think you offended me in any way, and also I certainly did not want to offend you. I was just expressing a very strong opinion I have about how language works.

That is my problem, not yours!

I'm not offended at all, but thanks for showing concern. The difficulty with a discussion forum like this--which is the same with an email, text or tweet--is not being able to read the emotions of the one replying. So I find it helps to play it safe and apologize, even if the one receiving the apology ends up saying it was unnecessary.

Glad to see you are into philosophy. Did you know the word philosopher in Ancient Greek simply meant a lover of wisdom? I suppose all Christians--Mormon or otherwise--are in that sense philosophers, insofar as they love God's wisdom.

I agree completely with what you say about the ambiguity of words. In fact, I've had discussions at other forums where some of the Christans there were of the opinion that hope was an emotion and faith was not. Faith, they told me, was a logical process of weighing imperacle evidence and putting one's trust in that which has the highest probability of being true.

I think the best we can do when we have different ideas about the correct meaning of a word in a given context is to put our heads together and consider each other's opinions, or see if we can together come up with a better definition than either of us first considered. This I think is what Socrates had in mind when he advised his good friend:

"No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the meaning of the terms of their inquiry at its beginning. As they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves! Now, you and I must not be guilty of this fundamental error that we condemn in others."

(Phaedrus, 237)​

I mean, we cannot have a productive conversation about faith and hope if we have no idea what the other means when he uses those words! So we ought to at least make the attempt to define them, or not even bother using the undefined words at all, I think.

But what do you think? Would you like to put our heads together and see if we can come to agree on what faith and hope likely are?

Edited June 2, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[mfbukowski]

I'm not offended at all, but thanks for showing concern. The difficulty with a discussion forum like this--which is the same with an email, text or tweet--is not being able to read the emotions of the one replying. So I find it helps to play it safe and apologize, even if the one receiving the apology ends up saying it was unnecessary.

Glad to see you are into philosophy. Did you know the word philosopher in Ancient Greek simply meant a lover of wisdom? I suppose all Christians--Mormon or otherwise--are in that sense philosophers, insofar as they love God's wisdom.

I agree completely with what you say about the ambiguity of words. In fact, I've had discussions at other forums where some of the Christans there were of the opinion that hope was an emotion and faith was not. Faith, they told me, was a logical process of weighing imperacle evidence and putting one's trust in that which has the highest probability of being true.

I think the best we can do when we have different ideas about the correct meaning of a word in a given context is to put our heads together and consider each other's opinions, or see if we can together come up with a better definition than either of us first considered. This I think is what Socrates had in mind when he advised his good friend:

"No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the meaning of the terms of their inquiry at its beginning. As they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves! Now, you and I must not be guilty of this fundamental error that we condemn in others."

(Phaedrus, 237)​

I mean, we cannot have a productive conversation about faith and hope if we have no idea what the other means when he uses those words! So we ought to at least make the attempt to define them, or not even bother using the undefined words at all, I think.

But what do you think? Would you like to put our heads together and see if we can come to agree on what faith and hope likely are?

No thanks.

 

I disagree with Socrates that "things have an intrinsic nature" to be discovered.

 

It's all just words.  That is what I have been saying repeatedly.  I really do wish you well- continue your philosophical studies!  Read some Wittgenstein!

[Sp0ckrates]

No thanks.

I disagree with Socrates that "things have an intrinsic nature" to be discovered.

It's all just words. That is what I have been saying repeatedly. I really do wish you well- continue your philosophical studies! Read some Wittgenstein!

No problem. Thanks for the recommendation, but it's of little use to me. Since it's all just words, do you think I'd really be able to correctly understand the words of Wittgenstein? It seems he would say absolutely not, and reading what he wrote would be a waste of time! Socrates, I think would agree with him:

"I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus that writing is unfortunately like painting. For the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of written works. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not. And if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them, and they cannot protect or defend themselves."

(Phaedrus 275)

You see? Should I misunderstand Wittgenstein and you not be there to point out my error, I'd believe a lie. Should we both think we understand him when in fact we don't, we'd have little hope of knowing the truth about what he wrote. For he is not here to help us out, and although the words on the page are his actual thoughts at the time he wrote them, they are not him. If we misunderstand or have questions, they would have little else to say to us and be of little use to us!

Edited June 3, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[CV75]

Checking in from yesterday morning... do you have a reply to my reply to you, #55?

[Sp0ckrates]

That's why, my friend I don't leave it up to the written words of Alma to reveal the truth to me. I ask you, and other helpful and intelligent people who know more about the author than I myself do. It is through such dialogue that I'm less likely to become or remain deceived. That's the beauty of our modern age. We can ask and answer questions of those hundreds, even thousands of miles away. So we are less likely to be deceived.

[Sp0ckrates]

The example I mentioned before: Jesus being crucified, killed and buried, and then resurrecting Himself the on third day after that--when we well know a dead person cannot bring himself back to life.

All the miracles likewise run contrary to logic, facts, reason and common sense (which are all subjectively filtered) unless faith is accepted as part of the equation for using logic, facts, reason and common sense. There is opposition in all things, and very often opposing principles are complementary and must necessarily operate as a "compound in one" in order to render optimal results, such as faith and knowledge.

Hi, CV. You mean this one? (The website does not display the post numbers on my smartphone.) Edited June 3, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[mfbukowski]

No problem. Thanks for the recommendation, but it's of little use to me. Since it's all just words, do you think I'd really be able to correctly understand the words of Wittgenstein? It seems he would say absolutely not, and reading what he wrote would be a waste of time! Socrates, I think would agree with him:

"I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus that writing is unfortunately like painting. For the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of written works. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not. And if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them, and they cannot protect or defend themselves."

(Phaedrus 275)

You see? Should I misunderstand Wittgenstein and you not be there to point out my error, I'd believe a lie. Should we both think we understand him when in fact we don't, we'd have little hope of knowing the truth about what he wrote. For he is not here to help us out, and although the words on the page are his actual thoughts at the time he wrote them, they are not him. If we misunderstand or have questions, they would have little else to say to us and be of little use to us!

That's an odd position, saying you could not understand W. When you understand Plato.

[mfbukowski]

In my world it is important to understand many points of view, through dialogue and the written word.

So we should never read philosophy because the authors are not available to tutor our misunderstandings? Truly an odd position. The history of ideas disappears leaving only conversations with those around us.

Not for me, thanks

[Sp0ckrates]

CV:

I think, perhaps we have different ideas of what logical means to each of us. I'm using the word logical in this sense of being in accordance with the principles of logic, as defined by dictionary.com:

logic

[loj-ik]

noun

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference

It's essentially a way of discerning if an inference is warranted or not, and includes determining if the premises of an argument support its conclusion.

So I would say the example you gave is one that is logical, rather than illogical, if, for example, one phrases it something like this:

1. Jesus said he would raise himself from the dead

2. Only God can raise someone from the dead

3. Jesus rose from the dead

Therefore

A. Jesus is the only God who can raise the dead

This is a logical argument for two reasons: (a) It is structured in such a way as the premises (1), (2) and (3) support the conclusion (A). And (b) It is structured in such a way so that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely also be true.

Notice I said if. Even when the premises are false and the conclusion is false, it's still a logical argument. A logical argument does not necessarily prove its conclusion is true. It might still contain factual errors.

So (2) might be false, if God is not the only one who can raise the dead. And if (2) is false, then the conclusion (A) might also be false, or is at least not proven to be a correct inference.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

That's an odd position, saying you could not understand W. When you understand Plato.

LOL! Indeed! What I'm actually saying is this: There are things I might not understand and know I don't understand, which both authors wrote. This is actually the case with some things Socrates said, which still go over my head.

There are also things both authors write that I migh think I understand, but I actually don't. So I am deceived. For example, I've found this to be the case with some passages of the Bible.

In both cases of misunderstanding, the opinion of another can be helpful in discerning the correct meaning the authors intended, I think. But do you disagree?

[Sp0ckrates]

In my world it is important to understand many points of view, through dialogue and the written word.

So we should never read philosophy because the authors are not available to tutor our misunderstandings? Truly an odd position. The history of ideas disappears leaving only conversations with those around us.

Not for me, thanks

Yes, sorry for being clear as mud. Please explain why you think it is unimportant to try to understand my view of faith and hope.

[CV75]

So I would say the example you gave is one that is logical, rather than illogical, if, for example, one phrases it something like this:

Rephrasing my example to that extent changes its point. More reflective rephrasing of my example is this:

 

1. All mortals know we cannot raise ourselves from the dead.

2. Jesus was a mortal.

3. Jesus rose from the dead.

 

You asked for an example of “God's ways seeming to be illogical…”

[Sp0ckrates]

Rephrasing my example to that extent changes its point. More reflective rephrasing of my example is this:

1. All mortals know we cannot raise ourselves from the dead.

2. Jesus was a mortal.

3. Jesus rose from the dead.

You asked for an example of “God's ways seeming to be illogical…”

Before we may say it is illogical, we must have a conclusion. That is, if (1), (2) and (3) are true, then what inference would you make based on these three?

For example, we might say this:

1. All mortals know we cannot raise ourselves from the dead.

2. Jesus was a mortal.

3. Jesus rose from the dead.

Therefore,

A. Jesus must have been more than a mere mortal.

Does that now sound logical to you?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

Or we might say this:

1. All mortals know we cannot raise ourselves from the dead.

2. Jesus was a mortal.

3. Jesus rose from the dead.

Therefore,

B. All mortals are mistaken about Jesus.

Both arguments are logical, though if one of the premises is not true, the conclusions might be untrue as well. For example, I would question whether (1) is true, and would feel confident if it was worded this way:

(1a) Many mortals believe they cannot raise themselves from the dead.

Given (1a) the logical conclusion would be:

(B1) Many mortals are mistaken about Jesus.

See what I mean?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[CV75]

Before we may say it is illogical, we must have a conclusion. That is, if (1), (2) and (3) are true, then what inference would you make based on these three?

For example, we might say this:

1. All mortals know we cannot raise ourselves from the dead.

2. Jesus was a mortal.

3. Jesus rose from the dead.

Therefore,

A. Jesus must have been more than a mere mortal.

Does that now sound logical to you?

I couldn't come up with any sound inferences--that is why I concluded it is an example of something that seems illogical! As long as there is no standard threshold for inferring anything, there will be different perceptions of what seems logical. For example, there is no room for Jesus being something other than mortal, or knowing other than what all mortals know.

 

Granted, with faith we can qualify the facts by adding things the eye cannot see; the logic changes as a result; I think that is another way of getting to the truth!

 

See what I mean?

Yes--I had already run through that, your first one, and others before deciding not to post them because none of them seemed consistent with the arguments as laid out.

Edited June 3, 2015 by CV75