Paul Tillich's Dynamics of Faith
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
- Hotfoot
- Avatar of Confusion
- Posts: 5835
- Joined: 2002-10-12 04:38pm
- Location: Peace River: Badlands, Terra Nova Winter 1936
- Contact:
Paul Tillich's Dynamics of Faith
Link
Now, as best described to me by the person who first showed me this, this proves that everyone has faith, and that, in fact, science requires faith, and is thus a religion. Now, my opinions on this subject are very much different, given the logic behind it, but I'd like to see what you all think. Am I wrong in thinking that this descripition of faith is circular nonsense? Does this logic hold up to any sort of scrutiny? Has anyone publicly challenged this notion directly?
Now, as best described to me by the person who first showed me this, this proves that everyone has faith, and that, in fact, science requires faith, and is thus a religion. Now, my opinions on this subject are very much different, given the logic behind it, but I'd like to see what you all think. Am I wrong in thinking that this descripition of faith is circular nonsense? Does this logic hold up to any sort of scrutiny? Has anyone publicly challenged this notion directly?
Do not meddle in the affairs of insomniacs, for they are cranky and can do things to you while you sleep.
The Realm of Confusion
"Every time you talk about Teal'c, I keep imagining Thor's ass. Thank you very much for that, you fucking fucker." -Marcao
SG-14: Because in some cases, "Recon" means "Blow up a fucking planet or die trying."
SilCore Wiki! Come take a look!
The Realm of Confusion
"Every time you talk about Teal'c, I keep imagining Thor's ass. Thank you very much for that, you fucking fucker." -Marcao
SG-14: Because in some cases, "Recon" means "Blow up a fucking planet or die trying."
SilCore Wiki! Come take a look!
- AdmiralKanos
- Lex Animata
- Posts: 2648
- Joined: 2002-07-02 11:36pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Paul Tillich's Dynamics of Faith
Critical paragraphs:
In other words, this blithering idiot says that if you care about something and you participate wholeheartedly in it, then you have faith. Classic bait-and-switch (similar to the laughably stupid "proof of God's existence" that someone posted a link to a while ago). Redefine God (or "faith" in this case) to be ridiculously all-inclusive. Then, use a bunch of feeble and/or downright fallacious logic to conclude that God exists, or in this case, that everyone has faith. Then, conclude that the faith of religion (quietly shifting back to the proper definition of the word) is common to all philosophies, including science.
Pure fallacious bullshit, dressed up in the usual incredibly verbose piles of bullshit. Honestly, you need a bulldozer just to plow your way through the fucking mountains of bullshit in that article.
As you can see, he simply redefines faith to suit his purposes. Faith, according to this person, is not belief in that for which there is no supporting logic or evidence (never mind those pesky dictionary definitions of the word). No, it is "participation in the subject of one's ultimate concern with one's whole being".{1} the intellectualistic distortion of the meaning of faith: The most ordinary misinterpretation of faith is to consider it an act of knowledge that has a low degree of evidence. Something more or less probable or improbable is affirmed in spite of the insufficiency of its theoretical substantiation. This situation is very usual in daily life. If this is meant, one is speaking of belief rather than of faith. One believes that one's information is correct.... [DF:ii.1]
[F]aith is more than trust in even the most sacred authority. It is participation in the subject of one's ultimate concern with one's whole being. Therefore, the term "faith" should not be used in connection with theoretical knowledge, whether it is a knowledge on the basis of immediate, prescientific or scientific evidence, or whether it is on the basis of trust in authorities who themselves are dependent on direct or indirect evidence. [DF:ii.1]
In other words, this blithering idiot says that if you care about something and you participate wholeheartedly in it, then you have faith. Classic bait-and-switch (similar to the laughably stupid "proof of God's existence" that someone posted a link to a while ago). Redefine God (or "faith" in this case) to be ridiculously all-inclusive. Then, use a bunch of feeble and/or downright fallacious logic to conclude that God exists, or in this case, that everyone has faith. Then, conclude that the faith of religion (quietly shifting back to the proper definition of the word) is common to all philosophies, including science.
Pure fallacious bullshit, dressed up in the usual incredibly verbose piles of bullshit. Honestly, you need a bulldozer just to plow your way through the fucking mountains of bullshit in that article.
For a time, I considered sparing your wretched little planet Cybertron.
But now, you shall witnesss ... its dismemberment!
"This is what happens when you use trivia napkins for research material"- Sea Skimmer on "Pearl Harbour".
"Do you work out? Your hands are so strong! Especially the right one!"- spoken to Bud Bundy
But now, you shall witnesss ... its dismemberment!
"This is what happens when you use trivia napkins for research material"- Sea Skimmer on "Pearl Harbour".
"Do you work out? Your hands are so strong! Especially the right one!"- spoken to Bud Bundy
- The Dark
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 7378
- Joined: 2002-10-31 10:28pm
- Location: Promoting ornithological awareness
Re: Paul Tillich's Dynamics of Faith
Tillich's not trying to prove that everyone believes in a God, merely that everyone has faith in something. DW, what's your definition of faith? The one generally used by people I know is trust. Given that I don't know anyone who doesn't trust in something, I would argue that everyone does have faith in something. Tillich did define religion as Ultimate Concern, and said that people could be religious and not believe in God. That would be cryptoreligion, something which does not appear to be religious but is a person's Ultimate Concern. His definition is too vague to be useful, but it's not quite the way you're representing it.AdmiralKanos wrote: In other words, this blithering idiot says that if you care about something and you participate wholeheartedly in it, then you have faith. Classic bait-and-switch (similar to the laughably stupid "proof of God's existence" that someone posted a link to a while ago). Redefine God (or "faith" in this case) to be ridiculously all-inclusive. Then, use a bunch of feeble and/or downright fallacious logic to conclude that God exists, or in this case, that everyone has faith. Then, conclude that the faith of religion (quietly shifting back to the proper definition of the word) is common to all philosophies, including science.
Pure fallacious bullshit, dressed up in the usual incredibly verbose piles of bullshit. Honestly, you need a bulldozer just to plow your way through the fucking mountains of bullshit in that article.
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
- Nova Andromeda
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: 2002-07-03 03:38am
- Location: Boston, Ma., U.S.A.
--Looks like AdmiralKanos got to it before I did, but I would also point out that he butchers the common definition of religion. This is nothing more than rhetoric{2} "the religious dimension in man's nature" or "being religious" (by which he means an aspect of the human condition, common to all people everywhere and always, regardless of their historical traditions).
Nova Andromeda
- AdmiralKanos
- Lex Animata
- Posts: 2648
- Joined: 2002-07-02 11:36pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Paul Tillich's Dynamics of Faith
Belief in something without evidence. See the dictionary.The Dark wrote:Tillich's not trying to prove that everyone believes in a God, merely that everyone has faith in something. DW, what's your definition of faith?
I have faith in my wife not to cheat on me. That has nothing to do with his weird definition. You can voluntarily choose to trust a person. But when you blindly trust an institution or an authority, that's just crazy.The one generally used by people I know is trust. Given that I don't know anyone who doesn't trust in something, I would argue that everyone does have faith in something.
Yes it is. He is trying to undermine the distinction between religion and science. In the end, he is trying to make it seem as if science is just as much a faith-based system of thought as religion, knowing perfectly well that people will interpret faith based on the traditional definition, not the bizarre one that he makes up (as I said, it's exactly like the person who tried to "prove" the existence of God ... by redefining God, knowing that if he "succeeded", he could run around crowing victory ... and people wouldn't ask him how he defined God in order to do it). It is a shameful rhetorical ploy.Tillich did define religion as Ultimate Concern, and said that people could be religious and not believe in God. That would be cryptoreligion, something which does not appear to be religious but is a person's Ultimate Concern. His definition is too vague to be useful, but it's not quite the way you're representing it.
For a time, I considered sparing your wretched little planet Cybertron.
But now, you shall witnesss ... its dismemberment!
"This is what happens when you use trivia napkins for research material"- Sea Skimmer on "Pearl Harbour".
"Do you work out? Your hands are so strong! Especially the right one!"- spoken to Bud Bundy
But now, you shall witnesss ... its dismemberment!
"This is what happens when you use trivia napkins for research material"- Sea Skimmer on "Pearl Harbour".
"Do you work out? Your hands are so strong! Especially the right one!"- spoken to Bud Bundy
- Nova Andromeda
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: 2002-07-03 03:38am
- Location: Boston, Ma., U.S.A.
--It is my understanding that to have faith in something is to trust it without any evidence it is worthy of such trust. In this sense I have faith in nothing since anything I trust I have evidence supporting such trust (in theory). Anything I go along with without much support is just risk taking (impossible to avoid in RL). I do make mistakes as well (mistakenly trust stuff without support).The Dark wrote:Tillich's not trying to prove that everyone believes in a God, merely that everyone has faith in something. DW, what's your definition of faith? The one generally used by people I know is trust. Given that I don't know anyone who doesn't trust in something , I would argue that everyone does have faith in something.
Nova Andromeda
- The Dark
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 7378
- Joined: 2002-10-31 10:28pm
- Location: Promoting ornithological awareness
Re: Paul Tillich's Dynamics of Faith
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing is definition #1. Your definition is #2. I guess this whole thing comes down to the differences in the definition of faithAdmiralKanos wrote:Belief in something without evidence. See the dictionary.The Dark wrote:Tillich's not trying to prove that everyone believes in a God, merely that everyone has faith in something. DW, what's your definition of faith?
Agreed, blind trust is crazy. I always question the actions undertaken within the church, and support only those that make sense to me.I have faith in my wife not to cheat on me. That has nothing to do with his weird definition. You can voluntarily choose to trust a person. But when you blindly trust an institution or an authority, that's just crazy.The one generally used by people I know is trust. Given that I don't know anyone who doesn't trust in something, I would argue that everyone does have faith in something.
[/quote]Yes it is. He is trying to undermine the distinction between religion and science. In the end, he is trying to make it seem as if science is just as much a faith-based system of thought as religion, knowing perfectly well that people will interpret faith based on the traditional definition, not the bizarre one that he makes up (as I said, it's exactly like the person who tried to "prove" the existence of God ... by redefining God, knowing that if he "succeeded", he could run around crowing victory ... and people wouldn't ask him how he defined God in order to do it). It is a shameful rhetorical ploy.Tillich did define religion as Ultimate Concern, and said that people could be religious and not believe in God. That would be cryptoreligion, something which does not appear to be religious but is a person's Ultimate Concern. His definition is too vague to be useful, but it's not quite the way you're representing it.
I can't speak for certain, since I can't ask Tillich (he's been dead for 33 years), but I don't believe he intended to break down the distinction between religion and science. He wasn't interested in converting people to religion, but rather in understanding why some people chose not to believe in the irrational. He never wrote intending for his theological works to be read by the "average person," but rather trained theologians and philosophers who would analyze his definitions and recognize the limitations of them. However, I truly don't know enough about Tillich as a person to say he definitely wasn't trying to break down barriers, just that there is no evidence to support it in his actions or how he released his writings. I do believe the main difference lies in the definition of faith.
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
The big problem - after the fundies realized that science was a vastly superior system, they were left without any legitimate defense against it. So they go around saying it's just another religion, in hopes that people won't actually study it and realize that it's much more than that. Especially since it doesn't rely on faith. Sadly, this defense is working because of liberal efforts that have changed the definition of open-minded to "Granting equal validity to all ideas, regardless of logical validity." In fact, I'd almost say that the left wing has dome more to help the fundies than...
HOLY SHIT!!! That idiot Shep was right. The left wing is trying to destroy us!
Edit: argument reworded to sound better.
HOLY SHIT!!! That idiot Shep was right. The left wing is trying to destroy us!
Edit: argument reworded to sound better.
data_link has resigned from the board after proving himself to be a relentless strawman-using asshole in this thread and being too much of a pussy to deal with the inevitable flames. Buh-bye.
- Arthur_Tuxedo
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5637
- Joined: 2002-07-23 03:28am
- Location: San Francisco, California
I'm not sure I'd even call your trust in your wife faith under the dictionary definition, belief in something without evidence. You have plenty of evidence that she wouldn't cheat on you. You would have to, or you wouldn't have married her.Admiralkanos wrote:I have faith in my wife not to cheat on me. That has nothing to do with his weird definition. You can voluntarily choose to trust a person. But when you blindly trust an institution or an authority, that's just crazy.
"I'm so fast that last night I turned off the light switch in my hotel room and was in bed before the room was dark." - Muhammad Ali
"Dating is not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a heart-pounding, stomach-wrenching, gut-churning exercise in pitting your fear of rejection and public humiliation against your desire to find a mate. Enjoy." - Darth Wong
"Dating is not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a heart-pounding, stomach-wrenching, gut-churning exercise in pitting your fear of rejection and public humiliation against your desire to find a mate. Enjoy." - Darth Wong