[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG17Atw-Qcg]
This is the second part in the discussion. I hope that this is a good follow up to the first one, and as always you can either post questions and comments here or on the YouTube page.
THE SEMINARIAN WAGER
Everyone has faith. Regardless of how
our faith developed, we should be
willing to critically analyze those
beliefs. While analyzing the validity
of our faith, we should also be willing
to analyze the validity of our doubts
and cultural preconditions. If we are
willing to do this, we wager that over
time, the roots of our faith will
strengthen toward truth, and will not
be uprooted during challenging times.
This site aims to provide worthwhile
discussion regarding a critical
evaluation of both religious belief
and modern doubts.
Posts
Hey Mike, I agree with what you had to say about the importance of approaching your faith with both an objective, and subjective point of view, but was troubled by your use of the word “fact”. You said something along the lines of: Faith is not about what we experience, but what we know. What do I know for a fact God is doing?
Fact and faith both seem like contradictory words. If we knew what God wanted, and knew what He was doing, we wouldn’t need faith at all. Faith, as I understand it, is a belief that is not based on proof. To say something is fact on the other hand usually requires some sort of proof.
Although I agree with the broader sense of what you were saying, that little tidbit sort of bothered me. I haven’t watched your first video yet though, so maybe I’m missing something.
LaShawn, great insight!
You should be troubled by someone stating that “Faith is not about what we experience, but what we know.” If you watch the video again, I mentioned this as a weakness of a purely objective view of reality and I challenge someone coming from this viewpoint to understand that they are called to interact and experience God on a personal level.
Now our experience should line up with what we know, for sure. The two are not mutually exclusive, and that is how I try to encourage the purely subjectivist person. Knowledge impacts, and many times guides, faith. I have never been to Disneyland, but I know the testimony others give about it. Since I know that these people have been trustworthy in other things, I have faith that Disneyland is as they describe it. Now lets say I arrive at where I think Disneyland is and it does not match their description. I have two possibilities, either I am not at Disneyland or they were wrong/lied. The objectivist would say that the descriptive facts outweigh the experience, therefore this is definitely not Disneyland. The subjectivist would say that the experience proves the people were wrong/lied. All I am saying is that when the two dont match up, we need to hold both up to the light and examine each possibility on an equal playing field.
Does that help clarify any? You are definitely hitting at the key issue here, so let me know if you have any other thoughts or questions.
Kyle,
Sorry that I havent had time to respond to you by video!
To answer your question, I do believe that all people are moral agents. The point that I make in my video is that a purely subjective person has no basis to judge another persons moral values. So yes, you can create your own moral code and follow it, even if it changes or solidifies, and still be considered a moral person. But if you hold this view, then you can never say that anyone else’s actions are bad. You cannot do this because in order for you to follow your own moral code, you have to be willing to admit that everyone else can do so also. So when someone decides that it is good to slaughter a million people, you have to say that they are a good person because they are following their moral code just as you are following yours. If you want to declare something an evil or an injustice, you are admitting that there is some moral code outside of yourself that someone else is violating. To admit that is to make an objective moral claim.
That is the point I am making, but if that is still not clear or doesnt hit at your question, please let me know. Thanks a bunch for all your feedback and questions, it really helps to develop the discussion!
Hrmmm…. Mike, is there a difference between “subjective person” and “subjectivist”? It strikes me that we are all subjective (being people invested in all we do), but someone who ascribes to a purely subjective epistemology (a subjectivist) would definitely struggle with the issues you are explaining.
I think you mean the latter, I’m just trying to clarify a little.
And I love the Disneyland example…. excellent.
Mike,
I misinterpreted what you were saying. Thanks for clearing that up for me! Great video by the way.
No problem LaShawn. I always appreciate it when people ask questions, because otherwise I might have presented something in a confusing way and not had the opportunity to clarify what I actually meant to say. And thanks for the feedback on the video, I hope you continue to watch and enjoy!
Good call Brad. I was using the subjective person and subjectivist terminology interchangably and that was probably not the best way to put it. I was simply trying to make the reading a little more appealing to the eye by avoiding the repetition, but sometimes the best word is the best word for a reason. So yes, I would say that we are all expected to engage our surroundings and faith subjectively, but we must not do so exclusively because their is a truth that exists outside of ourselves.