Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Not it wasn't a typo (though I know I'm the typo king). What I meant was that most things that have potential for being believed are false. Just like most numbers are irrational numbers.
What I meant was as we gaze out on all the potential things we can believe in, we naturally don't believe in most of them, not because we can prove (deduce) that they are false, but because we induce that they are probably false. I think we make most of our decisions based upon what is probable, rather than upon what is provable. This is why I was encouraging you (if that's the right word) to not place so much stock on what can be proved, because most things can't be proved, and what can be proved is still based on first principles (axioms) that cannot be proved, that we take on faith (as self-evident). So the foundation of all knowledge starts with faith.
Proof is overrated. Faith in what is likely is much more valuable. We are to live by faith, not by proof. In a way proof is boring, because it's just a formula. There's no more wonder once it's done. And no more need for faith.
I'm not saying proof is useless, just that it's too hard to come by in the real world. Atheists want proof of everything, and they think they have everything over a barrel because of lack of proof. But the question is not what one can prove, but what first principles one took on faith on which one's proofs were based. Because everyone takes some first principles on faith. They cannot be avoided. So, I think, everyone will have to answer to God for what they had faith in, because everyone has faith in something.
|
OK. That makes sense. And I guess I sis not ask in vain.
I could say much, but I have been out of town a lot, I don't have a lot of time. So I will say a little.
I agree that faith is the only important thing. And proof is not really important. Except where the issue is about what is important to have faith in/about.
I agree that the axioms, as you called them, underpin our faith. Those would be things like "there is God," and "the Bible is his fully inspired speaking." While we do a lot of induction to discover things that we think are there but not spelled-out, most of the things that are important do not require such induction.
Believe in Jesus. Follow him. Obey all he commanded.
Things like these. Things clearly stated.
Other things are nice to know, or may or may not be entirely correct. But they are not the things that drive our belief and faith. Even needing a doctrine of the Trinity is problematic. Almost no one has a problem with the things directly said about God (in general), the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. There are many things said. But when we get to defining it as "trinity" in terms of "essence" and "persons," or in some other manner, we are beyond "what is written."
That does not make it wrong. But it raises the question of its importance. Is it important that the "orthodox" view of these extra-biblical declarations be correct or that we hold to them? Even if they are ultimately spot-on (as we could learn in the age to come), the fact that it was not discussed for us in scripture seems to indicate that all we need to know and trust (have faith in) is what was spelled-out. Are we fooling ourselves to think otherwise? Is claiming to know something that is not clearly knowable much different than thinking that saying it better makes your experience better? And more acceptable to God? I've been told that is so by some of the LRC faithful.