Subject: Re: The Royal Path
From: Sundeep Dougal (holden@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in)
Date: Thu Feb 03 2000 - 08:43:12 EST
Jim said:
> My only disagreement is with any definiton
>of religious faith that means "accepting things
>as given."
I would quite agree with such a disagreement. On the other hand,
if the reference is to my post, I'd solemnly request a close reading
of it again so that it becomes clear that I was not indeed defining
it so.
If I were having an argument with Jim, following Voltaire,
I would have asked how exactly _he_ defines _religious faith_,
but since I am not, I think I'll desist. FWIW, when I am not
being flippant, I am happy to take the dictionary meaning, to be
quite adequate.
>I used that definition of faith against the scientific
>materialist view espoused earlier
> because it is the definition they were using.
I am not quite sure what exactly is meant by the 'scientific
materialist view' or who indeed was using it, but if the reference
was to 'science' or the philosophy of science, then of course I'd
disagree with whoever used it, for or against, simply on the basis
of dictionary meanings, without even invoking, say, Karl Popper.
> And of course that is what faith will be to the
> thoughtless adherents of any religion or
> philosophy.
On the surface this might appear to be a description, perhaps,
of a superstition. IMESHO, all the above provides us
perhaps is an insight into the earlier much brandished empirical
claim of strength in numbers for one religion or the other.
To reduce all this to a farce that it is, allow me please to
take the philosophy of Descartes as summed up in "Cogito,
Ergo sum" and instead of farcically speculating on whether or
not such a philosophy can have thoughtless adherents, I'd let
Mr. Ogden Nash speak up:
<insert quote>
LINES FRAUGHT WITH NAUGHT BUT THOUGHT
If you thirst to know who said, "I think,therefore I am,"
your thirst I will quench;
It was Rene Descartes, only what he actually said was,
"Je pense, donc je suis," because he was French.
He also said in Latin, "Cogito, Ergo sum,"
Just to show that he was a man of culture and not a tennis tramp
or a crackle barrel philosophy bum.
Descartes was one of those who think, therefore they are,
Because those who do not think, but are anyhow, outnumber them by far.
If of chaos we are on the brink
It is because so many people think that they think.
In truth, of anything other than thinking they are fonder.
Because thought requires the time and effort to reflect, cogitate,
contemplate, meditate, ruminate and ponder
Their minds are exposed to events and ideas but they have
never pondered or reflected on them
Any more than motion picture screens meditate on the images that
are projected on them.
Hence our universal confusion.
The result of the unreasoned, or jumped at, conclusion.
People who think that they think, they secretly think that
thinking is grim.
And they excuse themselves with signs reading THIMK, or, as
Descartes would have said, PEMSEZ, and THINK or THWIM.
Instead of thoughts, they act on hunches and inklings,
Which are not thoughts at all, only thinklings.
Can it be because we leave to the Russians such dull pursuits as
thinking that the red star continues to twinkle so?
I thinkle so.
</end quote>
Now, instead of launching into Berdian or self-reflective sentences, let me
quickly revert back to the rest of Jim's post very solemnly without
indulging in any trivialisation:
> But faith in Christianity has long been seen as an organ
> of knowledge -- kind of like our eyes are organs of sight.
Let me get the parsing right - I think what is meant is:
" But, 'faith', in Christianity..."
My understanding was that since the days of the Reformation, Protestantism
has been characterised by its emphasis on faith, whereas the Catholic Church
has, since the Middle Ages, believed more in reason as a pillar of faith.
So, can Christianity as a whole be said to look at faith as an organ of
knowledge? Perhaps we can indulge in some equivocation and semantics
on this.
Besides, hadn't Hume broken the final link between faith and knowledge
forever for the Western world (Buddha had done it much before for
the East, but that is a separate story) before Kant came along and smuggled
in 'faith' again where reason and experience failed (of course it might just
be a coincidence that Kant was a Protestant).
And then of course there are the 'practical postulates', once 'pure' reason
has been shown to be inadequate...
> I think theology is an accurate word for the content of at
> least some of the Vedas, esp. much of the Upanishads, but
> it carries many unfortunate connotations (a systematic body
> of beliefs such as the Catholic Catechism) that just don't apply to
> them.
Without getting into specifics, I have no quarrel with what anyone
thinks, even if it is suitably vague. In the context of my post being
replied to, I take this as yet another instance of sharing leading to
corroboration, for which I offer my thanks.
faithfully yours,
sonny
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 19:30:23 EST