The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,704
Likes: 1,343
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 29, 2018 14:04:46 GMT
Well I say interesting, but your mileage may vary: wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1101&context=div1facpubs
The Christian philosopher Mary-Jane Rubenstein here reviews Sam Harris' book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and then moves on to a wider discussion on the nature of faith and whether Harris misunderstands what it is (or perhaps that his interpretation is only one of two valid interpretations).
It's a pretty lengthy article (21 pages not including the title page). If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the breakdown:
Pages 1-2: a bit of background about Harris and his book
Bottom of pg 2 - pg 6: General criticisms of the book and Harris' views - decent points but nothing very developed or nuanced and said better by others both theist and non-theist. Not the main thrust of her argument though so fairly forgivable.
Pgs 7 - 15: Teasing out Harris' view of faith and extremism and his political conclusions, arguing that he actually plays the extremists' game with his viewpoints.
Bottom of pg 15 - pg 19: Arguing that there are two ways of viewing faith - a Hegelian way (ie faith is something relied upon by those who lack knowledge) and a Kierkegaardian way (faith is something that kicks in beyond the boundary of what is knowable). Rubenstein argues Harris is Hegelian (and one would suspect she is Kierkegaardian but she doesn't explicitly say so).
Bottom of pg 19 - pg 21: Rubenstein leaves us with a positive story about extreme faith in the Kierkegaardian rather than Hegelian sense.
I think this article is quite thought provoking, though it leaves many questions: - Is the Hegel/Kierkegaard distinction accurate? Do either of them accurately describe what faith is? Is one more valid than the other? - Could there be negative examples of Kierkegaardian faith that Rubenstein has deliberately ignored? - Does Harris misunderstand faith or is Rubenstein naïve? Or are both wrong in their own way? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 15:16:28 GMT
I'm not sure I understand the distinction.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,704
Likes: 1,343
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 29, 2018 16:34:17 GMT
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. For a Hegelian, faith fills in the gaps for things we could know but don't know. For a Kierkegaardian, there are some things we can never know and faith is speculation about these things. To put it another way, for a Hegelian if science could be used to answer every scientific question, faith would disappear. For a Kierkegaardian, it would endure even then. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 29, 2018 16:43:45 GMT
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. For a Hegelian, faith fills in the gaps for things we could know but don't know. For a Kierkegaardian, there are some things we can never know and faith is speculation about these things. To put it another way, for a Hegelian if science could be used to answer every scientific question, faith would disappear. For a Kierkegaardian, it would endure even then. I don’t think I like either of those options |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 29, 2018 16:54:01 GMT
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. For a Hegelian, faith fills in the gaps for things we could know but don't know. For a Kierkegaardian, there are some things we can never know and faith is speculation about these things. To put it another way, for a Hegelian if science could be used to answer every scientific question, faith would disappear. For a Kierkegaardian, it would endure even then. What about things that we think we might know about in the future but aren't sure (and we're pretty sure we don't know them now)? Is there a reason to act differently depending on how likely something could be knowable? |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,704
Likes: 1,343
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 29, 2018 17:04:53 GMT
For a Hegelian, faith fills in the gaps for things we could know but don't know. For a Kierkegaardian, there are some things we can never know and faith is speculation about these things. To put it another way, for a Hegelian if science could be used to answer every scientific question, faith would disappear. For a Kierkegaardian, it would endure even then. I don’t think I like either of those options Fair enough. What way would you describe faith? |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,704
Likes: 1,343
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 29, 2018 17:10:14 GMT
What about things that we think we might know about in the future but aren't sure (and we're pretty sure we don't know them now)? Is there a reason to act differently depending on how likely something could be knowable? Maybe. I suppose you've got to question why you think it likely or unlikely. Like I think it quite plausible some of the current questions about quantum physics could be solved by better technology, new hypotheses and more experimentation. This seems likely based on the nature of these questions and the reliability of the methods used to answer previous questions like these. I think applying faith there might be more Hegelian than Kierkegaardian. But I don't think science could answer what it means to be, because it's just not a scientific question. I guess that's where Kierkegaardian faith comes in. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 29, 2018 17:19:11 GMT
Those two "views" on faith just sound like a rewording of what's basically the same thing. Saying "beyond the boundary of what is knowable" is essentially just saying "I don't know", so I fail to see how that's any different from the Hegelian perspective of "lack of knowledge", it just sounds like she's repackaging the same idea. Unless she's talking about an "intentional ignorance" with the Helegian view ("I don't want to know about the mysteries of the universe, I'll just say God did it"). If that's the case, i don't think that's how Harris really views faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 17:26:42 GMT
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. For a Hegelian, faith fills in the gaps for things we could know but don't know. For a Kierkegaardian, there are some things we can never know and faith is speculation about these things. That helps. With your explanation I would say unsure... and to a degree, yes. I haven't read either in decades. I do also think due to the amorphous nature of the concept of faith the interpretation of it is somewhat subjective. Valid how? Scientifically, neither are valid. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,704
Likes: 1,343
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 29, 2018 19:10:45 GMT
Those two "views" on faith just sound like a rewording of what's basically the same thing. Saying "beyond the boundary of what is knowable" is essentially just saying "I don't know", so I fail to see how that's any different from the Hegelian perspective of "lack of knowledge", it just sounds like she's repackaging the same idea. Unless she's talking about an "intentional ignorance" with the Helegian view ("I don't want to know about the mysteries of the universe, I'll just say God did it"). If that's the case, i don't think that's how Harris really views faith. Yeah I don't think she's quite saying that. An example of Hegelian faith might be someone who believes in creationism. These people would be in the centre of Harris's faith circle because they believe the Bible teachings over scientific evidence. People further from the centre might be those who believe in some manner of guided evolution - they accept scientific evidence but try to make it fit their faith in a creator God. Then further out again you might have those Christians who think God set everything in motion but didn't interfere in the process after that. In this example, the faith is in a creator God and the stronger the faith the less scientific evidence that might undermine that idea is allowed. Not sure if you read the article, but the example she gives of Kierkegaardian faith is believing war can be eliminated. There's nothing unscientific exactly about that hope - there's no physical reason why humans couldn't just stop fighting even though it seems highly unlikely they ever will. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,704
Likes: 1,343
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 29, 2018 19:26:56 GMT
I do also think due to the amorphous nature of the concept of faith the interpretation of it is somewhat subjective Yes I would probably agree. Reading my initial post again, it seems I'm making out Rubenstein is saying these are the only ways to view faith but that's not really accurate. It's more she says Harris has a very Hegelian view of faith but it can also be viewed in a more Kierkegaardian way but other views may be available. Sure, but do you think either is close to what you personally think of when you think of faith? Personally I think both kinds probably exist, and the same person might be faithful in both ways. But I see the Kierkegaardian faith as more positive than the Hegelian. But then you probably could imagine the former in more negative terms than Rubenstein - eg imagine someone who accepts homosexuality is natural but hopes one day no more homosexuals might be born. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Aug 29, 2018 19:29:07 GMT
earmarking the white man with the gun
i'm not so sure
that
achieving anything
by means
of lauding guns over masses of people
in your attempt
to
prove your point
is
working anymore.
but this is why
god
made you
his extra special whore.
so by all means
continue to shoot up
as you score
all those brownie points
leading to
that heavenly door
where
the blood of patriots
shines like the diamonds
your savior's
wearing
while dancing across
the gold plated floor.
sjw 08/29/18 inspired at this very moment in time by ooopsie another white male went a tad over the acceptable limit.
from the 'bewitched series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 29, 2018 19:33:15 GMT
I don’t think I like either of those options Fair enough. What way would you describe faith? I would describe how I learned it - The scriptural way. From Hebrews The whole chapter does a good job of explaining it. It's not just beliefs since beliefs can change or evolve and that may be where I disagree with the two options. I forget most treat them as exactly synonymous with each other. Faith is based on fewer things that become less and less as proof verifies it. It's really based on the same premises that science is based on except they tend to focus on the past whereas faith is about the future. |
|
