Theological Discussion

Hey all! I was just reading a bit of Nietzsche, and I wanted to see if there were any current discussions on that branch of knowledge. I was about to make a seperate thread (As Philisophical discussion is varied enough from theologoical dissertions that it would warrant seperate discussion thread), but then I read Sassafrass's comment here, which seemed like a good springboard for questions I personally had. If this goes well I may well in fact still make a seperate thread, but for the mean-time:

WARNING: REQUIRES ATTENTION-SPAN. tl;dr people do not even attempt this clusterfuck of a post.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I believe in nothing, really. Because "to believe in" implies you put faith into something. So I guess I can honestly say I don't have faith in much.

Interesting how I was just reading Nietzsche, who as some may or may not know was a proponent of pseudo-athiestic ideas, or at least challenging the existing (At his time) belief systems that major religions were throwing at the masses (I.E., "God is Dead", "The Superman", etc.,), and as a result, had little belief in a god, at least from his writings (I'm not that familular with his personal beliefs, so if I'm wrong on that, disregard this first observation).

I'll play devil's advocate for this, which my response relates to your below statement as well: I have a theory, (rather then a personal opinion), as I am not sure if I find it something I can cling to as a self-evident truth of this...but first a prolouge to set-up the basis for this theory: 'Faith' by traditional definition is what as described to be the opinion or shared near-fact (As Fact is also held in definition to be secular, I'll get to that in a moment) of what, in the secular society, cannot be proved to be fact, and rather is of 'suspension of DISbelief' to certain 'truths' and 'guidelines' of how otherwise defined areas of life by Fact, are replaced with explanations that are not shared by the secular and scientific minds or communities. In shorter words: Faith defines for itself and for those who share a common strong-willed opinion that which science cannot or willnot try to claim as a Truth.

Now for the actual theory
*ahem*

I have a theory that Faith can also include the secular areas, which are not dominated by religion, but operate in different forms and methods, and because the mass agreed definition of Faith exludes the possabiliyt of this, Faith and Fact are mutually exlusive to eachother. Meaning that the Fact of Faith is also the Faith of Fact, the Science of Reason is a belief system to those who hold the Religion of Belief. I apoligize for the lack of definite seperate words for these seperate areas, but that's what happens when you try and be inquisitive and mindful at 2am, haha.

Continuing to another quote of Sass:

Quote:

I can, however, observe. And I can learn from my surroundings and find some undeniable truth in them.

This is one of the basis and realms of Science and Fact, or Truth. "If I can see something, touch something, smell something and hear something, it must be existing and is real, and its state of existence to the world is a fact and is scientific" The previous is what in a longer form is what those holding themselves (NOT directed as you Sass) in Truth and Science have used to define (partially) what is real, what is truth, and is a tangent foundation of science.

Religion also has a basis for Truth, but in a different way and method. Most Religions (But not all) have a set goal. In Christinanity, Islam and Judaism (the Big Three) the goal is to ascend to Heaven upon mortal death after eliminating ones' Sins and join God in his kingdom for eternity. The 'goal' is also in Buddism: That you want to 'rise above' (Ascend) mortal imperfections (Sins) and rise above mortal death to a state of perfection and peace called Nirvana (Heaven).

But as I said earlier, my goal was earthly philosophy, not theology, so this shall be the extent of that specific religious reach.

Since Science and Religion (Or better to say, Fact and Belief, since Religion and Science are tenants of Fact and Belief) operate on different methods and views of defining what is real and what is truth, there is going to be a natrual adversion to operating in both methods.

However, Fact and Belief as I said above are tenants, meaning that they are ways for Religion and Science to operate... they are foundations for both 'ideologies' (For sincere lack of a better word)... and so there must be something more to what Fact and Belief are, rather then means for Religon and Science to operate.

This the core Theory: Fact = Belief, and Belief = Fact.
OR: Fact and Theory are intertwined and connected.

This leads me into the next comment by Sass:

Quote:

For instance:
Man does absolutely nothing altruistic 99.9% of the time. I am still not decided on whether or not its all of the time. He is a very selfish creature, and where he can stand to gain, he will try his hardest for it. Like a true Earthling. ^_^

The key term is selfish. Meaning that Man operates and drives to achieve things for his own wants and needs. Religion attempts to remove a portion of this way of operation by proclaiming that helping a fellow man is 'good' and is something to be rewarded for doing, (but only after going to heaven ), and only when you do not personally engage in helping others for your own gain, for the reward... because that defeats the purpose. Man places a Fact in what he does because he knows that what he does is for himself... re-read that last part. "Because he knows". Why does he know? Because from birth he has been told that knowing something undisputed and undeniable is fact. When in fact, this fact is a belief Why? Read on.

Where does Belief come into play? When religon comes along and says "Hey, nothing is perfect, except God". God is both a Belief and Fact at the same-time. It is stated that god is perfect. Perfection which is the status (The 'goal')most desired by the followers of the major Religions. Perfection is then defined as Fact to be Abolute, meaning without other ways of operation. It simply IS. To have something as simply being, and without 'evidence' and 'Scientific Reason' to give reason to why something is defined and believed in is a fatal flaw of both Science and Religion, and a cornerstone as to why Fact and Belief are both still seperated.

The rest of Sass's comments are for another discussion, but I think I have made the point I wanted. with the exception of an example for real-world comparison:

In the comic stip "Calvin and Hobbes", there is a strip where Calvin proclaims that Math is a belief, that you simply hold true that two numbers, when added together 'magically just become a new number'. I laughed at this thought when I read it before, as Calvin then used that reasoning to exempt himself from doing the homework... but then I started to think seriously about what the six year old troublemaker said, and it rang true for the above theory: Some things which are so held-fast as a fact, may be infact (no pun intended) a belief or something you must have faith in.

Of course then one would argue "Well I can count to four on my fingers by adding two and two, so its OBVIOUSLY fact."

... So maybe we're completley wrong about both aspects, and maybe we need to redefine Fact and Belief...

... or maybe, just maybe (Dramatic pause here)

... Faith and Belief are two sides of the same coin.

Thank you, I obviously have flaws in logic in the above, but I was on a role, and now I need sleep, feel free to point out my mistakes, or even just reply back with your thoughts on my theory, if you'd like. Mainly, I just wanted to get a stab at something intellectual before I slept. I have little drive to make that thread now indicently, haha.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Dark Nation, can I ask u?

What is the implication of Faith and Belief being 2 sides of the same coin? If it is proven to be from the same coin, how would that affect the discussion?

Ehh... well I suppose I was getting a bit sick of the whole pretentious attitude I had built myself up for in my discussion, but sometimes the brain does strange things. I think I was half-way being silly/dramatic to be dramatic

but... I guess if there was any implication, it would mean that Faith and Fact stem from a common source of origin, which is kind of obvious already. Two sides of the same coin is a tired expression, and I was tired, so it stacked itself against my logic, and so a better term was not available, haha.

Da Joker: So, are you suggesting that if someone were to find something as fact, and believe it in it so much, that while the science of why something occured wasn't explained, it was and had become real for them, in thier own personal reality?

There's nowhere I can't reach.